So we are recording excellent. So I'm going to call this meeting of GOL to order seeing the presence of a quorum. It is 1031 on March 17th, St. Patrick's Day for those of you who care about those things of which I'm one actually, a member of the clan. So pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order suspending certain provisions will be able to meeting law. This meeting of GOL is being conducted by a remote participation. We are being recorded and I'm going to just first make sure that everyone can be heard. And so I'm gonna start with Mandy. Present. And Darcey. Present. And Pat. Present. And Marlene, our guest. Present. Thank you. We're still waiting on one counselor but we're going to begin the meeting since we have a quorum present. And when she comes, we will acknowledge that and I will check to make sure that she can be heard. You've had a chance. I hope to look at the agenda. We don't have a huge number of items today but we have some substantial ones. And so we're gonna begin today with the proclamation and then we're going to turn to the discussion item on council committees and their process. I don't believe we're gonna, item number four I believe has been dropped. And item five is something that we really will spend hopefully a lot of time on today. We have a lot of work to do there. We have one set of minutes to look at. And so that's the agenda. So the first item before us is a proclamation, 2021 child abuse awareness and prevention month. We have listed here. Mandy's put it up on the screen. Thank you, Mandy. Council sponsors are Alissa Brewer, Lynn Grissimer and Mandy Jo herself. And the resident sponsor who's present with us today is Marlene Musante, member of the board of the Children's Advocacy Center. Marlene, at any point, if there's something that is wrong or that you would wish to correct, please just speak up. You don't have to raise your hand. My screen at the moment doesn't even show you. Now it does. Thank you. What we do basically is we simply go through it whereas the committee asked questions or make suggestions and you as the sponsor are welcome to weigh in. The goal is to come up with a document we're all happy with. We do not discuss, generally speaking, the merits of the proclamation, though I think this one is pretty obvious, but what we're focused on is simply that it is clear, consistent and actionable. So those are the kinds of things that we look at. And once we're done with it, it goes directly to the council. And Mandy, I don't know, you are no longer part of that process and Lynn is not here. Would you guess that this would go on the next council agenda or can we even say that yet? Athena might know. Yes, we do have it on the draft agenda for Monday. We'll be finalizing that later this afternoon. Okay, so Marlene assuming this goes well and I'm sure it will, it would go directly to the council for a vote. Normally it's on the consent agenda. So it's not actually discussed or even read. So if you wish to be present, you certainly may as on Monday evening. And we have a period for public comment and you're certainly welcome to speak there. If you would like. And you can also reach out to Lynn Grissimer if you have any questions about it. But normally what happens is a proclamation goes on the consent agenda and that's passed without any fanfare at usually the very beginning of the meeting. So if you wish to say something publicly, your opportunity would be Monday night and you might reach out to Lynn and talk to her about how you'd like to do that. Okay. That's the process. Great, thank you. Okay. All right. So first, whereas April was first declared child abuse, weariness and preventing month by presidential proclamation, 1985. We strike the comma and put in a semicolon and next same thing, whereas the month of April is devoted to celebrating all the activities to transform communities into places that care about families and children, semicolon. And do we capitalize the C? I can't remember, Mandy. Whereas child abuse prevention? I think it should all be capitalized child abuse. And then it's kind of like a title. Okay. Yeah. And then we could put in awareness and prevention month. Okay. We could put the entire thing. So child abuse prevention and awareness month. No, that doesn't make any sense. Chair, child abuse, awareness and prevention month is a community responsibility and finding solutions depends on involvement among people. I got you. Yeah, nice to be able to change. Okay. All right. Committee's okay with that? I'm uncomfortable with the capitals, but that's so minor. I don't care. I understand. I agree with you. So this one would be lower case then. Communities must make every effort to promote. Okay. Programs that benefit children and their families and, okay. This one repeats. Yes. There's a repeated right. That should be, should be struck. It's all right. Yeah. And then whereas effective, that should be a lower case E effective. Child abuse prevention programs succeed because of partnerships among agencies, schools, religious organizations, law enforcement agencies and the business community, semicolon and the, the last whereas again, if people have a problem, just pick up. Whereas child abuse awareness bridge month is about connecting all of the above concepts so that solutions to child abuse may be achieved. I have a problem with the word concepts. And I don't know if anybody else has any concerns about that whereas it's not so much concepts, I guess, as just, you know, it's connecting all the dots or connecting all of these, I don't know, maybe it is fine. Any thoughts? Is it even needed? What's the, what's the, what's it trying to say? Thoughts, perceptions. Now then maybe concepts is fine. I just, what's the, is the point and importantly different from everything that's been said so far. We could just say connecting all of the above so that solutions to child abuse may be achieved. Okay. That's a positive, that's just a suggestion. Again, these are suggestions, Marlene, you're free to. Well, yeah, and I'm glad to be seeing this because this looks different than the last draft I saw. So I'm just sort of trying to catch up to, to what I last have. Okay. That's fine. Take your time. If there's something missing in the draft you have right like in it, let us know, we'll type it in. Okay. Yeah, I think there is and I'm just not sure what happened to it. So I just need, I need to like just look at everything. That's okay. If you don't mind. Take your time. Take your time. And we share screen operative. I'm not able to get to my desktop apparently. Is that true? It seems to be the case. You can. Okay. Well, then how are we dealing with my stupidity? You just have to un, just not do a full screen. Okay, that's a fine option up the top. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mandy. I want to share with you a comment that was made while Marlene is looking at her notes. We got, I got an email from a councilor, one of the sponsors and I can put this up on our screen if we wish just to see it. I think we should wait until Marlene's had a chance to see this because she's using the screen. Oh, so sorry. If you use her screen George, she'll lose her comparing screens. That's fine. And I don't, I can freeze the screen for it. No, no, take it. It's okay. It's all right. Take your time. And I think councilor Bruce comments were similar to the ones I've got down here on the now therefore. Okay. Good. Then it may prove. Okay. Things got moved around a little bit and the wording's a little bit different, but I think it's, it all makes sense to me if it makes sense to you all. Do you want to change anything? Yeah. I can understand why it was re, I think Jennifer reorganized a few things after we spoke. And a little bit of the wording is just slightly different, but I think it's, it's, it's good. So I think, okay. And you're happy with the order. In other words, sometimes there's a kind of progression with the where as is these seem, there does seem to be somewhat of a regression here. So I think it's fine, but okay. All right. Then now therefore, I think Mandy has made some suggestions here. That's why we have this, the track changes. I would actually like to ask Marlene if possible. Please go ahead. Where the flag raising is, is it a special flag and it will, do you hope to have it sort of on the town flagpole? Yes. So there will be a few flags flown for the month of April. One will be in North Hampton at the police station. One will be at East Hampton town hall and then hopefully in Amherst in front of the town hall. So I will be delivering, Bob goes well, a flag to the DBW so that they can raise it. It's a beautiful flag that we've had made up with children on it. Yes. So what was, did I not answer something? That did. So I think, when we do these flags, we normally use some wording that I put in the comments and we could choose the whole month instead of just a day. That would be great. That's what we're hoping for, like as long as because it is for the whole month and we're going. So just to back up a little bit, the kickoff for this is on April 1st and there's going to be a luminary event in North Hampton which will be publicized, I don't know. I'm trying to get it onto the town website but I don't know if it's there or not because I'm having a hard time accessing it but we're finding the right place where I will find that information. Anyways, so at 5 p.m. on April 1st, there'll be an event in front of Look Park where there'll be lighting luminaries over 2000 to represent the number of kids that have been serviced through the CAC. And then, so there on April 1st, also North Hampton is raising their flag for the month and then we're hoping to do the same thing in Amherst on the 9th, I mean on the 6th and then East Hampton on the 9th. So that we're spreading them out because we want Dave Sullivan, the DA to be able to be at each flag raising along with the director of the CAC program. So we're trying to space out the flag raisings but then that they'll be raised for the whole month or as long as they can be in each town. So maybe, man, if we just change April 1 to April 6th, if we look at her wording that is in the margin there in the comments section, she's suggesting, and Marlene, why don't you look at it as well, that the wording we normally use is further recognized this proclamation by hoisting the child abuse prevention flag from April 6th, 2021 to April 30, 2021 to help cultivate awareness for all residents of Amherst. Yeah, that's good. Nice to hear. Do you put time for the flag raising ceremony? 