It's like normal. We're a popular bunch. We are recording Jennifer, so you can please go ahead. OK, thank you. So I am calling to order the meeting of government organization, governance, organization, and legislation. And we will make sure we can all here and be heard. Lynn. Present. Mandy Jo. Present. And I'm present. So I will again, pursuant to chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, extended by chapter 22 and 107 of the Acts of 2022, and extended by chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023, this meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. No person in attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. So our first item on the agenda is public comment. I will. There is no one in attendance, and we can circle back at the end of the meeting if anyone has joined us. So I don't need to close public comment, right? OK. So we have three items on the agenda. That's all. And I did have a question. Do we have other business after this for next week? I know we called this special meeting. And is that because we had this? It didn't seem like we had too much. We had too many items that we weren't going to finish without this extra meeting. So typically it's the very last meeting that you vote on the carryover, the final draft of the carryover memo, and any outstanding minutes. And I do hope to have some minutes for you next week. I didn't put them on the agenda today because I didn't have them ready. OK, so that would be at the last meeting. OK, thank you. Yeah. But we could vote on the carryover today, and then that would be? If you wanted to, if you feel like it's ready, normally we wait just in case. OK, that was that for last meeting, but it's up to the committee. In fact, I have a question that let's just put it under. Well, I'll raise the question, but we'll not debate it. OK, OK, so the first item is the carryover memo. OK, Mandy, Joe. Yeah, I'm looking at the one in the packet. And I thought we had changed stuff because much of the outstanding items for just JOL discussion are actually items that automatically get carried over pursuant to the rule because of the referrals. So I just worry that the packet doesn't have the most recent because I thought we moved them last meeting. And so I don't think the packets got the right document in it. I don't think I was editing at the last meeting. So I don't think I have a more recent document than that. But that was what had it put in the SharePoint. You have a more a more recent one, Mandy. I wasn't editing, but we moved all of the bylaws that have been referred to other committees up to automatic carryover. And then, you know, the review process was actually referred, so that would go under automatic carryover. And all of that's just outstanding items for discussion right now. The solar bylaw need that automatic. Actually, no, that one doesn't because that one was just for further development. So that might not go automatically to JOL. The motion did not include a JOL referral. And since it comes back to the Council for Hearings, it probably doesn't go to JOL after CRC finishes. But I think we added the finance committee. Vacancies. Vacancies or upcoming vacancy. And the charter review commission now needs added automatically carried over. Committee. I guess that's why I feel like this is not the most recent. This is not the most recent because we talked about all of that last week. I don't know if Pat. I don't know whether it was you or Pat amending it last week. I wasn't editing last night the last week, and I'm not sure that Pat took what the committee discussed and revised the draft. It appears not. So do you want to do you want to do that at this meeting? Do you want to go and make changes? Or do you want to send to changes? And Pat can work up a new draft for Wednesday. What would you prefer? Yeah, I think if we can fill in what we recall and then send it to Pat and she'll have our input. And I know I can't recall. Did we vote? Did we vote? Not on the carrier. No, we didn't vote because she would have that. So I think we should go through it. Let's go through it now. Do you want me to pull it up? No, I've got it. I can. OK. And just what happened with the residential rental permit, that doesn't it's going back to CRC, but we don't have to include it on GOL at this point. Didn't it may have to come back to GOL. But it wouldn't be on our carryover. Athena, the council packet for last Monday, the fourth, has the updated draft. That's what I was just going to ask is whether it might be there. Maybe I put it in the council packet and not in. I'm sorry about that. No, I just looked it up like I didn't look at it for Monday because I was like, well, I'm on GOL. But I was like, I wonder which one was in the council packet and the updated one is in the council packet. No. So I think we've got a copy. We can come up with. That's great. So we can work from there. Right. I have the word doc. Thank you. That's great. Yeah, that one that had all those comments. Or would you like to start folks? Yeah. So Mandy, did you have a place you wanted to start? I mean, not particularly. My biggest concern is that all the carryover items get included. So I would start with carried over, not necessarily all the prelim. I think the prelim is fine. And we want to make sure we don't miss anything. So I just want to raise one item as we go through this. And that is last night, TSO voted to adopt or to recommend to the council the adoption of the legislative process stuff that Shalini has been working on. I wondered if that needs to come to GLL at some point before anything else. That's a council decision. OK. So when it comes to the council, we could bring that up that it hasn't come to GLL. Yeah. And so Lynn, the GLL review would be clear, consistent, and actionable. And I don't know that there's anything to be consistent with because it's new. And it's a guide rather than a bylaw or a rule or a policy. It could review for clarity. And actionability, it's a guide. So everything in it is sort of an optional reckless. Yeah, I have problems adopting something. I think taking something into advisement or something like that, adopting to me says we're going to follow this.  Yeah, Mandy. But you're muted, Mandy. I don't know what it is. Shalini, I haven't looked at it, but Shalini talked to me as it would be a guide. But when you look at the GLL charge, GLL is supposed to advise the council on matters of council rules, governance, and organization. And if this is a guide about how the council will operate a legislative process, I think it falls directly into GLL's charge that would not be clarity, consistency, and actionability, like actual charge of governance of the council. And so it doesn't come to GLL automatically because it's not part of the rules of an automatic referral. But under the charge, in theory, the council would refer it to GLL for advising under that part of GLL's charge. That's why I guess I'm in that same category of thinking, Mandy Jo. Yeah, and if I could say, I sat in on the meeting last night because I thought Wastetaller might be on. And it's a guide, but I can imagine somebody, a council proposing a bylaw, and then members looking to see whether it matches up with that guide and deciding if it didn't. So I do think it requires a conversation if it's used as you have to check off the items on the guide when we haven't actually adopted it. So it's not going to cut the question for you at agenda setting as to what the motion is. Right. First of all, it's not going to come up till the 18th. It's not on this week's agenda. And so at that point, Athena and I should think about it. But this brief conversation was helpful to me. I think it needs to get referred to GLL before it is adopted. Yeah, I think that's fine. I think it was very clear from the conversation at TSO that it's meant not to be a required checklist because there's going to be bylaws and other measures that are proposed to the council that very obviously don't. It makes sense to include consideration of some of the things on the checklist. So it was a guidance document in terms of to be helpful and not a required checklist. And that was some of the trouble that TSO encountered because Shalini had originally proposed it as a checklist that things had to happen rather than just a guidance document. And it was through working with her to try to figure out a lot of the early conversations were, well, do you want to propose this as a bunch of rule changes about what has to go in a proposal memo that need to be considered before things come back to the council for action and things like that. And that's not what they wanted. They wanted this to be helpful guide and not a set of requirements. But Linda, we could talk about that during agenda setting. And I think it might be helpful for you to have a conversation with Shalini about that so that she's not surprised that it's not being adopted at the. Yeah, no, I plan to do that. Thank you.  But OK, but that will be, I can imagine a lot of conversation as I can. And given that it's our last meeting, I guess I want to give it a place to rest. And I mean, it could rest with the council, but I don't see us trying to, in our last meeting, trying to deal with something at that level that's so new to all the other members of the council. It seems like something that could be, I'm digressing, but if there's a retreat for the new council. That's what I think. So Linda, back to this, which my question, the sort of comment Lynn made brings up a big question with this one, and I'm struggling with CRC at the same time. If there is a referral made at the last meeting and these transition memos, are they adopted by the council or are they just adopted by the committee and presented to the council? But either way, when is that transition memo finalized? Because there are no committee meetings after the last council meeting. And if things are being referred to committees after the last council meeting, how do we get them on the carryover memo? That thing will be in a referral to the GOL at the last council meeting. How do we pre-put that in when we don't know whether it'll even make it? And I'm struggling with it with CRC because I think there are some referrals coming. And I don't know how to address them in a transition memo to make sure that they're not forgotten or not transitioned because they're not in a memo because it was too late to put them in a memo. So I know that what we do in carryover is we say we're not going to carry this over. But is there a point where we could say the council adopts or the council accepts GOL's carryover memo with the following amendment? No. Carryover memos aren't adopted or not adopted at all by the council. The only the only council action we put on that last meeting agenda is if there is a request from a counselor to not carry something over, then the council would vote on not carrying something over that's automatically carried over. My suggestion would be that at the last committee meeting, both for GOL and CRC Mandy, that the committee authorize the chair to