OK, we're now at the end of the conference. Thanks to everyone for attending. We've had a lot of challenges in the past year or so for obvious reasons. And last year, it was fully virtual. And I think there's been a big improvement this year to be able to do a mixed virtual and remote and then a hybrid session there at the end. A special thanks to the Linux Foundation folk who have put in a huge amount of effort to keep all of the infrastructure running. Jennifer, who's been here in the room and keeping things running. APPLAUSE Also Tom, who's been running all of the AV and IT. APPLAUSE And yeah, who is able to integrate BBB with James Bottomley's idea of integrating that, which seemed a bit crazy at the time. So we all hope to see this a more interactive type of hybrid event next year, both at plumbers. This is kind of a bit of a dry run for some of the plumbers folk, but also for the security summit. So we're hoping that next time if we have to have remote attendees or we may even just keep the option open in any case, because I think it's been more inclusive. So thanks to all the speakers, both remote and here, and I guess Fokker, who are still on this stream in Europe, already in the weekend, but I hope everyone has a good weekend. And I'm really glad we're able to still make this happen. I think there's been a lot of really good talk and talks and collaboration here, and it's good to see researchers coming in from colleges, as well as a variety of work going on out in the community and industry. So thanks also to the sponsors and the program committee who wade through the quite large number of proposals this year. So until next year, everyone, stay healthy.


In some cases, two is better than one. Just ask Kevin Hart. Being one of the richest men in comedy, he can afford to splurge on the places he calls home. Records show he recently dropped $7 million on a huge mansion right beside the even larger residence he already owns. Located in a low-key gated community just outside of Calabasas, Kevin's main mansion was custom-built to his liking back in 2018 and sits on 26 acres, while his new next-door purchase boasts a further 16 acres of land. Just wait till you see the mansions themselves. In these videos, we don't reveal any addresses, and even though I've done a house tour of my own place, please do not show up at any private residences because it's not safe for anyone. Kevin Hart is a stand-up comedian and an actor, and one of the wealthiest ones at that. Born and raised in Philly, he started his career by winning multiple amateur competitions, but these days, Kevin's made it to the big screen time and time again. At the time of this recording, he's amassed an impressive net worth of about $200 million, affording him his completely custom-estate in Calabasas and then some. Hey guys, it's Cara the Vampire Slayer back with another exclusive house tour here in Famous Entertainment, this one looking at where Kevin Hart calls home. We're trying to get to 500,000 subscribers on here, so if you're watching and you haven't subscribed yet, please do so. As always, hit me up on Instagram to chat, and now let's get into this video. Before we dive into Kevin's Calabasas spread, let's take a look at his former home. Located in the Mulholland Park area of Tarzana, California, the comedian snagged this home in 2012 for just under $2 million and lived there for seven years. The two-story mansion boasted over 6,500 square feet of living space along with seven bedrooms and seven baths throughout. The front foyer was grandly scaled with two winding staircases on either side, and nearby, there was a double-height living room complete with a floor-to-ceiling fireplace. The main floor of Kevin's former mansion also contained the fully-equipped kitchen, a spacious dining room with a large window and backyard views, plus a bonus room. Moving upstairs, most of the bedrooms are located here while Kevin's former master suite had its very own wing. The master had its own sleeping quarters, a fireplace, a sprawling attached bath, a walk-in closet, and a private balcony. Out back, the grounds offer a gorgeous pool and spa with fountain, and making the space ideal for entertaining, there's also a bart and grill. At the front of the estate, there are two garages opposite one another as well as a polished motor court. Unfortunately, there was a robbery here in 2016 while Kevin was away in Miami. The intruders made a way with half a million dollars worth of jewelry, watches, and clothes, seemingly getting past the two security gates. That incident no doubt affected Kevin's decision to sell. He let go of this Tarzan mansion for 2.75 million dollars. Kevin's current residence is located in a little known gated community just on the outskirts of Calabasas, California. He's given peaks in his home on Instagram over the years, but he has never fully revealed all of the details. His main estate was custom-built to his exact specifications and completed in 2018, but it was way back in 2015 that Kevin dropped 1.35 million dollars in the plot of land where it was constructed. Spanning 26 acres of land, the property is sprawling to say the lead. And according to building permits, the comedian began construction on his two-story mansion in