9 a.m. Okay. Do we want to put that in, George? Well, let's think for a second. This is a actual physical flag raising and it will be recorded apparently and made available virtually, but we're really not encouraging people to come physically yet, I think. Right. The Tibet Day was an exception because it was a political event and was not subject to the governor's limits, the state limits on public gatherings. This would seem not to fall into that category. So I'm wondering if the time is really relevant. It's just the date that matters. And so I have a question. So how it proceeds with the being taped and all, will the proclamation be read at the flag raising or will that happen at a separate time and just be recorded? And the post has been read, yeah, Mandy? Yeah, so the sponsors normally try to, at least one sponsor and all, if you would like us to read it there, we will try to be there in person. I can't obviously speak for everyone else. Let me look at my own calendar. You said 9 a.m. on the 6th. That would be wonderful. And then therefore I don't think you need to put the time in because we'll be live doing it, reading it. So April 6th is a Tuesday morning. It's a Tuesday morning. Yep. So I'm sure that there will be a counselor present, hopefully one of the sponsors and then we would read it at the event. Right. And my understanding starting to interrupt from speaking with Jennifer is that we could have Dave Sullivan, the director of the program, myself and hopefully Scott Livingstone there and then maybe a reporter just in the background taking a few pictures because we do wanna publicize this eventually in the newspaper so that we just spread awareness as well that way. Great. Makes sense to you folks. Makes a lot of sense. The point as you see it clearly is to get the word out and the flag will help but this will even help more. Yeah, great. Any other comments or concerns from the committee about this document? All right, seeing none, I'm prepared to entertain a motion to declare the 2021 child abuse awareness and prevention month proclamation to be clear, consistent and actionable. I'll second that. All right, so I will make the motion and Mandy will second it. And I'm going to proceed then directly to a vote and I'm going to start with Mandy. Hi. And Pat. Hi. And Darcy. Yes. And the chair is also a yes and I believe we still have one absence. So the vote is four in favor, none against and one counselor absent. All right, Marlene, thank you very much for being here. Thank you for your help on this and it's nice to see all you virtually. Right, exactly. And I see some of us in person on that day in April and April 6th. And again, as I said, if you do wish to get any further, I'd contact your information about this before the council, you should reach out to Lynn. Yep, I wrote that down. Okay. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Have a good day. All right. Item number two on our schedule is a request that we continue our discussion about a single process for making recommendations to the council for appointments to council appointed bodies. And what I asked you to do was to look at the CRC memo that had been sent many, many months ago. We also put a number of documents in the folder that spell out the individual GOL and CRC policies, also the old OCA policies in there and also the town manager's appointment handbook is also there. So, I guess I'm looking for guidance here as to how you wish to proceed. We could start with the CRC memo and we have the present, the current chair of CRC and most likely the author of that memo and she could certainly speak briefly as to what lay behind it or if you feel you already have a pretty good grasp of that, we can go directly to the concerns and there is silence. Realize the chair did not bring this, it was brought by other members of my committee. So I'm looking for your input because I don't have a problem with the situation as it exists. So I need help from people who do. Is that our scene? The memo that's in the packet that lists all the different takes on the term limits, that's a new memo, right? Is that something new? The one that is in the memo from CRC is, oh, it goes last year, I think it was October of last year. Okay. It's been around for a long time. And then it lists the different processes of OCA and GOL and CRC and the town manager. Okay, so. And it's been focused on term limits. Is that fair to say, Mandy, that the key issue from your perspective was term limits that there was a difference in and there is a difference between how those two committees view term limits. And the suggestion was that this committee might at some point discuss that and see whether it felt that we had a recommendation to make to the council. George, I don't know if Darcy was done speaking. Sorry, Darcy, go ahead. I could be wrong. Yeah, I was, I felt like that was, that memo really kind of laid out the differences and the similarities of the different procedures that have been developed since we started and also, you know, the town manager process that has been in effect for a really long time. And I guess I am very much interested in having a unified town right policy on around, especially around term limits, but I'd like it on other things too. But term limits, that's what we're focusing on to start with. Is it makes really a whole lot of sense to me to have a little balancing act with term limits where we have an outside number of years that we, where we would wanna switch over to new blood to allow other, you know, fresh faces to be involved. But we also want to balance that with the need for experience and the need to keep on people that have put in the time to gain the knowledge to be able to effectively work on these committees. So, I mean, I think that's what it was all about is that the preference for reappointing somebody who has had less than six years is all about, you know, just honoring the fact that the person has put in, you know, one term or maybe two year terms and has gained all that knowledge that we need to take advantage of. And then, you know, if the person gets as far as six years then, you know, that would be a time when you might consider replacing the person with somebody who's been waiting to get on that committee. So that's what we have in the former OCAP procedure and the town manager in this committee, GOL. They all have that incorporated. So I just, it makes sense to me to have it be unified as a town council procedure because I don't see any reason why we wouldn't do that because we'd really need to honor those people who have put in the time. And if there's no other, you know, good reason to try to oust that person or, you know, not reappoint a person there's obviously sometimes reasons why, you know you really don't wanna reappoint somebody but if there isn't such a reason and they, you know, have put in the time then it makes sense to me to have a unified appointment rule around term limits. Mandy. I'm gonna put my CRC hat on because that is a different opinion than I have as a counselor. CRC wrote that, had me write that memo and had that vote because over the course of multiple, and this wasn't just CRC this was an OCA experience too over the course of multiple planning board appointments and even ZBA appointments that this council has made there has been a lot of discussion regarding mostly surrounding reappointments that reflects on term limits but regarding whether a person who is seated and a current member of a planning board or ZBA who is seeking to continue that membership what type of preference or non-preference does that person receive in the interview process? We have seen that the town manager gives them complete preference in other words interview anyone else basically but the council has different opinions on that and it has come up in multiple planning board and ZBA appointments. And so in the last sort of discussion after the last set of appointments that CRC had after we went through that appointment process which for CRC was the first time we had been through that process. We sort of did a, you know after the fact review and the discussion went that because it keeps coming up the question remains should the council have a quote council policy on what it dealt how it deals with individuals whose terms are expiring who would like to continue. And CRC believed that that was not a decision that CRC should make because it was not within CRC's charge. And so that's why it voted the way it did and that vote was unanimous that if the council sought such a policy or thought it would be a good thing to review and ask someone to do that it would fall to GOL to discuss whether such a policy was good or not. So that's the CRC hat. I personally do not favor a single policy and much of it revolves around the reason the council as a whole is the appointing authority for ZBA and planning board and that is because they are by default in some sense political positions that are not elected. And as a council has two year terms we as a council, I highly believe that we as a council should not ever tie a future council's hands on whether that council due to our council's policy must reappoint a position a member to someone else and having a council policy that goes to that position would tie a future council's hands and make them have the same issue as we have essentially either follow that policy or not and that brings up a lot of issues because that council may have been elected in order to actually reappoint or appoint new people to those boards because of what those boards are doing or not. And so to say, we already are appointing these positions to three year terms, which for some people that means an entirely new council won't even get a chance to appoint two of the members of say the planning board or three, depending on when it goes to then say, oh, and if someone still wants their term you're stuck with having to do that even if the thing you ran on was changing the makeup of that body. And so because they're political positions I believe and that we are required to announce them as vacancies and whether or not it's a reappointment. I really believe that each time we get to that appointment it is a new process. It is a new appointment that that person's service certainly goes into whether they're qualified and everything, but that should not be the only criteria and much of these policies seems to indicate that that should be the primary criteria on whether someone gets reappointed or not or whether we consider new people for the positions. So I am against having a council policy that would push us to having to go that direction. I have a couple of small things. I'm not sure where I'm coming down on this yet. Number one, the zoning board of appeals and the planning board are political positions. And I think it's disingenuous as a government that we don't elect them because then Mandy that would represent what you're saying that the council wants a certain change. I don't think that our council has a unified vision of what they want in planning and zoning at this time. So I'm feeling uncomfortable with you and I know you were doing it sort of metaphorically speaking that the council wants this. One or two counselors is not the council in either direction. Doesn't matter what the position is. So that's one thing. The other thing I had my hand up before and I wanted to pull down, all these processes in their own way get ignored. The town manager supposedly follows the OCA and GOL process. He does not. If you take the disability access advisory committee, there were severe vacancies. He removed two long-term members and he did not fill those positions because there weren't people out there. But he was for whatever reason, he decided for whatever reason to remove those people and nothing was done about it for quite a while. So there's the ideal of what the policy says and there's the reality. And both of those issues feel important to me both what you're saying about planning board and zoning and also what I'm saying about it's the whim of the appointing authority, whether it's the