amend the carryover memo if there was something that was referred or outstanding at the last council meeting. I think that sounds like a solution. So next question. And it kind of relates to this, but not. We were supposed to have draft carryover memos in the packets and CRC and GOL did have it. But how does the council, how does a counselor put a request to not carry something over onto the December 18th agenda if we have no idea what is automatically being carried over to request not to carry over if that were to be the case? That that was that was I think part of the reason why it was helpful to have those draft carryover memos in the last packet so that counselors had an opportunity to review them and then ask the president to put something on the agenda on the 18th that they didn't want to carry it over. So I don't think finance has a draft carryover memo yet. Their last meeting is probably be the 12th. Yeah. TSO's last meeting is the 14th, but they do have a draft. So my suggestion would be to Lynn send the final or draft carryover memos to counselors before the 13th so that counselors can request something be put on the agenda on the 18th because that needs to be posted by the 14th. OK. OK. Not the best thing, but I mean, it's and I think we need to have a little discussion about this on Monday night. So because it's it's always such an awkward thing like, well, what you really do is vote not to carry something over. And yet people have spent a lot of time working on these carryover memos and they're very important. So let's spend a little time on that. Yeah, so far we haven't had. I don't think we've had a request to not carry something over the last at the end of the last term. Can't remember. There might have been one. There might have been one, but it might have came from a full committee. Yeah. Oh, yeah, I keep thinking there was one. But then we did take items off. During the council session, like GRC went through and took off some very old what we call them dangling. Yeah. OK, so we'll returning to my returning to this. Sorry, our carryover memo were at, yeah, 8.9 measures that will automatically. So are there any proposed revisions to the reparations committee charge? And why do you have the note attached draft charge? Just so that I remember to attach the ABRC charge to this memo. The carryover memo should include anything that any documents that were included in the referral. I'm just trying to figure out what. So it's the AHRA charge you want to know that the draft ABRC charge. Oh, right. OK. Yeah, the reparations committee, the one that was referred to the new one. And should we go through this now? I don't think or we've gone through this, correct? Yeah. I think I wasn't at this part of the meeting because remember, I had to leave for 45 minutes. But please, I just trust all of you to have done what you need to. So I would just say if we go through the sections, if you call, just raise your hand if you have any. I'm going to try and make this into a complete sentence. Thanks. Tell me if you want me to type something different. That works for me. Let me see if I can find this question. That was two meetings ago. Everyone, any changes up until the bottom of this page? So once Athena adds the motion, the second bullet point probably needs the letter A or the word A before council discussed having a council retreat. Yeah. And can I just suggest that we call them short term, long term or ongoing goals rather than, I mean, I don't mind if it's two year, and maybe that's what we consider short term. But again, this was something that was discussed while I wasn't here. That's a fine change for me. Yeah, that's because that's real. OK. Thank you. So before we get to the bylaws one, we need to add into this automatic one the charter review committee referral that was made last this Monday. I think that's the only Monday motion that related to GOL. Should we make any notes where we've talked about the fact that we start posting as early as possible? I wonder if later on in this memo, we actually had those notes made. Jennifer, do you remember? I feel like we put it in, but it wasn't a formal referral yet. So it wasn't in this section. So we might have that. Yeah, I know we discussed it. Yeah, I feel like it might be in the later section of this memo that we can just move up. Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. I could try to find it. So you think it's down here that there was already a. Yeah, there. Yeah. That's what I was looking for. Thank you. Stop me if I'm taking too many liberties here. You're fixing everything. Yeah. We accomplished half the stuff in that already. That's how we think of it, right? It's great. I mean, I was really delighted that we got that committee charge approved early on. Yeah. And I'm just going to take it out for me. Yeah. And then you wanted to include finance. So I think we need to, I think finance needs to be, it's not on this formal one because there's not ever a referral because it's just part of that. But I think finance in some section. I think it's a section farther down items that should be carried over or something. Just needs to be noted that finance will probably have a vacancy in January. It will have a vacancy. Presumably Bob has to resign. I don't know whether he formally has to resign his position when he takes up counselor. I think he might under the charter because I think the charter has to be non-counselors or something or the charter. He has to resign. So once he's sworn in and GOL will need to make a decision as to whether to hold that vacant and appoint until July when appointment process normally happens or do essentially an early appointment process with various recommendations. And GOL makes that recommendation? Yeah. GOL will have to make the decision as to when to do that process immediately if one, immediately for one and the July one or wait, like they'll have options. But is that a, we recommend to the council and then they have to vote? Yeah. Yeah. But the people that we are, that GOL is recommending to appoint, yes. The same thing we'll be doing with the charter. We'll hold interviews? GOL does, yeah. But if do, so we have a choice about leaving it vacant until July 1st or conducting interviews right away. But do we need to take that recommendation to the council? Yeah, it does. Well, no, no. GOL can decide that. GOL makes its recommendations when it does, yeah. I mean, it would be best to communicate it to the council. And if members of the finance committee passed in the future might have an opinion. There's usually, isn't there discussion with the chair of the committee as part of that? Yeah, but the problem is you won't have a chair until sometime in mid-January to late January. Well, but GOL won't meet before then anyway, so. Won't have a GOL before then. That's right. And Mandy Jo, I know CRC is working on, again, rental registration. Do you see it coming back to GOL? No. The referral was just a CRC. Can I will say, as chair, my hope is you'll get an email from me specifically about agenda setting for the 18th, but I'd like rental reg on the 18th in case CRC finishes it on the 14th, but they would finish it after the agenda is posted. So I'd like to get it on the agenda in case. Fine, thank you. But it doesn't need to, the referral was not back there and GOL's already reviewed it. So the council can, the changes will be marked. So the council can make a decision as to whether it needs further KP law review. As chair, if CRC finishes, it might just get sent off to KP law with a strong, well, sent off to Paul with a strong recommendation for KP law to review those changes before Monday. But I can't say anything other than please put it on the agenda in case. Yeah, and he's, we just yesterday, completed the next round of discussions with the library and all of that is going for legal review too. Yeah. KP law is doing well by us. Okay. They actually like Amherst because we provide challenges. Do exciting issues. Yeah. And I think those are the only three that require the clarity, consistency, action, and ability right now because solar that just got referred doesn't, because it'll come back. Yeah, doesn't yet. Right. And any future ones, if battery energy storage systems gets it would be the same sort of thing as solar at this point. Yeah. Or clear cutting of land or something else. Yeah. This, this is another one that we're expecting for the 18th. So that would be another one that, if the committee decided to authorize the chair to amend the carryover memo. That might end up in the above section. It might be. Yeah, it might end up with an actual referral motion. Maybe I was wondering about that. Okay. Maybe highlight that and put in just a comment of, so add a comment there that says this might need moved after the 18th. That'll help Pat. No. Pending. So the town manager will come back with his recommendation on the 18th. That's what we're expecting. Okay. So the review of town council rules of procedure. I feel like that might need some explanation added. I'm not sure we can add the explanation now, but the charge requires them to be reviewed once a year. If we finish that review today, we can wait till next December to start. But we might want to add some sort of discussion of what's, depending on what happens today, I think we need to add some discussion as to where GOL stands or where the whole process stands. What's remaining for discussion if there is anything and stuff like that. But I don't think we can add that now because we don't know. We only have one more section to review on the rules of, so we hopefully we'll get through that today. I think we're at section 10. Like I said, we can't add it now, but I think it could. If we finish the review and the council votes, then that discussion simply is, you need to do this once a year under the charge, right? But if you don't, there should be discussion added as to where we were and whatever we didn't finish. We'll get another look at this at the next meeting so we can fix it. So bylaws for future consideration, is that from prior years? I don't, or did this come, did these come from various entities this time? It came from the bylaw review committee. And then you remember GOL had a whole long list of bylaws that were for future consideration. And some of those, like the animal bylaw needed input from the animal control officer. There was one about associate members. Right, so we got through a lot of them. This is what we didn't get through. These were the ones that, go ahead, Maddie. Oh, these are the ones that the GOL asked the council, the GOL when reviewing said, this is more manager. GOL's not equipped, the manager should do this. And then the council referred these to the manager to do. So it's here because GOL doesn't have anything to do. It's more of a, don't lose track that the manager's supposed to be working on these. Okay. Yeah, I see, thank you. Should we change this to input from various departments and staff and then something about them, ultimately, eventually coming back to the council and will be referred to GOL before