committee or the town manager and I think to pretend otherwise is not fair, is not real. Darcy? Yeah, I hadn't heard that argument that Mandy Jo just made before and it's also concerning to me that we would not take into consideration the full, all the different views on the town council and how they represent the town as a whole. And we wouldn't want our council to be like the majority of the council, we wouldn't want the majority of the council to try to ensure that their view was the only view represented on the planning board or the zoning board of appeals or whatever. We would, you know, I'm assuming that as a council we want different voices heard and we want to make sure that, you know, that the different bodies of the town council maybe they don't represent the majority of that body like the planning board, but that they represent at least the split on the council and so yeah, that doesn't feel right to me that we're, that we would want to remove people who have been appointed presumably because they're, I mean, at least when we were in OCO, there was a big point made about how we're not supposed to be looking at politics at all, that these are our appointments based on people's competency and merits. And if we have made our appointment based on that, then, you know, we should honor them for that period of time of, you know, two, three year terms or three two year terms. I noticed that the different, the policy is different on that, but up to six years. So that those people are allowed to, you know, to use their skills and it's, you know, I don't really see why it's an issue now because we have a very, very small minority of, you know, a differing view right now on the planning board. And so I guess I just don't see where this is coming from. Lower your hand, Darcy. Mandy, Joe has her hand raised. So I agree with Pat that it's not the council, it's individual counselors, you know, and I think that's why I go to it shouldn't be a council policy. We are elected as counselors to bring our own opinions, our own beliefs of what constituents want, our own beliefs of how a multiple member body should be made up and our own experience in reflecting on that at any time, there is an expiring term and a need to appoint someone to that, what is a vacancy. And given the discussions we've had here and in OCA and in GOL and in CRC, it is clear that counselors have various and wide ranging views on all of it, which is why I firmly believe we shouldn't have a council policy because I think it engenders a lot of problems. If we could find, say, seven people to agree with, everyone gets a max of six years no matter what. I don't know whether we kind of find seven people, but say we find seven people on this council to say, yep, automatic reappointment, if they want it, you get six years no matter what. We won't even really interview anyone if they say they want reappointment. We'll advertise like we have to for the charter, but we won't interview anyone. Say we find seven votes for that. The people that don't agree with that, we'll have a lot of issue with trying to follow that because they have to still vote on an actual person when it comes up for a vote. And say we find on the opposite side, we find seven votes for a view of it really is everyone's individual opinion and all of that. We'll have a lot of issue with that. We'll have a lot of issue with that. Well, then the six people that don't agree with that, that the believe it will vote, will still either have to decide to vote for that either way. Or to go with their own beliefs of, no, if you've been reappointed and even though that was a council before the council, I'm on, and before I was even on council that made that appointment. I don't want that person on it, or maybe I do. But I don't know if they haven't hit their six terms and this group over here doesn't want them on, but this does your, you're stuck in this quagmire of if the council adopts a policy as a counselor, do you follow that policy even though you do not agree with it when you actually have to vote on a person on an actual recommendation when you know the exact names of the people who actually applied. You can watch the videos, interviews, and you have to do an up or down vote. And so I truly believe that when it comes time to that up or down vote, each of us has to bring our own beliefs on how long an appropriate term is the makeup of a body, whether the person that is being recommended by the committee being making that recommendation is who you believe is the right one or not, and then vote yes or no on the motion. And to create a policy that is set in the handbook about it. I think creates a lot of problems for individual counselors, including, you know, we are lucky that we've appointed everyone on these boards ourselves. For these two positions, but in a year. Many counselors will not have been part of that process for the appointments that come up and potentially the individuals who are seeking a second or a third term that come up. There will be many counselors that have not been a part of that process had not weighed in for that first appointment to that person, maybe, and maybe didn't agree with that first appointment. And what do you do then as a counselor? You know, and so I, again, I just firmly believe that the council should not have a policy on this that requires all counselors to follow it because I think it's not good for the counselors. I just like to give an example of how I think this should work. When, when OKA. Voted on. Before this went to GOL, OKA was responsible for resident members of the finance committee. And one person that I voted for. I would not normally have voted for. But she had already had a year on the former finance committee of experience. So I put her forward as. As a resident member of the finance committee. Even though she would not have been someone that I would have normally supported. Because she'd had that experience and because I felt like that was the fair and reasonable thing to do. And I can't imagine that counselors are are not would not be able to do that in general. You know. Follow the follow the principle of how we are going to honor experience regardless of politics or whatever. Up until the person has been on the committee for the board for for six years. If I may. Two thoughts currently one first of all. We only make recommendation to the council. Decision is made by the council not by us. And let me give you a hypothetical. We make appointments excuse me. You make recommendations to the council for appointments to finance. Imagine you put somebody on finance.  And we know we check it occasionally or we attend a finance meeting occasion whatever we talk to people in finance committee. And this person never says a word. Or this person never comes or rarely comes or rarely speaks. Makes very little contribution. It seems to me that that service on these particular bodies. Is qualitatively different. For very obvious reasons than service on many, many other bodies which are, you know, wonderful bodies. And, but we have three members on the finance committee and that's that three, you know, non-voting resident members. And clearly I would think this recommending body. Would want them to be engaged and active. And if we found that someone was not coming. Or they were there, but they never said a word. Never asked a question. Never made a contribution. We checked with the chair and the chair said, yeah, I'm sorry, you know, Smith is, you know, very pleasant person, but it doesn't contribute anything or very little. Right. But if we have a fixed policy that says, well, you know, as long as you serve. Right. Now we have town committees where, you know, that can happen. And I just don't think it's at the same level of concern. Ideally, you know, the time manager might think, you know, well, if so and so is on this shade tree committee or whatever and they never come. I should not reapply to that seems very reasonable. But so a, we only make recommendations and B, I think a fixed policy would be a terrible mistake because it basically ties our hands now. And I think Mandy's right in the end, this is a decision made by the counselors. And you have to look at each candidate and think, you know, okay, I've got the recommendation of GOL or got the recommendation CRC. I've got the minutes of the meeting, maybe I even attended it and listened to the interviews or whatever. But just the idea of automatic, just because you've been on there for years or two years or whatever guarantees you another term. It's a factor. I think Darcy's right. Experience matters. I don't think it's just a matter of whether you agree with them. There are people on the planning board right now that I do not agree with, but they're there. They're engaged. They contribute. What more can I ask? Okay. So I don't have a problem with that. But if I have someone saying something on that board, who is difficult, it doesn't work with the team. Refuses to say hypothetically step off of subcommittees that they've been appointed to.  That's a warning sign for me, a warning flag. Okay. And I don't want to have my hands tied by some, you know, overarching rule is, oh, sorry, Ryan, you know, you're just going to have to vote for them because they got tenure. I'm not that fond of tenure in the academic. Well, I never got it. Okay. I'm happy for people to get it, but I think you should be evaluated on what you're doing now. And you should, we should have the ability to make recommendations that are based on, you know, what's the current situation, not just on the fact that they, you know, served X number of years. It's a factor. It's important it should be considered, but I don't want to tie our hands. So that's my concern. Is that they basically would tie our hands and keep us from, you know, doing what I think we should do as a responsible recommending body. Pat. Yeah, I agreed with parts of what you're saying, George. So here that, but I also know that the word. He called. The word difficult is subjective. Working with the team in many ways is subjective. And inappropriate emails. Like the one we got as counselors that said, you suck. I think that's inappropriate, but I got it. And I'm not going to respond to it. So possibly there could have been in, because we're talking about a specific person.  