council acts? How would you like to? It seems to me they would come back directly to GOL because back committee is, you don't think so? They would be proposals to amend directly from the staff. And so they come to the council for referral to whatever committee and that might not be GOL depending on what the amendment is. It might be TSO, it might be SCRC. I was thinking about the fact that we were, GOL was the group that requested the town manager to do that. I think I came from the council. It technically came from the council. Oh, you're right. It did. It was a council member. Right, right. On recommendation of GOL. Yeah, right. Council member. Okay. So they'd go back to the council. Refer to the town manager by... And possible revision. I just say impossible revision. That works for me. Yeah. Where did we put the finance committee members? Right here. Under items that should be carried over. I wonder if we should sample procedures and guidelines. What is, do you know what the document is? So this is not documents. This is not things that are carried over. These are the relevant documents. And there are policies, not all are policies, right? Some of them are policies, right? The council policy on making recommendations. This is supposed to be documents that are helpful to GOL. Those, that sample procedures and guidelines is in SharePoint. And basically, George and I sort of collaborated at the last transition as chairs of GOL and CRC to create these documents so that any other chair or person handling the whole council procedure has draft, you know. You're not starting to scratch. Draft things, timelines that say, here's without reading the policy itself, here's what you have to do in what order and who you have to email and all. And that's what that is, a document that's got all of that. And it's in SharePoint. It's in SharePoint. Under GOL? Under GOL? That one would be under GOL. There was a GOL one and there's CRC one and each in the individual SharePoint folders. So is there any amendments or additions, deletions anyone would like to make? I'm sorry, did we do the finance committee one? Is it up there? Yes. Yeah, yeah, okay. We'll show Lynn again. There you go. Thank you, got it. You asked the question and then looked away. Thank you. Trying to manage too many things. Yeah. Good. Okay. This is nice. This is nicely done. Yeah. So should, is there a motion to recommend? Is that not yet? Oh, we should wait. Okay, okay. So keep this until the next meeting. I think this one, maybe a clean copy of this one with just the comments goes in next meeting's agenda packet. So we'll wait to approve this at the last meeting. And then if anything gets out, we can authorize the chair to add after the last council meeting. Okay. Good. So the next item was the review of the rules of procedure. And when I was looking at the document in our file, we had made amendments. It looked like up until the last item, number 10. So we seem to be almost through that. I wanna look away while I scroll down too. I wonder if we wanna start from the bottom because I'm not sure we've ever discussed, as Jennifer said, articles nine and 10 and anything. Right, yeah. Let's start right. And then work our way through until then. And make sure we're still good with everything that's in here, but start at the bottom and scroll up basically, scroll to the beginning from the last thing that's been proposed. Cause we always get stuck and then we never get to the end. I mean, I was happy to see we gotten through so much of it. Is this theory in this one where we have to look at the issue related to Southbridge? Well, we've been continuing doing that. Can I change this to a comma while we're... Yeah. So there was nothing in 10. Yeah, it's not looking like this. It looked like we hadn't gotten to 10. This is the last I saw any edits. There were no notes or... And is that because we hadn't gotten here yet or we didn't have any changes? It's because no one proposed changes to that rule. Oh, okay. Okay, thank you for fresh. I thought we hadn't gotten to it yet, but okay. Was there anything you wanted to look at in 10? Can I just... I don't know whether it would be in 10 and I don't think that this goes in the rules, but it is something people have discussed and that is whether or not other committees besides finance want to, should or could have non-voting members. So that's not a rule thing I don't think because you'd have to change the charges. So I mean, first of all, I think it has to be discussed by the council before we spend any time working on it. But I don't think it's a rule discussion because it's a charged discussion. Right. Don't the committees, aren't the committees supposed to do a review of their own charges every year? Every year or every other year? That would have to be in a rule somewhere. I thought it would. Oh. The council shall review its committee organization. I think the council's supposed to review it yearly because that would include membership, right? The committee organization includes membership and all. 10-2-D says the council reviews yearly. Okay. But does that happen by each individual committee reviewing and then making a recommendation? It hasn't happened in two years.  And the last time we did it, it led to some changes. So are we got on 10? Yes. Yeah, yes. So do you want to work our way up or down and? I think we should work our way up. Yeah. So these were already recommended by the committee. We voted, okay. Those are recommended and assisted. That one. So I think I originally requested this change because specifying only GOL doesn't really reflect our current practice of having these items in multiple committees. So this expands it to, if GOL is only doing a clarity consistency and action ability review, but say CRC said three to two, it does not recommend adoption, but GOL says it's clear, consistent and actionable. It would still get automatically carried over and maybe it shouldn't. Maybe someone should have to vote to carry it over, right? So this was trying to say, essentially if any committee has said had a negative recommendation, it's not automatically carried over. It needs to go to a vote of the council to carry over. That makes sense. Are we sitting on any like this? I don't think so. We aren't, but this is our rules review, right? So this would be clearing up the rules for if it happens. I wouldn't go to B. So what might happen is a bylaw would go to say TSO. TSO might vote a negative recommendation, but GOL still has to review for clarity consistency and action ability. So if they would vote potentially that it is clear, consistent and actionable. And so under A as currently written, it would be automatically carried over and maybe it should not be automatically carried over. Maybe that should have a positive vote for the council to carry it over. And this would only happen if the council hadn't acted. The council hadn't acted. Yeah, I mean, it seems to me if a referral is made to a committee, the committee votes not to recommend it, it seems somewhere it seems it should say that GOL was reviews for clarity, consistency and action ability, items that are recommended for passage. That would be in a different article, but yeah, we should maybe fix that issue too. And does that get fixed? Where does that get fixed? In a different world as we page up. Yep. So is everyone okay with this? Going to the committee and then it's going to GOL. If it dies in the committee, it wouldn't go to GOL. But it doesn't die in the committee. It doesn't die, it gets referred to the council, right? The council would have to affirmatively say we want it to go to GOL then. Yeah. Right, despite the negative recommendation. In B, I don't think we have anything like this, but it does seem like we could have a situation where, you know, counselors were going off. Is there any possibility that we say, or unless another counts a seated member, a continuing seated member of the council or something, is willing to sign on a sponsor or something like that? Yeah. So we had talked about this at TSO with the waste taller because if there was a point at which we didn't know if there were going to be any sponsors who are going to be serving on the next council, I think everyone's, all the sponsors were in contested races, so. Or weren't serving. I think you look at 8.8. Look at 8.8. Okay. Looking at the two together, that's the withdrawal of measures when a sponsor says we're going to withdraw, but the end of that says, if at the meeting sponsors of a measure do not unanimously agree, it's not withdrawn, or at that time upon request, any counselor shall have their, you know, actually it doesn't really cover it, but I think somewhere in there you could, someone else can always pick it back up, I assume. Well, maybe we would say an 8.8. At that time upon request, any counselor shall have their individual sponsorship removed or added? We're added. Yeah. And I think, but the way I read this is if, if there, if none of the sponsors are serving on the next session, then the council could just vote affirmatively to carry something over, rather than it being an automatic carryover. That's what I read too. And at that point, you'd probably get a sponsor, sponsoring it that is being added. Yeah. Okay, let's move on. Everybody okay with these changes? Yes. I think everybody's okay. Do we want to vote those? I'm keeping a list of which sections you're changing so that for to help you do it in one motion. Yeah. Instead of 30 motions. So I think this one here, 8.6, was one of my requested revisions again. It goes with 8.3 requested revisions. Non-emergency measures. Wait, I'm sorry. This was done a year ago. So I can't even say on 8.6, what my thinking was on this. I think it might have been related to potential changes to charges I was thinking about. Although, yeah, so I'm not sure it needs deleted anymore at this point, unless people want to. No, I didn't understand why it was. I think I was thinking about changes to charges that would do something radical and this would have been connected to it, is my guess. All right. OK. I'll see the comment up there in 8.2. Maybe we should start at the beginning of this. Yeah, we probably should. Yeah, thank you. No, go even. No, I think 8.2 is where to start. OK. Is it council committees or 2A council committee? Yeah, it's either council. I think A. You could always put parentheses around the answer. I'm not sure it's a rule, right? The council always makes a referral vote, right? And so why do we need a rule that says the matter will not be referred? Well, of course it wouldn't be if you vote not to refer it. If the vote to refer dies and doesn't get a majority, it's not referred. I don't understand what this addition is needed for. I mean, and is that the only reason you can't refer it? Like, I just don't understand. I think this came from Andy. I think it did. But A already says may refer any measure to council committees. Yeah, that would just be like and also may not. But of course it doesn't have to. And Andy, I know you haven't seen Chalene's the thing from TSO, but I think it kind of touches on this a little bit like. Yeah, I think the thing that Andy was, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but just I'm thinking that he he's more interested in comments like does not merit the staff and council resources or does not merit those resources when submitted. So he is this does actually move right into where me. Chalene's been moving. Yeah, I think. But I don't think it belongs in our rules. Each counselor makes their own decision. Yeah, this this says the matter will not be referred, but it is a council decision if it's referred or not. Right. I mean, this is sort of says if the council says it doesn't, you don't refer it or if one counselor. I don't know, I would believe the whole thing. Yeah, because we always vote if it's not to be referred. It's not. And some counselors are going to say it does merit the staff and council resources. But they didn't vote for a vote. So it's hard to it's hard to be objective about making that determination for you. Can you put in something like consideration should be given to. But that's not a rule. I know, I know. It's just I'm trying to make sure it really is Chalene's thing like here are the things that the council might might think about when making a referral.  