It's a hypothetical. I'm just imagining a situation. Where someone is. So if there are inappropriate emails, that still can flounder in the realm of. Subjective. And, and my concern is. More than ever before, and this doesn't help this. Discussion at all. These are clearly political positions that should be filled by the electorate, not by CRC, not by TSO. I'm not pulling. And particularly because. Those committees can get stacked and in many ways they have been. And once it's stacked, it has a, it creates a recommendation. My responsibility then. If I'm not on that committee. Is to, and this. I don't see it happening. My vote then in the council, I guess I, my other concern, which isn't really part of this conversation. Is that we don't take our responsibility. Seriously. Once we get a recommendation from a committee. We say, okay. And I think that needs to stop. I think that we have to have as much information as the committee. And, and it, and there have been people who have been put on important committees. Like planning board and zoning, et cetera. That shouldn't be there. Because they don't really have the qualifications, but we didn't really. Do that. So I somehow or other, we need to. We can. We can weaken the power of a committee. To determine who gets selected. And particularly, and I will say CRC is pretty, pretty unified and no, no shame or blame. That's just the reality. So not a hundred percent, but I think that that's, that is there. And it's a concern to me. So as to the specific question of term limits and having a single policy for the council. I'm not hearing any sort of consensus. Certainly among the four of us, obviously we're missing one of our members. But I'm not saying we need to take a vote, but I'm not hearing a consensus for recommending any sort of single policy to the council on the issue of turn one. That right now there is a difference between these two committees. And some are uncomfortable with that. Some are not. But I'm not hearing a sense that amongst the four of us at least. There's any agreement as to proposing an alternative. I think what I'm hearing from Pat is a larger concern about the process as a whole. And whether committees should even have the. Recommending authority. Maybe it should just be the council. I don't know. You know, doing it, but I don't know. But again, committee has to recommend that would be. That is the committee's work. I agree 100%. My concern is that as counselors, we assume an automatic blessing on that. And I think that's a habit we have. It's not a good habit. I haven't even really thought about it so much. But this conversation is bringing that up for me. So it's not about committee. I don't know. I don't know. I think the committee report is important. In other words, if in a recommending such, I mean, with CRC, as you pointed out, Pat, I'm sorry, Darcy, your hands up. Go ahead. I just wanted to say, say that, you know, there's no consensus either way. There's between the four of us. And you know, my opinion from the beginning has been that. This whole discussion doesn't belong in the committee. It's not a whole council. And try to decide, you know, whether there's a majority of us that wants a unified policy on it and what it would be. Which they would have to end up doing anyway. If we send a report saying we couldn't get a consensus one way or the other. You know, so I, you know, I, I feel personally like it's important and that. I think it's important. I think it's important that the four of us don't agree. Nobody's trying to make it go away. Manage. I just want to give a little interesting fact that. I know simply from my charter commission days. State law requires zoning boards of appeals to be appointed. And state law also requires. For cities. Of which we are now one. I think it's important that they are also appointed not elected. They actually have a mayor appointment with a council. So we discussed that with the planning board as a potential. We weren't sure we'd be able to get it past the AG's office on a review. But if we did go to election because of state law, but I thought I'd just mentioned that. There might be an appointment instead of having gone the election route. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I just went to the council. What the council would do would be find somebody to go to study it and then recommend recommendation to the council. We already, we already spend enough time as it is. On this sort of thing. And I guess I'm reaching the limit, my limit. I think I passed my limit a long time ago. Where we use up enormous amounts of console time. On these sorts of matters. And there's a process we follow. And I think that's what we need to do. And I think that's what we need to do. I think the committee at the moment is chewing on it and can continue to chew on it if you so wish. But we also have a number of things we need to do related to by laws that we need to get to quickly and start working on. So. You could discuss this, I guess, with the council president. I could discuss it with her. I'm not eager to put this on the agenda and just have a free for all discussion. But. That's just my personal. So I'm going to do something people hate. Maybe a. A move to table. This item. Indefinitely. Well, I'll second that just to get some discussion. Could you speak to your motion? So yeah, we are at a crossroads where we don't have a. Good. There's no consensus. So there's really no vote. And I also. I think we're also at a point where. Committees are starting to including CRC right now is starting to. Well, gets processed right now for the upcoming appointments. That happen. And interviews that'll happen in about two, two and a half months. And so it's getting a bit late. To actually. If it goes to the council, even without a consensus. To do anything for this upcoming process. And. We're missing a member. And so at this point, I think it's something that. We should just. Stop talking about. Until maybe. At a more reasonable time. I'm a. You're assuming you know how I would vote. No, I don't know. My questions. And I think the questions are important. And I think. It could come out two to two. It could come out three to one. It could come out four to four, whatever. I think that the committee has been working on this tabling. It is not appropriate. I think we could either. I think we could, I think we could, I think we could, I think we could vote. Or we can. Or we can.  I know I should. That out. Yeah. Thank you. Better. So anyway, I think that not saying anything. 10, 10. Tabling is so CRC can go forward. That doesn't feel like a good reason. Now, you know, we will also as a committee be making recommendations for finance. And so we will start the process as well. And we will be reviewing our process and it can change. It's not set in stone. We go through the whole thing. So.  And it will involve the four or the five of us in terms of reviewing the process and then sending out public notice. And then seeing who applies as candidates. We have no idea at the moment. So we will involve that our own process and reviewing it. CRC will be involved in their own process and reviewing it. The question before us is whether the council wants to establish an overarching. Policy on term limits alone right now is that as far as I can see is the only specific issue. Does it do we also want to get into the matter of, you know, statements of interest and, and CAFs and, and, you know, are the, we do our interviews differently than CRC. I think that we do them appropriately. I think it's a much more humane and much more successful approach, but that's open to debate. We'll debate that as a committee and maybe we'll decide to change our interview policy and do it differently. But right now we interview each person individually. And we don't have a set of questions. Each person gets one question and a follow-up. And so it's a little bit more free as well, but you may disagree and decide as a committee, you want to do it differently. That's the decision made by the committee. So we have some issues we have to resolve as a committee before we can go ahead with our process. CRC will do the same thing. I really think that that sending this to the council at this point is going to be a colossal waste of time. I agree. I agree. And I think we should, the way to prevent that is to acknowledge it. And from this perspective, this committee to table it and, and say we're just not in any place right now where we can make any kind of recommendation one way or the other. And I have no desire to simply turn to the council president and say, so just let the council talk about it for an hour or two, or two and a half. I'm not in that position. On the other hand, if this committee says yes, we want you to go to the council president and tell her that this needs to be put a request to be put on the agenda. I mean, each one of you individually can make that request. Apparently we have something in our agenda from Monday night. That was the result of three counselors making a request for an item you put on the agenda. So there are a lot of ways this can be handled. You can make the request individually. You can ask me to make it. We got it, George. Well, then what do you want me to do? I mean, the motion right now is to table. I think that that makes sense given the situation we're in, but. We're tabling it for now as long as we know that it may come back. I agree about not wasting council time and that will be what happens. It will be. Pat, help me with coming back and Darcy can help me here too. And maybe, maybe Darcy, the fifth member of our committee may want to weigh in here when it does come back. I think it needs to have some more specific form. Is it just about term limits? And if it is, then make a proposal. Put a proposal in writing and that we can actually look at and discuss. That's what I would ask if we do table it and it does come back. If we don't table it, I probably still would ask for that, but it's going to eat up a lot of time. For us, let alone for the council. So. Motion has been made and seconded Darcy to handle. Yeah, I guess I. Don't understand why we would specifically make a motion to table this. When we haven't. I don't know why we wouldn't just send a report to the council because we had a discussion. We didn't have a consensus. That would be it. And that we voted to table it. And that we voted to table it or not. But yeah. Yeah. I think that it. I don't understand why we would do that. I think we're trying to clear off the, we have a lot of work to do. And I want to stop this discussion very soon because we really have to get to the bylaws. So. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We really need to turn to it. I'm talking, George. Sorry, go ahead. I guess I, I'm wondering why, why we would do this. Why. If we, if we move to table it. Are we suggesting that the council table it. Or just that we table it. And I personally think this is one of the most important issues. And I think it's a very important issue. And I think it's a very important issue. And I think it's a very important issue. And I think it's a very important issue. So, you know, because it goes to, to democracy, it goes to the, to the voice of the minority. And. In democracy. Excuse me. I'm sorry. You know, I find to be like completely silencing. Of the minority. That's what it is. Okay. We're going to stop talking about this. Maybe. The difference between tabling and just sending a report off, sending a report off without a motion seems to imply that it still might be ready for council discussion. And this is frankly, I don't believe ready for council discussion. There's no proposal on the table that we could even vote on. None of that. And so you can put a report, but if you can put a report with and the committee tabled it, it recommends that the committee has recognized or it reports that the committee has recognized that. It's a potentially an important issue. That is not right for full council discussion. But that the committee is not necessarily done with, but is done with for the time being is sort of postponing any further discussion for a while. That doesn't mean at any future meeting, someone can't move to. Lift from the table this particular issue. And if that gets in a committee three votes, it's, it's then back for discussion, but it sort of puts a pause on everything to say. It's, it's not done. The committee's not done, but the committee's going to take a break from it and formalizes that break. This I believe has formally been referred to us through all of that weird referral things that happened after the last meeting. Retreat or something. I don't know. Which means the council in theory cannot take it up without a separate motion under Robert's rules to remove the issue from the committee. Completely. It is sitting in this committee until we are complete with it under Robert's rules. That's what a referral to a committee does. The council can't take it up until it's out of the committee or the council makes a motion to. Remove that matter from the committee. So. So the council couldn't take it up if we table it. Or if we haven't actually had an action. And so this is one way to finalize something to say, here's our current action on this to be able for George to report that out in a committee report. All right. Any further discussion? We have a motion. It's been seconded. Darcy. So the manager was saying that if we voted for this. This would prevent the council from taking it out. Temporarily. The council's currently prevented from taking it up on its own unless we remove, unless we. Report back to the council with that specific. Unless we're finished with the item. So. It means the council can't take it up either. So at this key time when the planning board is going to be looking at new. New members. We won't be able to change the rules. Unless we have a different motion. Well, why don't we just come up with, since I would like to have a separate proposal and I was sort of assuming that we could just take the language. Of OCA or the town manager's handbook or. Or even GOL and use the language that we already have in those three places. If we need a separate proposal, then that's pretty easy to get since we have the language in three places. Except it appears that. Not ever that this committee hasn't reached consensus that they would be willing to even recommend that language. It also seems to me. Important. I would like to table it. And as always, anything you decide has its own risks. But I think that Sarah, who has advocated very strongly for a certain kinds of positions and has worked diligently on OCA. I would love to have her. Have an opportunity to participate. I know she's not here. Today. And you know, that's the luck of the draw. But tabling it gives a chance to hear. Her perspective and her voice, which I value. And as Mandy has pointed out, and many correct me if I'm mistaken, this can come back to discussion at any time by someone making a motion to bring it off the table. And they would need three votes to do that. Any further discussion. We're going to proceed directly to vote this time. I'm going to start with Pat. We're voting to table it. I. Okay. The chair was a yes. Darcy. No. Mandy. I. So the vote is three in favor, one opposed and one absent. This motion has been tabled. And I will notify the council of that in my report. I'll try to capture some of the argument that there's been presented. Previously. The best of my ability. And so let us move on then. To the next item. Which is item four, which is not going to be discussed. I just want to. Mention. I did have a conversation with. Lynn. And she has spoken with the town manager. He is okay with that. He sees that as a reasonable way for a council to proceed. And no problem with that idea. And he apparently is okay with a December. Date for evaluation. So moving away from a summertime. Period of evaluation. To a December date. So. Again, this is something that we'll have to come back to us. And hopefully Paul will be present. For the discussion. But I'm, I'm talking with Lynn about. When this can be brought back to us. But that's the latest update I have. He is okay with a December evaluation date. And he sees no problem with two year goals. And that's all the news I have. Okay. I want to turn to bylaws future consideration. I want to put up on the screen. The table of bylaws with two documents. I'd like to use this morning. Mandy has sent us an excellent document that I'm going to turn to in a few minutes that gives us the update of where she's at. And I want to go through that with you. For the next, hopefully half hour to 40 minutes at the most. As much as our energies will allow. Because we really do need to proceed on these. I've had some difficulties getting responses from town hall. And we'll talk about that briefly and any recommendations you have from me as to what to do about that would be welcome. So I'm going to. Hang on for a second here. Share this to the audience. Okay. Are you able to see that? No, I see each of the little documents. I don't see any document. So it's not showing you that document. I don't know what you clicked on, honey. That's all right. I'm going to stop sharing for a moment. I'm going to open that document. It's in a folder. And then I'm going to try again. And then I'm going to try again. Bear with me. This is it. Yeah. Okay. You should be able to see that. Thank you. That works. Yeah. And we move this over. Is that large enough for you to see? Yeah. All right. So we're going to go through these one by one. Turns out that minor at the top and Mandy's come next. And when we get to Mandy's, we'll go to Mandy's document and we'll look at specific documents. This is a problematic one. I sent these bylaws to call back in January. I sent another. Email reminding him of him of that. And now I've sent him yet another email. Just recently reminding him of that. And I need the human rights director to review them. And to weigh in. So I am stuck here. I don't know what to do. I don't know what to do. I don't know what to do. I don't know what to do. I don't know what to do. So I am stuck here. I don't know what to do. Maybe I can reach out to Lynn. Maybe I just have to call Paul, but I've sent him repeated emails and I understand he's got an enormous amount on his plate. But at the moment I'm stuck on this particular bylaw. I need the HR director to weigh in. We have a new HR director, relatively new. So there may also be issues there, but that's where I am at the moment with this particular item. So I'm going to send out twice and with reminders twice. No action. This one, we did get a response. I think I've shared with you already. There's no problem with the. Document in terms of illegal concerns. It's been registered. It's been signed. That has been taken care of Nate Malloy assures us of all of that. Where I have a question and I'm not sure Pat can help with this. Maybe someone else from the old bylaw review committee. The language as you can see in the far left column. Is somewhat vague. There were some other recommendations. Okay. Reinstate the original language of the bylaw. Need to do compare. So I'm going to need some guidance from the old bylaw review committee or something. As to what it is that they are asking us to do. The legal part of it has been taken care of. It is registered as a trust. It's been signed and filed. And apparently. Actually, what does it say? The declaration of trust must be filed after registered deeds. Whenever the trust acquires any interest in property. So it's not something that's done once it's done only when there's, so that's apparently well understood by the trust and understood by planning. So that is covered as far as I can tell from my emails back and forth. But I do not know what to do with the three. I don't know what to do with the three. I don't know what to do with the three. I don't know what to do with the three documents here. I just don't, I'm going to need help. And so again, either now or after the meeting. If Pat or one of you can suggest who I can reach out to. I can go back and look at my notes, but the recommendation thing that seems so vague. I can't believe it. I do believe now. The recommendation that the affordable housing trust submit an original language. I don't know what to do. I can't, I can't do it. I can't do it. Pardon me. Thank you. Pat, that may very well be true. I just need to confirm that with John. I can do that. Good. Yeah. I reinstate the original language to compare with the old by law. The old by law had the original language. So. I'm sorry. I can't do more than that. So anyone that I could. So I'm going to just. I could talk to Bob Ritchie. I can do that. Pat, there's no problem. John. He'll know. Bob Ritchie. Yeah, he's great. Yeah. Okay. I'll reach out to Bob and I will check with John. And that one then should be fine. Unless I hear something otherwise. The third item I had to do with licensing permits. Again, I contacted Paul with the request for legal review. I've heard nothing. I reminded him I heard nothing and now I sent him yet another. And with the bylaw with request for legal review. And I still have heard nothing. So that's where we're at there. Just stuck. And I really don't know what to do. I don't meet with Paul. I don't see him personally. I only deal with him by email. And on rare occasions, I call him, but I try not to bother him. So maybe. If Lynn were here, I could ask. So maybe I'll reach out to Lynn and ask for her advice, but I'm stuck here. I don't know what to do. You could, you could also, I mean, if there's something specific about town services. You could. Ask me to bring it up in my meetings. All about. So, I mean, if it's somehow related. I don't think it is thirsty. I appreciate that. That's an awkward. Yeah, I don't. Yeah. I prefer this be done the normal way. Which is that he gets back to me and just says, it's been sent off or I'm waiting. Or, you know, don't bother the HR director for the next three months. She's swamped. I just don't know. I have heard nothing. So I'll continue to try and find answers. And if anybody has a way of getting answers, I'd like them to reach out to me. But I'm stuck with those two. And I will reach out to Bob and I'll reach out to John. I think that's where we are for the first three. Good. At least I have two things I can do related to those. Mandy, I'm going to stop sharing the screen. Now, or actually I can also put your document up. Maybe that's the easiest way. If you'll bear with me for a second. Let's see if that will. Let me just. Take me just a moment. I'm going to save that. I don't want to lose it. And so I have Mandy's memo. And I'm going to share that with you. So this is the memo she sent us. And she's an unusual, thorough and careful way is taking us through this. So Mandy, I'm going to let you. Take us through this and then suggest what next steps. If any are needed. Start with 315 activities and amusements. Yeah.  