And and because that because you just said should, that's why Chalene proposed it as a guide rather than requirement. Okay. E. Can we see all of the yeah. We haven't really been doing that. The council has affirmatively voted to refer to GOL. I think when it gets referred to committee, it's also like it's referred to TSL. It's also referred to GOL. That's in the council motion. It's not we've been putting it in the motion too. We've been putting in the motion and in accordance with this rule. But I wonder if but yet the solar by law, which in theory would have it was proposing by law changes should have automatically under the rules been referred to GOL, but it's not appropriate to refer to GOL right now. And so I wonder if we delete the automatic referral of bylaws to GOL completely, like just delete it and affirmatively refer when appropriate bylaws to GOL. So should I reject this whole insertion and change? I mean, the one thing that is nice about this one or and maybe you'd keep it as part of just bylaws in general, the time for governance, organizational legislation to report back to the council shall not begin until the other committees has completed its review and draft of a bylaw and made recommendations on the measure. If there's something, you know, because we have up in B, a council committee shall report back any measure referred to it within 45 days of referral. And so maybe something about a GOL referral if referred to a different committee, the 45 day timeline does not begin for GOL until but maybe that's better off in B, not E. So if referred to GOL. And another standing committee, the time for GOL to report back shall not begin until the other committee has completed its review or whatever. The language here was the time for the governance, organizational legislation committee to report back to the council, to report back to the council shall not begin until the other committee has completed its review and made a recommendation on the measure. You wanna do, so this comes right out. I think all of E can be deleted potentially. Except this says general bylaws. Well, I added general because- Yeah, okay. Look at that, I think some of this was mine. If we're not automatically referring, I think we just delete E completely now and then the new E, the zoning bylaw would get deleted too. Right. Because we don't want automatic referral there. And I had proposed a deletion of F. I'm not sure why. Because GOL spends so much time. I think that was in my period of GOL was doing copy editing that sponsors should be doing because sponsors are saying, oh, GOL will take care of that. And I was sick of that. Yeah. And I think it was me thinking- So you wanna keep it or not. Pick up resolutions, proclamations and commemorations without any referral to any committee and it's on the sponsors to make sure they're ready to be voted yes. So do you wanna keep it or not? I'd like GOL to discuss whether to, thoughts. So then your recommendation is that resolutions, proclamations that these do not come before GOL. It goes to- They just get voted at the council and it's the sponsor's duty to have them ready. And if they're not, the council might say no or the council might refer it back to the sponsor for fixing what's wrong. I can see this leading to a lot of council time. Yeah. And I'm also wondering, well, will counselors read it that carefully? That's why it comes here is for the careful review. Right, but is it our job to be copy editors of something someone else is writing? Mandy, Joe, I agree it's not GOL's job to be copy editors, but if GOL, if some committee doesn't take responsibility, then the council's gonna end up debating semi-colons. This change, Mandy would require a change to GOL's charge. Yeah. So I wonder if that can just be- I wonder if the better thing, we can keep it in. I wonder if the better thing is GOL's practice to be, if this isn't ready, send it back to the sponsors and not take it up at GOL. That I totally agree with. That I totally agree with. Stronger with that and saying, we're not touching it until you've done a better review. Yes, I agree. So did you wanna add any of that language? I don't think it needs added. No. No. Yeah. And that's it for 8.2. Okay. Unless there are- Then 8.1, yeah. So we can keep scrolling up? Yeah. Are we saying May or must? I think May is really bad. So I'm still reading the rest of what, I think this came from Andy, what Andy suggested. Yeah, I agree. I mean, if we want it to be in that form, then it should be must. I mean, I think- It will be written in- What I don't wanna see, because even Rental Reg took two years and there was a draft by-law that came in the correct form. It was not necessarily ready. What I don't wanna see is, in some sense, I'm gonna use Anna and the specialized code. It was easy because there happened to be a model, right? That I found as chair, but the specialized code was here. We need to change the by-laws to adopt the specialized code without any suggested language that was left to the committee that was referred to it for the suggested language. Whereas I think if you're gonna sponsor a by-law change, you sponsor a by-law change with what that by-law change is and you need to bring it to the council in that form, not a suggestion of, well, I think we should have a by-law for X thing. I think this part of the conversation is moot. It's in the charter. Proposed by-laws and other measures shall be introduced in writing and in the form necessary for final adoption. I think so I don't think we can change that. I think this sentiment, again, is included in some of Shalini's review proposal to clarify for sponsors that it's gonna go to committee. It's an iterative process. There will be changes. So you present it in the form of adoption, but there's a process and it's not a guarantee that what you propose is what the council is ultimately gonna vote on. So I think some of that clarification that Andy wanted to include it here has now been moved to that guide or is clarified by that guide. This is what's bothering me. We're starting to refer to that guide as if it is part of our rules. But it's not that I think what Athena is saying is the rules are the rules and what you must do. And a lot of what Andy suggested in here is just not necessarily a rule, but what committees may or may not do. And each committee might do something different, but the may and the should that, yeah, the deletion and then the first sentence, I think both of those changes need rejected by the charter. And then the question is the rest of it. You know, the beginning of the process, that's more of a clarification of what goes on in committees when something does get referred to committees. I understand that. It's not really a rule. It's more of, hey, yeah, when you do, when the council said something to committee, that committee is gonna change it. And hey, sponsor, you gotta recognize that committee might change it. You know, it's not. It's already part of the process. It's just not clarified. It's not a set. And it's not, it's not written down anywhere that, you know, this is part of the normal process. And again, I think that's more of a guidance than it has to happen that way. I would reject the whole thing personally. Unless you wanna keep this last sentence and change review a measure that will achieve the purpose. I think that last sentence is very important. I mean, it could be a five. So we could say proposed bylaws and other measures. So introduced in writing one subject, include a memorandum that states X or something or be accompanied by a memo. Which it usually is, but this is- Right, but- I think that would be fine to change, right? The purpose of the measure for the committee to review or to review and make recommendations on or to complete its work, maybe. I think. So I don't think it's the purpose of the, yeah, the purpose of the measure. Oh, so maybe- I would just start with that. Purpose of the measure that provides sufficient information for the council to act or something, right? Because you, when you introduce what that is, is for the council to make a decision on whether to refer, right? That's sort of the purpose of the memo in a sense. For the council to act? Act, I would say. To achieve the purpose? I wouldn't even say that. I would say to act or to make a decision, right? Make a recommendation, yeah. To consider. Or make a decision on referral or something, right? But I think act works. That needs a period at the end of adoption, or all of this needs something. Right, because it may not recommend. You don't need five if it's up in one. Yeah, I don't think we need five. Do we have a period at the end of these or not? They need, they either all need periods. Am I colons in an and? Am I colons, yeah. Am I colons in an and?  Yeah, or yes, or after names, or yeah.  