I'm going to share that with you. So this is the memo she sent us. And she's an unusual, thorough and careful way is taking us through this. And she's an unusual, thorough and careful way is taking us through this. And she's an unusual, thorough and careful way is taking us through this. You guys can all read. So it, we've got the language. The language was simple. The by law review committee said, we needed to decide on a penalty amount, but there was a different priority that said. That, that one, the by law review committee said, do we even need it? So that's what I sent off to the manager. Ask the chief about penalty amounts and everything. And you can see the chief's response. He doesn't remember making that response to the by law review committee, but at the same time. He's not against getting rid of it. But he also says the current fine, which is $200, even in a non-criminal manner. Is a deterrent to actually having. Law enforcement use the by law. So based on that, we need to decide, I think as a committee, whether our recommendation is to. Recommend that the council lower the penalty amount. Or recommend that the council rescind the by law. I don't know whether you want me to go on or whether we just want to. I like you to, I'd like to do with each one of these to the point where. We have a sense of where we're going to go next. So I'd like you to continue if you would. Yep. So that's that one. Those are the two things we have to decide one or the other or both, I guess. Okay. The next one is littering and illegal dumping. This is one where the current plan is sort of wait and see. I'm sorry. I was going to actually, I wasn't clear. I feel like we should, we should make a decision on three, one, five. Okay. Go on to the next one. Sorry. It's okay. Do you have a recommendation or a personal preference on this? I mean, I think I recommend getting rid of it, but that's just my own personal preference. You know, part of that is the. You know, I'm not going to go into the final size of the fine, right? But the other part is it just seems no, no person shall play ball. I mean, in the street seems to make sense, right? But the second sentence is the one that I have the bigger problem with, which is no person while playing ball or an engaging in an amusement activity in a park or common shall interfere with another event. I feel like there's probably state laws that, you know, I'm not going to go into the final size of the fine. I'm not going to go into the final size of the fine. I'm not going to go into the final size of the fine. I'm not going to go into the final size of the fine. Even if it's not right now, if we lowered the amount, it might be able to be abused to. So this is where I don't, you know, I trust that most of our police officers, if not all would never abuse this, but I fear that. It has the potential. Yeah. Moving on. I'm not a passing man, even though I don't believe our officers would do so. But if the town folk. Didn't like something going on and could call the officers to respond to something like this. In that sense, it could also be abused, not necessarily by the officers. by-laws too, to get officer response to everything. That this is one that concerns me that it could be used in a similar manner. Well, let's look at it again, Mandy. Again, just raise your hand or just speak up. But I can understand, I mean, the chief thinks that it's a useful tool to have. For instance, you say reserved some space in a park and a group of kids, you know, unbeknownst to you and unbeknownst to them that you've reserved it have decided to play a baseball game right where you have your reserved space. And you asked them to leave and they said, well, we got here first. And you said, but I have a reservation and that's how the system works. And they just for whatever reason, shrug their shoulders and continue to play. You don't have much recourse. This allows you to call up the police and say, look, here's our reservation. We paid for this space or whatever. Clearly these people are preventing us from using it. And would you please ask them to leave? So I think there is a place for this. This kind of thing does happen. And it's specific to playing ball or engaging in any amusement or activity in any park or common of this town that interferes with another event or activity already in progress or previously reserved. So I guess it's designed, if there is a conflict the officer's gonna have to resolve it. And again, we have to trust their judgment. I'm not so much worried about abuse. I am worried about taking it out and removing a very useful tool where the police officer can say, look, there's technically a bylaw here. You can get fine X dollars.  If you refuse, then I'm gonna have to take another step. So it seems like a useful tool to have the penalty perhaps could be lessened. But I guess I'm not so much worried about abuse since this is dealing with basically, common space where there's a conflict between two parties. Thoughts of the rest of you on this, Darcy. I wouldn't have any problem with getting rid of this whole thing. So no person shall play ball or similar amusement in any street seems like we, in my neighborhood, everybody plays in the street all the time. Everybody puts their basketball nets right on the street. And it's, you know, people take walks with their basketball so they can shoot in every hoop that they pass.  And I guess I feel like if the police can be called to come and deal with a situation in a park and the fine is not really that meaningful as far as actually preventing that from happening. I guess I feel like it's a little overzealous to have this exist in the first place. Other thoughts? Yeah, well, I feel like it's open to abuse. Both of them are open to abuse. We've had young Bipark people playing ball in their own yard and their neighbors calling the police and the police arriving. We've had all kinds of things. So this needs to be gotten rid of. Other thoughts? So I understand George's desire to keep it as a potential option. But I think when you see Chief Livingstone's response, he says he can't even, he can't say if he's even heard of anyone being written up for this by-law. So it's clearly not the one being used. But also the playing ball in a street, well, there's already state laws about impeding traffic. And as Darcy says, many kids play in streets, many adults play in streets because that's where you've got your pavement, right? You're not impeding traffic. And so the problem shouldn't be playing in streets. The problem should be impeding traffic. And there's already state laws about that. And I would say similarly for this, what you described in a previous reservation and all there's disorderly conduct, there's state issues that if it really becomes a problem, there's other enforcement tools that don't, can be used that this one doesn't need to be on the box for, I just feel like. It's just almost an overkill in a sense. There are conflicts in our parks and commons occasionally. And I'm not saying that this would, that wouldn't necessarily resolve them, but it does give the officers a tool to use to try and resolve them in a way. It does seem to me though, George, if there is a concert on the common, the South Common is usually where they are.  And who's going to start a baseball game? And if they did, they could be asked politely to leave. And if they didn't, I guess you could call the police. I don't see where this is necessary. So can I make a motion? Sure, please go ahead. I'm going to move to recommend the council rescind bylaw 3.15 activities and amusements. Second. Second by? Thank you, Angela. Thank you. Thank you. I guess it should be general bylaw 3.15. Okay. And the arguments are essentially that potential for abuse. It's not in use. Not in use. Not use, number one. Now fine, I just, right, not in use. Fine is excessive. And then potential for abuse. There's other mechanisms for, if things become a problems for dealing with issues. Right. So other mechanisms to deal with? Potential problems. With potential problems. All right. And the arguments for basically would be the chief would like to keep it because it's a good tool to have on hand. And I know from hearsay. I was going to say the chief actually says this one certainly applies and I would support removing it. Yeah. Read the last sentence, George. I guess I'm reading bullet point two, but so that later he changed his mind. Response from chief Livingstone. I don't ever recall making a comment about it being a good tool as I can. Oh, I'm sorry. I remember some discussion blah, blah, blah in the end if the council is looking to get rid of the bylaws that are just plain not necessary or not enforced, this is one certainly applies and I would support that. Thank you very much. I apologize. I'm going to take a very, very quick break. I just want you to know, but I will be right back. All right. Okay. Quick, let's vote while Pat is away. Thank you, Madya. I completely misread that. I did read this actually, but it was a while ago and a few things have happened since I read it. Good. The only reason really to do it would be my somewhat weak argument that these kinds of conflicts do occur, but the chief himself has said that, you know, this right. So there really isn't a particularly strong reason to keep it and some good reasons to get rid of it. Good. All right. I'll get a moment to catch a breath. Anyone else need to take a break? We're, what time is it? It is almost noon. I hope to get through at least Mandy's today and then we'll look ahead. We're going to be able to say we've made progress. Well, we, I appreciate it, Mandy. Thank you, but we really do need to make progress. So I'll be happy to see something show up at a council meeting. Exactly. No, it's true. It would be nice to actually have something to recommend. And I don't really know. I'm really at which end in terms of getting answer from town hall. I understand they have a 50,000 things to do and this is not very sexy and really, but I just don't know what to do. I sent that email and you saw Paul respond. So I don't know what's up. Yeah. I don't want to speculate, though I do in the darker moments when I'm, you know, you know, it just doesn't like me anymore. That kind of thing.  I know, but so I don't know. I'm assuming it's just in the world of priorities. These are probably pretty far down the list. We're just running out of time. We're supposed to, we want to get through this in March and we kind of put it off and put it off or we've been waiting actually for months. Okay, still missing. We do have a quorum. We could vote and then just pass vote when she gets back. Okay. Well, how can we do this legally? We vote. By the time we get to her. Well, we do need her to be present for the next presentation. So we'll just have to wait. I'm sorry. So actually I can look at your steps based. Well, I can put this on the screen. Okay, Pat, you're back. We're done with discussion. We have an issue for us to recommend to the council that bylaw, general bylaw 3.15 be rescinded in its entirety. I'm going to go mean it to a vote. I'm going to start with Darcy. Yes. And Mandy. Aye. And the chair is a yes and Pat. Aye. So the vote is for zero to make this recommendation to the council with one councilor absent. All right, Mandy, 3.16 littering and illegal dumping. So this one is one that is not ready for any, it's sort of in a wait and see. This one, there were a lot of questions from the bylaw review committee on, let me get to the right side, on clarifying what should be added or what might not want to be added in terms of refer for whether we should broaden what places in town can't have a penalty for littering and illegal dumping. And so the response was from Dave Zomek that there's some merit to including conservation land and everything. And you can see that response. They also recommended, maybe it should go to the conservation commission. And then there was a question about whether it should also go to the agricultural commission because