Where's name? Three or the name names. Yeah, I'm good with that. OK, with that. Yeah, OK. OK, I'm glad we're doing this. I assume that since we've gone through this. We always got stuck at six. We never made it past six. I got to tell you, I don't think the council's going to this is a lot to give people in one meeting. I think we try. It can it can be one of those council carryover items they're going to be. But but we can try and and. Potentially put it on consent depending on what's going on with you can remove not the whole thing. Any particular one item like one rule. I think it would be offensive to put it on consent at all. I agree. I mean, I'm just thinking later, but I'm thinking some of these are basic that can probably go. Others may not be. And if you put it on consent with a big acknowledgement in an email that says we're putting the whole thing on consent. I expect counselors to remove individual rules as they would like to discuss. And those will be removed for the next council term or something. I don't know. I'd rather keep it keep it as a full and then separate it off or rather than go through trying to sort out a overall bylaw overall of the motion. I think it's easier to just put it on the agenda as an action item and then make sure counselors realize we can say we're going to adopt some and not adopt others. Maybe we could put it on with intended motions under each article instead of each individual rule. Anyway, let's continue. Let's get to this. Any council, because this was a lot of discussion. Any council? Do we have to scroll up to see the whole of the. I thought the committee voted on this, so I'm just checking. Because it was part of the. Yeah. No, it's the committee didn't vote on the section. This was one that I raised. Yeah. Any town. The discussion wasn't. We never made a decision on, I think, generally, the absent members. I think we were in agreement that non-provaling side and abstain that abstain equals non-provaling side. But what does absent equal? I think was where we got stuck. Yeah. And it. I think we resolved that that was like this. I thought because a counselor who was absent who wasn't happy with the outcome. Yeah. Should have been at the meeting. I can't say. Yeah, exactly. Well, a counselor who was who was absent who wasn't happy with the outcome would then have to resubmit with new information. Right. In order for it to be reconsidered. Right. But the fact of being absent was not new information. But but being absent and not happy with the outcome would put you on the non-provaling side. Right. Well, unless you had voted and it would change you to change, it would have changed you to the prevail. Is that right? It becomes a problem in close votes. But I think I'm OK. I think I was one that was concerned about the absence over, but I'm OK with going this way. I think we're done on this one. Yeah. And I have already begun starting almost to say point of order. I think Paul has already started. Yeah. And then this this time limitations. What does this come under? What's it? What's 7.2? I think this is one where I was trying to. We didn't really discuss it. It would be I would when I proposed it, it would have been a new rule, not not part of 7.2. It would have been a new 7.3. So there the numbers would have changed. This was more proposed as a discussion. Oh, right. Right. Item for GOL of how do we manage council debates? This is not about public comment. This is about counselors debating endlessly without necessarily getting to the to the action. And how do we do it? I don't know whether I want to press it right now or not. But it was thinking about sometimes the council seems to debate stuff for 45 minutes or an hour when everyone's mind is already made up. And so how do we speed up meetings? It's complicated. It was more of a way to start a discussion than wedded to this particular wording or anything like this, but are there ways we can run meetings to end discussion when really everyone's made a decision, but has a vote, but no one's calling the question and no one's voting and people still want to say stuff. But it's not changing anyone's. It's no longer debate, really. Although I would be happy if it just had to reach a half threshold. Or a majority threshold, not 2.3. What we could potentially change, that's part of what adopting separate rules are. If people want to consider a motion to close debate only needs majority instead of 2.3, that could be done within our rules to change that threshold. I think that would be Article 9 or something, though we'd have to go back to the quantum of votes for certain things. I don't know which article it would be. Oh, no, no, no, 7-1. Sorry, Athena. 7-1. Sorry for that. This previous question requires a 2.3 vote. It says it in both sets of 7-1. So if we wanted to require a majority vote, we could do it there. You could require the quantum of vote needed to approve the measure. Oh, so in a 2.3, you need a 2.3. And the name is still going on. Athena, I think you should just have about 10 clocks up at any point in time. Oh, sure. One that shows us how long we've been on that action item on the agenda. It's just a count-up clock. I wonder if that would work, but because the individual councillors. I do think we sometimes lose track of how long we've been on an item. I really do. This is a very complicated statement. Yeah. Is there any way to? Why don't we just try and experiment and do a count-up clock for each agenda item? That'd be fine. I think we try that experiment and see if it lessens the length of debates. I like that idea. More than this. Like I said, this was a, how do we deal with it? Can we make sure we put this? I'm sorry, go ahead. No, if there's 13 councillors and everyone wants to speak. Yeah. You know, that's more than five minutes. 49 minutes right there. Yeah. 39 minutes. Can I ask a question on the right to propose postpone? It's just a clarity for me. If somebody uses the nuclear option, does that still apply? That's where we are. This is about the nuclear option. I don't like the use of the word nuclear option because it's so loaded. I don't either, but it has been used more than once. So that's a trademark. It is. And I don't like it. OK, so this came up when someone postponed and then there was a cutoff of the discussion. Instead of just of the motion. Instead of just of the motion. Instead of just the discussion related to the motion, I would say. So we've talked at various times about, you begin an agenda item with a motion and then that's what you're talking about. So a right to postpone. So if someone were to postpone individually, then what is left to talk about, if that motion is no longer on the floor, it's just about the topic in general. That's the matter. That's what it says. It's not preclude. But the matter is the action, right? So the problem was in that in that instance, the matter was under discussion items and a motion was made, even though the agenda was a discussion item. But a motion was made under discussion items. And so what do you do then? Whereas when you've got an action item with a clear motion, it's a little clearer what happens. But if if this. So if you include this rule, then other motions about the topic could be made rather than moving the whole topic to the next agenda, it would, you know, people could propose all sorts of other motions. And if the right to postpone was about that particular motion, then it gets very confusing about, you know, now that motion has moved to the next agenda and there are now other motions being considered. And I think you just end up with the counselor making motion that using the right to postpone on every motion that comes afterward. I think it gets very confusing. I think adding this will make it more confusing. I think maybe it should be clarified that if you decide to do that, that's moving the whole agenda item to the next meeting. So the opposite of this. Unless we want to allow, say, if we're discussing the weather and we have a motion, particularly, you could still keep discussing the weather. That's what. But if you continue discussing the weather, then there could be a new motion on the weather that could conflict or contradict or whatever the motion that was postponed. You know, if there was a motion to refer, let's say there was a motion to refer something to GOL that was postponed to the next agenda, and then somebody else made a motion to lay on the table indefinitely, that would be conflicting with the motion to. I've always felt it's cleaner if you don't have any more discussion. I feel it's, I think the other piece that. I agree, and that's why, right, I advised you to rule that way when you asked me at that meeting. Right, but it does leave the person who did this with not the opportunity to explain why. And no debate on the reasons why too, which. Might actually be a positive, right? Because then you're questioning each individual's decision as to whether they're ready to vote.  Let's give you the information now. Yeah, right, things like that will happen. Or, you know, I'm just not ready to because this came as a surprise. Well, you should have known that and you should just make your decision now. Be hasty. You know, I think if someone can explain, but if you allow continued discussion after that explanation, you can potentially run into name, you know. You're talking about then individual motives not necessarily, and we already sort of prevent that, but you'd start arguing whether potentially you could start arguing whether that counselor should have used that right and questioning their own use of the right. And I've seen it happen when people have used it with counselors sitting next to them. When a counselor, not me, I was next to a counselor that used it once and the counselor on the other side of that counselor said, I can't believe you did that. Like would question the person and was really upset about it. And I think we just have to accept that the charter allows a counselor to do this for whatever reason the counselor wants to. I just have a question. I don't want to get into a long debate, but is this something that is commonly in a charter to have this option? Yeah. So what if at the time someone invokes their right to postpone, we bring up the rule and say, here's what happens when something is postponed and debate and discussion on the agenda item, it automatically goes to the next agenda. And if for counselors after that and so on, just to... I actually think that is, if we could put that is very good because the public doesn't understand what happens. I think the other piece, as I recall, when this happened at the end of our first term, people didn't realize that the next meeting was actually not going to be a regular meeting. It was just, I think it might have even been the orientation meeting. Yeah, there were other random meetings in there. Yeah. And it happened that it was like a joint meeting with finance committee. And so I was like, we're heading to a different committee and all it sadly, a lot of times when this happens, that's when the next meeting is, it's almost never that for whatever reason, when it gets used, there's almost always some random other joint meeting with a committee scheduled or something. Yeah, we've had to put it on under topics not anticipated before it's... Can I ask a question? The first time the measure is on the agenda as an action item. Yeah, because it doesn't make sense to postpone something that's a first read because there's nothing in front of the council to... So it's the first time the measure can be voted on, which means the first time there's a motion on the table is the time you have to use the one. If the motion is... So the first time there is a motion on the floor, you can use the one. The second time a motion is on the floor, if it's been postponed either under this or any other reason, the one is not available, the four is available because it's already been up for vote once. Whether it was postponed for whatever reason or referred back to a council committee and then come back. If the main motion was already on the floor, you're at four the second time it's back. So for example, rental registration on Monday night, there was no motion on the floor to adopt the rental by-law before there was a motion to postpone. But if the motion to adopt the by-law had been on the floor and then someone made the motion to postpone or a motion to refer back to CRC, then when it comes back to the council, it's not the first time it's been in front of the council, it's the second time it's been in front of the council now. Right. So they would have to vote. So you wouldn't be able to invoke... A single councilor wouldn't be able to invoke that rule after it came back from committee if that committee referral was made from another main motion, not as the main motion. I'm not explaining it well. No, it's another reason why you start the debate with the motion on the floor, with the motion on the floor, and then you begin debate and that makes all of this a little bit more clearer. I'm okay deleting the sentence in red. But do we agree that in fact, it can happen? I think if it could happen, it should be there just so there's not confusion to the poll, you know. But I thought there was agreement that the discussion should and can move to the next. But I had suggested that we bring up the rule, clarify what it means when it happens. I think bringing up the charter language and then this rule here. Yep. That sort of explains it a little better than legalese, right? Would help if any time the rule is in vote. What if somebody wants to withdraw their right to postpone? We've allowed that, you've allowed that. You have allowed that. Okay, thank you. Get rid of that other sentence then. We have allowed that, especially when we've realized when someone's done it that the next meeting is like some random joint meeting, most counselors can't attend. And instead then someone's withdrawn and just made a motion to postpone to a date certain. Got it. That's what, that was my recollection, so. So ultimately I think. Jennifer, before Athena before you page down too much, Jennifer had had just recently today a thought of not requiring two thirds on previous questions. Oh, I thought that. Did you want to pursue that and discuss that? It was in 7.1, Athena. Right, you're right. I mean, I would feel more comfortable with that. I mean, if the majority of counselors want to continue the discussion, there's probably a reason for that. I mean, I would think that if it's going on too long that a majority would probably still vote, would vote to not continue the discussion. But I think, I don't know why it would be a two thirds threshold. Because you're essentially silencing the counselors who might still want to speak. Oh, I see. I was looking at the other way around. People wanted, I see. You're saying, I'm sorry, I was. I'm okay. The previous question isn't debatable. You move right to a vote. On whether to stop debate. And so there are people still wanting to talk. Okay, I want it to be two thirds. And I was doing, I think it was the other way around that you needed two thirds to continue, but you're saying two thirds to stop. By the way, never mind, never mind. So this is the rewrite that I'm not sure we've totally talked about in rule six. You got to go all the way up to the start of six. We've talked about, and then I was tasked with trying to more clearly delineate our discussions regarding Southboro here in Code of Conduct. It might be easier if we show this without, with simple markup. So it's readable. But it also, it goes into the, because the committee had talked about changing, you know, attendees, you know, changing this to apply to attendees and then clarifying that this applies to. Right. So I think council and participants. Reading rule six with a simple markup will be easier to read to see what's going on. Okay. It does reflect, it does work together with some of rule five, but. Oh, and then rule five is specifically about public comment and this is about the audience, that's right. Yes, this is about audience, yeah. I think this was added. Yes, that's one of the things. It was, yeah. So you don't have to wait in line to call the previous question. Right. But you can't interrupt a speaker to do it, but you can do it between speakers. Can I just say there is a slight contradiction between I and J? I understand what we're trying to accomplish. And in fact, we just had this the other night. It doesn't seem to be a problem when it happens. No, I'm just saying that. I think that's good. It allows it to happen. I think it's fine. Yeah, I do too. Okay. So, before we page down F on up the not hold private conversations, if you go up to the sort of preamble to this rule, above six one, there's like a little preamble. Oh, so it's already covered here. Should we get to that? That's the question. Is it covered in the preamble enough that we can delete F? Or do we want to delete the preamble?  The preamble is participants, counselors and members of the public. So, and I don't know whether six to talks about members of the public holding private conversations, but I'm not sure how you stop members of the public from whispering to each other. I would almost delete it here and keep it in six one F. Is that okay with everyone? Yes, I'm fine with it. Keep scrolling. Thank you. Thank you, Athena. Please keep scrolling. Okay, Elle, I was told that the first council had made the decision that we would, counselors would be called by their first name. So is this in fact, what will happen at the first meeting? We haven't had the discussion since then. So the rule in the first council was all first names. And then this council changed the rule to ask how you want to be addressed. Some of us are thinking, well, there's been conversation or some comment that using first names actually potentially has contributed to some of the feeling of personal, I don't want to call it a tax but personal sort of division and conflict because versus if you said counselor DeAngelis or counselor Hanakie's proposals, this is a little less personal than Mandy's proposal, for example, and such that if you actually go the formal route, which the first counselor didn't want to do, you might, you start removing yourself as counselor is separate from yourself as a person. And so we might want to suggest thinking about going back to formal designations for everyone because it might help keep people, remind us as counselors ourselves but also everyone that we are a counselor but we're also a person and those are different sort of hats whereas referring to first names kind of meshes those hats. Yeah. Thoughts? Yeah. Which would require L to be changed to counselors shall be counselors and staff shall be addressed by their titles and last names or something. I don't know, I don't know how it would be worded, right? But it would say we would no longer talk to Paul in a meeting as Paul, we would say town manager Buckleman or the town manager. I mean, I'm not sure I want to make that change, that recommendation, I'd have to give it some more thought. I don't know if that's, I think that's something the council should discuss and it shouldn't just be in the GOL because it's a pretty major. We could put it as a discussion item. Yeah. And give options, but... I think you went too far. Yeah. I think you're good now where we were and just sort of highlight L. Yeah. But I think, Mandy, to the point you're making about the, using the person's first name, it seems more informal and so forth. You know, it's interesting. I know whenever I speak, I usually say I'm going to use my privilege as a counselor. And it's a way of defining, it makes it so formal to use counselor all the time, but yeah. Right. And we had originally said first names because we thought it was more welcoming and open to use first names, but I think there's benefits and drawbacks to it. Yeah, I do too. Point of bringing this up. Actually, I'm going to delete this and it can be part of the discussion at the first meeting when you have that conversation about names, about how you'd like to be referred. Right. I remember one of the newly elected counselors in 2022 asked about this. Oh, yeah. Okay. So six, two. Yeah. We've had a couple of audience demonstrations. Yeah.  This is the audience conduct. Oh, I know. I'm so glad to have you. You did attempt to gavel down some of the audible. Yeah. At the last meeting, per the rules, right? Per the rules. Yeah. I really wonder if, to be honest with you, I wonder if C is whether you actually, whether you actually can legally do that. Well, I think C and D go together and maybe it's more in D, right? The, I don't know whether we can do disrespectful, but disruptive conduct. Right. All of the demonstrations is disruptive conduct of the meeting, right? No matter how it's done, it can be deemed disruptive. Yeah. This isn't the free speech part because that's public comment. This is right. This is conduct of our meetings. No, I understand. Maybe you want to get rid of under C while signs are permitted, those presidents shall not engage in audible demos. You could get rid of the second sentence in C and in D say, if disruptive conduct occurs, get rid of disrespectful. And you want to... I wonder if we just delete all of C. I actually like the, oh boy. I like leaving that last part of that. Which part? The signs. No, no, no. I would get rid of that while signs. Maybe you combine C and D. The question I have about the first sentence of C is that more about public comment versus watching a meeting? To me, it's the whole message to the audience. I would, I have about this. Combine C and D. Get rid of while signs are permitted, that piece. And just go right on between C and D. It's basically addressing the same thing. I was actually going to make a suggestion here because there was, there was, I think the one meeting where people had really big signs and there was cameras on, I was going to suggest that while signs are permitted, they shouldn't obstruct meeting. They may not obstruct the proceedings or something. Yeah. I guess sometimes when you're watching on Zoom, you can't see the speakers if the signs are up. Yeah, if the sign blocks the full camera. Right. I guess you could call that disruptive conduct. Obstruct. Obstruct. The view of the meeting. Can't I just say cameras? I would say obstruct cameras. Yeah. Or cameras or other participants' views. Yes. Right. I should not be able to hold a sign in front of someone else's face. So we want to take this out. You know, there's a part of it wants to leave it in on case we need to use it, but... And you want to take this out? So Lynn wanted to leave that in. I think if that's tied to D, by combining C and D, it makes more sense. So this highlighted part should go into here? Well, what I would do is... Get rid of D. After the first sentence of C, I would put D... I would put... Those present shall conduct themselves. Selfs, yeah, those present. And then I would do the next... And then it's... Wait, I'm sorry. The signs and then if disruptive conduct occurs, recess or adjourn and then sign. So I would put all of D between the first and the second sentence of