of APR land. And so right now it is sitting at both, well, in theory, it has been referred to both conservation and agricultural. I have not followed up with Dave Zomek on those to see whether, where it stands there, but we don't at this point have any, we're on a wait and see. Okay, so it's now in the hands of ag and conservation and we're waiting to see what they're gonna do with it, what recommendations they have to make. Once they make them, they come back to us and then we can proceed. All right. Any other thoughts, comments about that? All right. And I can follow up with that, that Dave Zomek on where ag, com and concom stand on this one. Whether or not. Good. 3.26 nuisance house penalties for violation of the nuisance house bylaw 3.26. So this one, the question from bylaw review committee was basically definitions of alcoholic beverages and owner of record. And so I asked that it be referred to the town attorney for that and you can see the town attorney's response to that. And so there, and then there was a question on non-criminal disposition in general too. And so you've got the town attorney's response. Next step is there, because of the town attorney's response, I don't believe there's any action on the definition of alcoholic beverages needed. And we need to, as a committee review and recommend on the attorney's recommendation regarding the definition of owner of record, she had some recommendations on changing that definition. And so that would be whether we can do that as a committee ourselves or whether it needs to go to a different town committee. I assume that might be TSO, but I'm not sure, but we were also referred to deal with these bylaws. So I think it would be within our jurisdiction to say we're just dealing with it. And if council has an objection, they can always refer to TSO and say, well, we want TSO to weigh in, but yes, I think we should probably take it. And do you think this is something we can deal with today or should we make this an item for the next agenda that people review the attorney's comments and be prepared to discuss what your thoughts are on that? I would leave that to the other members. Lots of the other members. Do you want to deal with this now or do you want to come back to it at the next meeting? 3.26, specific to the attorney's recommendations and what we want to deal with them. I think I, wait. I'm sorry? I think I would like to add it to the next agenda. Okay, so 3.26 next agenda. This particular. I mean, that's fine. Okay. All right. Very good. And Mandy, that's it for the memo, correct? Yep. Okay. All right. So we're now going to go back to the other document. I'll share my screen, hopefully. Look, back here. Can you all see this? I'm scrolling. The next two items. So we're going to come back to 3.26 next meeting. 3.31. And these are items that Andy took on. And he was dealing with Mr. Zomek and we at the moment are stuck there. And those are 3.31 and 3.46. 4.6, that is correct. And I don't really think there's much Andy can do for us at this point. And I guess it would be really up to me to follow up with Zomek and see where we stand. I have some emails from him that Andy has sent me. So I can review those. I was going to say, George, since I'll be following up with him on the agcom and concom referrals for the green and dumping. If you send me Andy's email, I can put them all into the same email. Okay. Dave only gets one email with everything organized. Good luck. All right. Send Andy's emails to you and then you're going to send to Zomek. This one is involving Andy and Rob Mora. And I assume this is his entry done, review and clarify language regarding responsible person. I may have to check this with Andy. And I'm not sure what the, could Andy help with this? I'm not sure what that is referring to.  And but I don't know. I'd have to read section L to see what is going on. That might be similar to what the town attorney already talked about in 3.16, the nuisance house one, 3.17 or whatever it is. Yeah, that nuisance house.  So maybe that's a reference. I don't know. I'd have to look. Right. So we would have to look at section L and the nuisance house legal review. But we can put this on the agenda for next time, 3.49. Okay. Next item, 3.50, zero energy town buildings, quick terminology clarification. Darcy, this is something I sent off to you. I don't know if you've had a chance to think about or look at it or if you have any thoughts. Yeah. I guess I just need to I have already consulted at an earlier point before I was on GOL members of the zero energy task force. And they didn't have any problem with the issue around the definitions. They agreed that there was a problem there, but I just wanted to double check that weren't other recommendations of the bylaw review committee other than that. I sent a question to you and I can't remember what it was, George. Yeah. I think that's true of this. Darcy, someone's going to need to clarify the language. And the question is, who can do that? Yeah. Yeah. No, I just, I guess I had had to, you know, a lot of the problem around these questions is figuring out what the original language was that was being proposed to be changed rather than seeing the change proposal. So, yeah, just having the relevant documents to be able to say what are you able to access them or you need help finding them? Do we have it in our GOL documents? The original, like the... I don't think so. So I can look to find out. You need the original... The bylaw committee recommendations, right? Right. That would be like red lines so that you could see what they were proposing. Yes. And I'm sure it exists somewhere. Yes, I agree with you. That's to where I'm not sure. Need red line bylaw committee review recs. Because you want to compare their suggested changes and have the people who actually understand this look at it and see if they're happy with it. Yeah. And I believe they will be. I just, you know, it would be like to have it. But I'm... All right. So I need to find that red line document and get it to Darson for 3.50. I would be good if we had it in general, right? For this whole exercise. Absolutely. And that's... May very well have it, but I need to find it. So that would be the other thing. Okay. Good. Thank you. We're now into areas that I have not had a chance to do anything about. So I'm not sure. I think I need to reach out to the personnel board. So there's a larger conversation around exempting library. This one seems to be a bit complicated. And not quite sure how one approaches the personnel board, except through Paul. The questions seem fairly specific and seem like they could be answered. Though discussion may get complicated, but it seems like it's a discussion that would have to be held by the personnel board. And then they would have to get back to us. So I would suggest that... And I'm hoping the suggestions here that in addition to all the other things that I've been sending Paul, I would have to reach out to Paul. And the chair of the personnel board? Yeah. I mean, the question for me is just to go directly to them and bypass Paul. But I don't think that's a good idea. But I think that's a good suggestion, that they should be. I could copy them. I guess that's a good strategy. Just send the message to Paul and copy the chair of the personnel board. All right. Again, similar problem. This involves human rights director and human rights commission. It seems to be a big... I always don't like words like big substantive discussion. It wants this bylaw revisited to clarify the roles of human rights commission, human rights director. Again, it sounds like reaching out to Paul and copying the head of the human rights... Excuse me, copying human rights director. All right. We have two items for Lynn. I'm not going to... I can reach out to her individually and see if she's made any progress. And then we have a couple of items involving Pat. And Pat, I don't know where you are with these. If you want to just talk about them briefly or what help you might need. Go ahead. The EPS phone thing right now, I'm totally blanking on, but I believe that the deferment policy, what making that consistent would not be a problem, but I do need to go back and I apologize. I wonder if it's useful. What Maddie does nicely, she puts the language of the bylaw. I'm going to, if you give me time, not today, but meeting, I will have it set up with that. It's a very easy system to follow. So I understand it's a model and it's a good one. So thank you for that. I do apologize because I know I did some work on this and I'm not getting anywhere. Go ahead. I was just looking at the comments here about deferment. We modified, did, did we actually modify single use to remove deferment? There's no deferment anymore. I don't think it's going to change even more because of, if we're going to consistent, it might just be a removal. I believe it is actually. Okay. Did I hear you mentioning the North Hampton bylaw? No, I did. You did not. Oh, because they just, they just passed one to maybe worth just looking at theirs to see. Well, I think the only issue is deferment and I think that. Yeah, I mean, the other things here are not to include administrative section and. Capitalized defined terms. Exactly. So if we have this in front of us next time, I think. And then Pat, we can just go through it with you. I don't think there's, you know, just having it physically present. With this. That would be great. Okay. So that 3.27. Have it at the next meeting. Great. Okay. Open burning. One of the things is I did consult with Tim. Let me pull up his. Email. Hang on one second. Basically. He's saying that fire pits and chimineas are covered by state outdoor open burning law. And that it's not necessary to put it in the bylaw. However, my experience since I started looking at this, it was an Amherst neighbors. A series of things about I want to put out a fire pit. What do I have to do? So it is my recommendation that we. Lift from the state law the exact things about fire pits and chimineas. And put those in the bylaw. So someone is going to look there before they look at chapter, something or other, something or other. And even if the chapter, you know, Mass General Law chapter inverse is there. We're still making it harder than just looking at the town website at the bylaw and responding. So I would like to, I would like to work that up. And put it together and bring it back for the next time. Okay. Do we know what the goals are? What are the state rules? In, you know, I'd have to go online to the, in the Mass General Laws. Sure. I have a recommendation Pat is to take them pretty much or take them. Yeah. And just insert them in. Right. Just insert the, that it's fire pits, chimineas. What, what are the things? And the chief's thought is, And the chief's thought is it's already covered by state bylaw, but you are law, but your thought is, let's, let's just help the residents. Right. And because the bylaw works as it is. Our bill all works as it is. But after seeing this ongoing days of conversations around fire pits and stuff in Amherst neighbors. It's not working. I mean, it works for the chief, but it doesn't work. For residents. Good. So that would be my recommendation on that. And. Yeah. Let me get into this and look at the next one. Junk vehicles. Pat, you got all the winners here. Fire pits, junk vehicles. And. And phone. Any thoughts on this one?  Right. And so one of the things is what's the different. And I asked this of the chief. And I, I. What's the difference between a camper that's been dumped there. And a camper that is on someone's property. Parked in their driveway. And that's not a junked vehicle. So it really does have to not be. Driveable, workable, et cetera. Oh, and also in terms of. The recreational vehicle thing that's kind of. Zipped up in there. It's mixed in. I wish I had, I apologize. I don't have a license. I don't have a license. I don't have a license. I don't have a license. So that's kind of. Zipped up in there. It's mixed in. I wish I had, I apologize. I don't have my notes. That's okay. But your thought is you have some notes on this. Yeah, I have quite, yeah. Scott believes that the. Recreational vehicle thing works. And I've been. And so he would not change it. And what would constitute its use within 300. Within 300 feet, which is kind of a football field, but he's saying that gives them leeway. To respond to a neighbor's complaint. Of a recreational vehicle being used. So there is a complication of the two things here. And again, I will, I, I do promise. Do you think that next meeting you could take us through two, two, seven, three, eight and four, two. Yeah. Okay. All right. Then you're on vehicle to make a decision, I believe. Good. That'd be great. Okay. Darcy, please. I, I just want to correct what I, what I just said. I, I just Google the DEP regs and they actually say open burning must be done between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. But that's open burning versus having a fire pit or. Yeah. So I looked it up because I was curious and you. So, so our, our open burning as you require a permit and this says. It says, state law is you may 18 years or older may without a permit set, maintain or increase a reasonable fire for the purpose of cooking upon various types of land. So in technically, it has to be for the purpose of cooking. As long as it's within, what does it say? And it has to be. Well, it does seem that's interesting to me. But I don't see it in, I don't see why it has to be related to cooking because I sit outside with my fire pit because of COVID. Not now, but I was, and I will again. You're cooking your s'more on it, Pat. That's true.  So we're going to stop this. We can't have any more fun. So the remainder, let me just take a quick scans here. We're almost done with the list. So why don't we, Mandy, this next item three, four, four, what's your, what's your thought here? We had originally thought of that it would be rescinded when we did the TIF bylaw, but they're different. So it remains. Way Mandy that we could combine, could we add what I don't remember right now specifically what's different. And is there a way of bringing them together so we don't have to have two on the books. I think they're slightly different. I think the one says we can have TIFs and the other one says. Something else. So. Is what the contract requirements are. And the other one is we're allowed to enter. I would just leave it alone. Yay. No, I'm serious. So your suggestion, Mandy, is that we not. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We leave, we leave. Done with 3.44 and we make no recommendation on it. So I guess that could be a, a motion to recommend the council do nothing. Yeah. There's a reason it's there and we should leave it alone. Okay. Does someone want to make a motion to that effect? So moved. So moving to. Report to the council that. I'm sorry. Just want to know what the motion is. The motion is that we recommend the council. Not. Modify. For tax increment finance, but, but. Do not revive, but retain. Yeah. But to retain. Without revision. Retain without revision. Okay. So the motion is to not recommend to the council that we not modify 3.44, but retain without revision. And a second. Second. Thank you, Mandy. Any further discussion. No. Okay. I don't see anybody at the moment. So I'm just going to, you're going to have to yell out and somebody just did. I think it was bad actually. So I'm going to go to a vote. Unless someone objects. Pat. Hi. Darcy. Yes. Mandy. Hi. So we have four zero one abstain. To recommend to the council that we not modify 3.44, but retain without revision. The final item is for yours truly. And it's 3.48. And I have not looked at this in, in donkeys years. So maybe we'll just leave it for next time. Because we're almost out of time. And I think we've done an excellent job. So I'm going to just leave 3.48 for me to look at. And come back to you if I have any brilliant thoughts. But that gets us through at least once all the way through. This list of priorities. So I'm going to go ahead and move on to the next item. What I have. And actually we'll go to this in a moment when we talk about future agenda items. So. Let me see if. By my agenda here. We have a set of minutes that I am going to. Move that they'd be accepted. There's only one change to be made. My memory is Mandy made a motion. I had a chance to look at them. It was unclear to the note taker who did motion make a wise. And I'm pretty sure it was Mandy. Other than that, I thought they were fine. So I'm going to make a motion to accept the minutes. Including that slight emendation. Of. What is the date. They are March 3, 2021. Is there a second. We have a motion that's been seconded to accept the minutes of March 3rd, 2021 with that one. Any further discussion. Now hearing any, I'm going to move to vote the chairs. Yes. Mandy. Hi. Hi. Darcy. Yes. And one absent. So again, it's four zero with one absent. The minutes are accepted as amended. I have no items anticipated by the chair. 48 hours in advance. I can't see at the moment or I'm not smart enough to figure out how to see because I'm still sharing my screen. Because I'd like to keep this up for a moment. Can anyone see if we have any public present? We have one person present. All right. At this point in the meeting. Public is welcome to speak for up to three minutes. They need simply to acknowledge by raising their hand. And they could be brought into the meeting. And again, I'm going to need your help. Mandy. Can you see if someone has raised their hand? They have not yet. And they're just left. The meeting. Okay. Well, that's okay. So we have no public presence. So that takes care of. Public comment item nine. Discussed the future agenda items. Quickly. We do have, I have sent the storm water and I have sent the storm water and I have sent the storm water. And I have sent the storm water and I have sent the storm water. And I have sent the storm water. And I have sent the storm water. And I have sent the storm water. Quickly, we do have, I have sent the storm water and IDD. Bylaws to Paul. This George George. I'm sorry. Nothing. Okay. I've sent to buy laws that TSO just reviewed. To Paul for KP law review. I don't have the lawyers look at it first before we look at it. Is that acceptable? Good to me. Yeah, they've been sent off for legal review. I don't know when we'll get them back. I believe we need to act by June. So I will keep an eye on that. But I felt it was. Make sense to have them look at it before we did. Yeah, if we need to act by June with the two reading requirement, we need to have them probably out of GOL by. No, if it's going to KP law, they need to go out now. Well, they did. I mean, but again, and I just have to follow up. They were sent out immediately. To Paul. But as you know, I'm not been getting much response from him lately.  But they've been sent just for your, just so you know, and we could review them. I could put them on the agenda and we could look at them. In, in anticipation of the KP law review and then wait for that review to come back to us. And so we could put them on the agenda at some point next meeting or some subsequent meeting, even if we don't have KP law review. Sort of in anticipation. So that's an option. I don't think they should be on our agenda right now. But I, but I'm saying is that they need KP law needs to know. That we need them and we need them before June, because we won't get them. We should be done by mid April. Yeah. Yes. Okay. All right. That's time to do our job. Yeah, I think. Yeah. Good. So out by, we want them back by mid, mid April. And I can follow up with Paul. Good luck. I know. I mean, I think part of it is just, there's so much. And giving him a sense of priorities would be helpful. And maybe I just need to meet with him directly. That might be this, the answer. March. Yes. Darcy. So Lynn has said that the, the, the moratorium issue is going to be. Referred probably to GOL and that that will, I mean, I'm assuming that's probably going to need KP law. Input also. So. By law, Darcy. I'm sorry. Is it a zoning by law? Is it a by law though? Isn't it? But does it need legal review first? In order to. Planning board generally does a legal review. The planning department almost all the time. The planning department. So it has to go to planning board and CRC before it comes to GOL. Because hearings have to be held. Public hearings would have to be held on them. Good. So. All zoning bylaws require public hearings. Is it a bylaw though? Isn't it. But does it need legal review first. Or is it a bylaw? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I've been almost all the time has a, the. Joel Bard. Review the bylaws during before they're actually. Before they vote on a recommendation. Okay. Come to GOL having already had a legal review by the. Planning. The, the town attorney that deals with planning and zoning. Okay. So you think that it's going to be like simultaneously with the planning board? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if it has to be. Okay. I didn't know that because she said. She started out saying that. And then she changed it to GOL. Anyway, but. CRC. And the planning board would have to hold public hearings. Under state law. If it's a zoning bylaw change. Right. If it's a zoning bylaw change. I guess that wouldn't be relevant to GOL if it weren't done in GOL. So we don't have to talk about it then. All right. So what I'm trying to do briefly before we're done here is just give you a sense of what will be on the agenda for next time. And right now what I have are a set of. Bylaws for our review as we did today. And those bylaws are. I think that's three point four nine. And then three to three point two seven three point three eight and three point four two. The last three are Pat's. The others I think are either mine or Mandy's. And the format that I think is most useful. Is to have the actual language of the bylaw in front of us. And I will work on that. I will also work on getting a copy of the. Bylaw review committee's red lined. Version, which I know Darcy needs and we all need actually. So I will make that my, my task. But at the moment, what we're looking at is continued bylaw review. Today we actually got two of them off our plate, which is great. And hopefully next meeting we'll get a few more. And who knows, maybe that's all we'll have to do next time. Okay. That was a joke. Any new business. All right. So I am going to call this meeting up to an end and thank all of you for your hard work today. And we will meet again soon. You later. Take care guys. Thank you. Emily as always.