C. Oh, thank you. Here. Yeah, that's what I would do. And then... And then this is still part of C. That's still part of C. That's part of C, yeah. Why is that suddenly highlighted? Who knows? Okay. How is D different than... It's not... I don't think you need D after I C. I don't think you need D. Yeah. Although I like the words civil versus dissent or dissatisfaction. Yeah, I'm fine. Go ahead. Those were where the big changes were. Yeah. Six, three and all didn't have very many changes. And four. Let me go back. Oh, because this was moved. Because that was folded into six, one. Yeah. Oh, and these were just changing the numbers. Okay. And preserving order because civility is kind of a problematic word for the Southboro. I already looked. So I think that's six. Okay, so I'm gonna just say all of six. Yeah, six I think is like one whole vote. Just try to keep track of it. Yeah. And I don't think you can really split six up into different motions either. No. And is that currently being done eight or that's what? No. That's what we're proposing to have. No, that came to the council. GOL had made recommendations on rule changes to the council and the council, I think sent them back to GOL because there were some that were pretty controversial. And that was one of them that hadn't been acted on. But it will, if the council adopts this, then that will be going forward. Then it would add work to Athena to get it done by noon. Which is fine. I try to do them on the day of the council meetings, but sometimes they don't. And I would take it more seriously to get them posted by noon. Just like we're supposed to get items to you by a certain. Right. Okay. So we keep scrolling up. Yep. I'm okay with those. Yep. And I think once we get through five, we'll move a lot quicker. No, we still have the public comment. Well, no, once we get through this rule, the last one time, once we get through this rule, the rest of the scrolling up to the beginning will move quicker, I think. Should we start at the beginning of five? Yes. Probably. Yeah. It's also 10 of 11, and we do need to, I mean, we have time, but get to the Hazel Avenue proclamation. So maybe by 10, 10 after 11, we should get to Hazel 11, 15. I know. The committee does have another meeting on the 13. Oh, I'm sorry. There's another committee meeting for the 18th. Is the Hazel Avenue proclamation on the council agenda for Monday, or is it the 18th? No, it's the 18th. Oh, okay. Okay. We're done. You noticed I did go to two minutes the other night. Yeah. I think going to one would have been out of the question. So I'm actually, this is good. I still don't like it, but one would have been really tough. Yeah. Yeah. So I'd like to. Nobody, nobody questioned it. No.  I only had to be forceful twice, I think.   I know, I know. As long as the council supports it, supports the presiding officer and doing it, I think it's fine. Personally, I thought you handled that as best as I could. I thought you did. I did too. You did as well as you. Short of physically moving someone. A and B are fine. Yeah. And C, the one person per comment period had the yield. I would say we should not allow yielding time. It becomes a, I think for the presiding officer, it would become a nightmare to keep track of it. Yes. So what are we saying? Yielding of time. Yielding of remaining time shall not be allowed. Yielding of time. It wasn't just remaining time that people were doing. They were yielding their whole time. Yielding of time may not be allowed or shall not be allowed or permitted. Oh, I don't know how I feel. I mean, could we say yield? I mean, can we say once? The yielding of time was used to circumvent. The one comment period. But is that usually what yielding of time is? So the concept of. Yeah. Yeah, it is. It's used to give someone more than three minutes of time to speak. Right. Or allow them to speak again. So there's the option of saying you could yield, well, once. Not at all. What do you mean you can't like in? I mean, it seems that this is a part of parliamentary procedures. You can yield your time. So is there a balance between time can be yield once to a speaker that's already spoken? This is where I think it's cleaner. I think it's cleaner if you just say you can't yield time. The speaker that's already spoken can always email us as long of a comment as they want. We don't put limits on. I don't think there's a character limit on the online public comment form. There's not on an email. I think managing a meeting where there's a lot of yielding going on becomes a real problem. Yeah. It doesn't seem to happen that often, but what is your sense, Athena? I mean, is this something that would this be unusual to have in a rules of procedure? No, I don't think so at all. And I think it's, you know, a lot of the rules are meant to clarify for counselors and members of the public how meetings are conducted. And I think give the chair of the meeting methods in which to regulate how the meeting is conducted. And so it's less discretionary. It's like, no, we're, you know, that's not within the council's rules. We need to move to the next commenter. I think, Okay. You know, I've had on my back burner for years now a guide, public participation guide, not just for council, but for, you know, town committees in general. And I haven't gotten to develop that yet, but I think making reference to some of the council rules and it would be really helpful. So that people know what to expect, what they can and can't do during meetings. Because I just don't imagine that many people go and look through the council rules before they come to a meeting. They do not. Yeah. And a guide could be something that's either available at, you know, printed copies at meetings or if there's a link clearly on the boards in committee's calendar or something like that. What about D? I think having a limit is good. I think 120 minutes is long. We've never gone there, but at least it gives us a limit. And there is the option for the council to extend it. Yeah. Yeah. I'm fine with that. Yeah. And for example, Monday we went about an hour and 10 minutes maybe. I'd have to look at my calculation. So on an extensive night, we didn't hit 120. Yep. That sounds about right. Limiting it to two minutes, but. Right. I'm actually more fine with this than I thought I'd be. I think having Monday night as an experience. I agree. How long it went with extensive thing gives us an idea of whether 120 is reasonable or not. So. And then shall we move on then? Yeah. We're going up or down? No, no, no, we're still going down. We haven't talked about EF. There's a couple of changes in recognition and all. So I would like to keep three in. I have a problem with as well as residents not on the register. Yeah. I don't have a problem with the whole thing. I think. So not on the register, Lynn, is when you do the, for example, when you say we've got 10 raised hands in a thing, we're stopping after 10. Yeah. I think even on Monday night, you added 11 and 12 in or something. And that was your discretion, right? May be recognized and that was the case. You said there's time in allowing and we'll recognize them. I have, you see who's in the queue. So I think that not Lynn, but anybody, you know, future somebody in a position, I think that somebody could say you didn't, you know, you, you exercised it because you knew who was going to speak or you didn't position. They were going to be articulating. So I think we should leave three in as is. All right. Let's go. That means people in the audience can walk up and register, which is fine. What about a line at the beginning, right? Yeah. So we want to leave this in. Yeah. And we sort of start public comments with lines on where the register is. And then when you get through it, you sort of make that decision. The whole issue of non-residents is a little bit of what came up in Northampton. I wonder if we want to just say residents, not on the register. But what do we do about non-residents at all? We've never distinguished. Yeah, we haven't. The town meeting used to do that. On Zoom, you can't tell if someone is a resident or not. And in person, sometimes people, yeah. And there's no way of verifying if that were challenged, you couldn't verify. All right. All right, let's just go. I would take it. You would take it out? So no, no, no, I would say individuals, not on the register. Maybe recognized or individuals, not on the register. OK, that's good. I think we get rid of the comma there on you. Yeah, I got it. Yep. Each individual commenting by name and residency. Number four, we always do identify name and where you live. But where you live is interpretable. I like and residency. And residency. And some people give their address and others don't. I mean, that's fine. Some give a district and a district is just fine. Some say I live in Amherst, right? Which is why I didn't want to put a dress on here. I think residency is better. I live in Amherst. I live in District 2. I live in District 5. I live on this street without a street number. Right, because people sometimes are not comfortable, right? Yeah. That's totally fine. And then you usually say where you live.  I think that's perfect. Is that a way of addressing residency? Or should I try to say? No, I think that's that gets at it. I think I'm okay with the rest of the changes. Go, let's scroll down. Yeah, keep scrolling. Thank you. Thanks. I'm sorry, I put my mute on because we're done now. Yeah, now we're done five. Yeah. Because that was all of it. Yeah. OK. So it was just five. Yeah. Two a bit. Four. Oh, I just want to make sure. I already. That's good. Keep moving. Oh, request for food. I think we leave it on future agenda items for carryover items, whatever. That can be discussed as a carryover item to the next council in the carryover memo. So we need some advice from councillors in town. Why was this? Do we want to maybe change this? Was that? How would it be changed? Yeah. I don't know. Yeah. I mean, I'm trying. I'm OK with removing that. Yeah. I am too. Yeah. Unless we're going to ask the public. Yeah, I'm trying to think how. I'm sorry if you're hearing a leaf blower. Are you? No. OK. You've been hearing my cuckoo clock. So, you know. I haven't heard it yet. It's just cuckooed 11 times. So there was discussion about kind of reworking how special meetings are discussed in the rules. I wonder if we put that into the transition memo. Address special. Was it in special meetings and work sessions? Yeah. Rules. This is an area that I think we don't use as much as we could. And I agree with. Yeah, I think he goes in the transition. So so far we're discussing how we're going to call each other and. No. That that was just be raised at that first meeting. One council might decide that, yes, it might be more civil to just to refer to each other in one way or another. And another council might say, no, we want to use first name. So I don't understand 363.6. I think that's the same thing as work sessions. Yeah. Figuring out how to deal with work sessions, public dialogues, special meetings in general. Oh, boy. Go for it. Why don't we say we should just eight o'clock. We should have a reconciliation of what we're going to get done that night. I think there was that there was that town meeting. Town meeting used to say you had to vote to introduce the meeting. Yeah, yes, you did. And we've never done that despite this rule. We just try to get through our business. So we want to take it out. I would take it out. You could just say meetings aimed to end at 10. And not say unless they don't. Well, you could you could maybe say something instead of that. What about agendas will attempt to. Be set. I don't know hard, right? I think it gets too hard. And if it gives the public the expectation, it'll end at 10 and they feel. Yeah, I think we just take it out. Yeah. There was a I was speaking with the council support person from Northampton and there was a question raised because they're they had a meeting that went past midnight. And I think something came up about the accessibility of a meeting that that goes that late. So I think meetings that go past. It's come up here to people have written about that. Oh, yeah, and I'm not accessible if it's continuing at midnight. Yeah. Yeah. OK. If we just put in 1130, then we get to the average. We did a better council term than last one. So I think we've done a whole lot better. Yeah. So I think I think we'll see it occur less and less as the council matures essentially as as we get further along into being a council. These were notes from the G.O.L. discussion, so they're not like whole. I find this addition odd, partially because it is a different method every other year then. So it's not a year to year, which is kind of strange to me. This I believe that Michelle wanted this. And I think it is strange, Mandy, Joe. What's strict? I mean, that what part of it that. So so this is this this set would only apply to. The second year of every second year of a term. So it would not apply to the upcoming election for president this coming January, but it would apply for the one the election in 2025. So it will apply only in odd number of years. And that just so what it's saying is that in odd number of years, the election doesn't happen till the second meeting. Well, no, it says an odd number of years in December. There's a pre discussion about the election. Wait, where are you? Even number of years there aren't. I'm sorry. Tell me what you're reading. So at a regular meeting prior to the election, you're reading the red, right? The second year of a two year term. So it makes it different from one year to the regular meeting. I mean, I think you get the opportunity to address your colleagues at the election meeting. And this came up because the council was receiving a bunch of emails from members of the public about who to elect as president one year. And that's what some of these are. Some of those comments are I wouldn't I would not include this. So if that was referring to a. And the odd year, what it's saying is in December, there's an opportunity. Right. Yeah. Yeah. But for the first year of a term, there isn't that there is no December right. Well, and so so it just seems weird to have a rule that only applies half the time. Yeah, no, I understand. Yeah. OK, so. I mean, and also there is something a little odd about having to vote the first meeting before. Right. That's the charter. But the rule already says that the after the nomination acceptance and then each nominee gets to make a statement. We could change the length of the statement if we think two minutes is too short. Right. If we really want a longer time to address the council, maybe that's where we do it. But they already people running have an opportunity to do so during the election. For the rules, I do find it strange in this that our normal time as councillors to comment and speak on matters is three minutes. Yet on this, we limit everything to two. It's kind of strange. So make it three and make it three. All right. Is everyone OK removing this? I am. I am. Yeah. So you're right. It has to be the first meeting if the president wasn't reelected. That's right. Well, it's always the first meeting. I know, but I was thinking you could have give people time to get to know each other, let's say, but you can't because you may not have a president in place. Well, the charter, the president's terms already not in place. Lynn's term ends January 1. I get it in the charter, right? So sort of. It's the charter. I got all that. I think those are the only ones. Oh, five, three, one, this, the nominee who received the majority of votes of the town council, at least seven yes votes. I think it's at least seven votes. We're not really voting yes, we're voting names. So if the president had retired and wasn't at the with the president come back for the first meeting to take the vote or no, the clerk does it. Right. The clerk does it anyway. OK, got it. This is the end. So there was. And there was something needed to order. There was a question that came up about, you know, what if there are what if the president or no existing counselor were at work were in the next council term? Because then you wouldn't have a presiding officer. So who would run that meeting and call to order? I mean, I think we could potentially you could add a rule that says the clerk of the council opens the first meeting of the council term. I think presides president is elected. The clerk of the council presides until the president is elected. Oh, I think what we had what I had settled on in my mind was if that came up, then we would use the the transition procedures in the charter and the most senior counselor who was elected would begin the meeting like we did in the very first week. Could I mean, it could be whatever. But I think I need to remember that now because the transition provision only applied to the very first council. So you have to write into the rules, right? But yeah, yeah, yeah, without a role. We haven't written into the rules. We could add a rule this late. I think we've muddled along. But we could add it as a thing to add somewhere. Did you want to put something in here or no? Oh, um. So it's like what this one says at the first meeting, the first order of business elect, the clerk presides over the election of the president. I mean, I think that that does it, right? So the clerk's presiding until there's a president, right? No, I believe I usually just preside over the election. I don't call the meeting to order. So it's what has happened in the past is the first first time the council met. It was the oldest member. It was the oldest member of the council. The second time I was still I was still on the council. And so it was me. I think it should be the clerk calling the meeting to order. So so shall provide over the meeting until. Until the president is elected. Since that's the first order of business, I think that clears it up. OK. Actually, I guess we're not in formal session when we do swearing in. Right. You really can't call a meeting to order. If you want in yet. We're not counselors. Right. Right. Good with these changes. Yeah. When? Yep. OK. That's it. Is that it? No more. That's it. Congratulations. Oh, so happy. And now we're going. Yeah, I would like to recommend the council adopt changes to the Amherstown Council rules of procedure as amended on December 8th, 2023. Oh, is there a second amended by GOL? Yeah. I, Lynn, I think you have to second. Second. OK. We will take a vote. Manjo. I. Lynn. I. And I am an I. Yay. Maybe, you know, three actually. It's been discussed many times as to whether or not three on GOL. Three has been discussed many times. Yeah, that's OK. Great.  So let me raise one item we didn't discuss. And I think it should be an item for next time. And that is it has been suggested to me that we have a rule that requires people to have their cameras on. OK. Add it to the transition memo. Absolutely. We're not debating it now. Are we going to hold off on the West Side Historic District Proclamation? Since it's not on the agenda for Monday, I think we can. Oh, OK. I don't think it'll take us long if you wanted to do it. Yeah. Having read through it. Right. So should we just do it now? Yeah. I had two requests. So Athena. And after every whereas clause and put a period at the end of the last whereas clause. Oh, and what? Yeah. Every single one was missing one. And then the last one had. Had a semi colon instead of a period the last whereas. I assume this is from Anika because it is. Yes. So we need to add that to. Yeah. The sponsors are. No, that one's a period. That's the period. Sorry. The sponsors are Anika and her mom. Is it already on the top? Oh, that one was the one I saw didn't have it. Okay. And I think then the first now therefore gets a period because I don't think we two ands between the. Yeah. I think they both get periods. Okay. Is there a motion? I move that we declare this clear, consistent and actionable. I'll second. Okay. Move to a vote. Lynn. Yes. Mandy Joe. Hi. And I'm a yes. Okay. So items not anticipated was that. Well, I guess that's not the rules. That was. So is, are there any items not anticipated? I raised the one that. Yeah. Having cameras. I raised that one, but I also raised the one about the role of what Shalini is recommending. Oh, yeah. That was my other issue. And we could also have that if there is a council retreat. Yes. Or orientation. Okay. In terms of previewing the agenda. I would need some help Athena. What would be on. I could finalizing the carryover memo and any outstanding minutes. Okay. I can. Okay. Get for you. Great. Okay. So our next meeting is regularly scheduled meeting next Wednesday at 9 30. The. For the 13th. Yes. 13th. Okay. Well, thank you. That was. Normally adjourned. Yeah. Okay. Still no. The audience so that we have a good weekend's meetings adjourned. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you.


So I came here in January of this year. Originally, I was planning on starting practice, but because of the pandemic, I had to delay those plans. This has been a really special opportunity to be here. This is a really special place. I think the importance of fostering a good team atmosphere is probably the most impactful thing I've learned here. Everyone's working towards the same goal and it really empowers you to wanna be part of that goal. You know, I'm really lucky to be paired up with such an amazing team. I think Dr. Haymanic and Dr. Klanton before him did a really good job of building the team that they have and they welcomed me early. There's nothing like an athlete getting injured on a ski run and then you having to ski to them and not getting hurt yourself. And the whole time thinking, don't embarrass yourself, don't embarrass yourself. You've got to do some white water rafting. It's not something I had ever done before, but just getting everyone out there on the boat work together as a team, getting to be on the Colorado River. That was a lot of fun. Water was cold, it only cost me a pair of sunglasses. And I just wanna thank everyone at the Stedman Clinic, particularly Dr. Haymanic and Dr. Haymanic's team for making me feel welcome.