April 2017. These days, his mansion is built in a Mediterranean meets contemporary style and spans 9,500 square feet of space. In addition to the main house, the luxury compound boasts two detached guest houses and multiple outdoor amenities from a playground to a swimming pool and much more. According to records, construction costs for the main house set Kevin back nearly 2 million dollars, and that doesn't include the pool, cabana, garage, and landscaping. In total, it would have cost him about 5 million dollars. Inside, we can see that Kevin has a stylish main living area with sleek double-height fireplace and light hardwood floors. The home also seems to have an open-plan layout as well as high ceilings. The star's garage spans over 900 square feet, along with a 250 square foot second-level pool house above it. While this structure cost Kevin around 170k to create, he's a car lover, so the purchase was definitely worth it. The hearts must love the outdoors too, at least at the comfort of their own home. The add-ons on the grounds are endless. Just look at that 800 square foot swimming pool. There's also a 100 square foot built-in spa located right in the center, costing Kevin $60,000 in total. The yard also boasts a 650 square foot open cabana that cost yet another 100k, and based on social media posts, that structure is actually an indoor-outdoor gym where Kevin and his wife work out. Not to mention, there's a grassy lawn and a full volleyball court on the property. In June 2021, Kevin added onto his massive custom mansion with the purchase of the home right next door for $7 million. Also located in the same gated community, this estate spans 16.3 acres, creating himself a sprawling 42-acre compound in total. This new property is mostly hillside, like Kevin's other one, and boasts a 9,300 square foot mansion with six beds and six baths throughout. The home was built in 2004 and includes large formal living and dining rooms, both of which have high ceilings, large picture windows, and oak hardwood flooring underfoot. The living room has a fireplace as well. Nearby, the kitchen in the mansion has been recently upgraded. Here, there are stone countertops and high-end viking appliances, including a massive industrial-sized fridge. Bonuses include a downstairs wine cellar and a separate breakfast room. The master suite in this crib is located downstairs, according to listing materials, and it attaches to a spa-style bath with courts, dual vanities, a soaking tub, and a glass shower. Out back, you'll find a resort-style yard with plenty of amenities. There is an infinity-edge swimming pool with a waterfall and a grotto, along with a built-in spa and terrace space surrounding it all to sunbathe and unwind. Elsewhere, there's a koi pond with its own waterfall, a full-size tennis court, plenty of grassy lawns, and stunning garden. If that's not enough, other lavish add-ons on the grounds include a covered patio with speakers and lounge area, a full barbecue station outdoor kitchen with pizza oven and fireplace, as well as a putting green. Not to mention, there are amazing views from the property of the surrounding hills. While it's unknown what Kevin has in store for this mansion, considering it's right next door to his current home, the possibilities are endless. He could even build his own mini village. Alright, so now we've taken a look at Kevin Hart's properties, including his latest add-on in Calabasas. After seeing his former Tarzana house, a glimpse of his current custom mansion, and the newest acquisition, did you have a favorite? What's your favorite feature at the new crib? I definitely love the swimming area out back. There's everything from a pool to a waterfall and even a grotto. I would feel like I was on vacation every day if I lived there. Be sure to let me know your thoughts on Kevin's mansions down in that comment section, or what you think the comedian is going to do with these two massive properties. Thanks for watching. Don't forget to follow me over on Instagram to chat, and I'll catch you all in the next one. Bye!


Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Once again, I'd like to welcome you again all of you to political science 303 Today is the fourth time we're meeting or the fifth time I forgot so so So this morning We will be continue with our discussion on democracy and democratization Last time you will remember. I hope you do remember that we've covered Some definitional aspects some conceptual aspects of democracy, you know what democracy was how did it evolve? Then we talked about democratization process of democratization And the three waves associated with the process of democratization starting from by about the mid 19th century ending by about the turn of the 21st century Then we did a quick introduction to the distinction between procedural approach to democracy on the one hand and the other one was Come on guys Outcomes very good. So so I'd like to emphasize this Here at this point in time in the course of the you know course in the sense that Scholars conceptualize democracy in two ways One one group of scholars conceptualize democracy as a set of procedures Which are basically rules Okay, rules of the game like institutions Okay, institutionalized stable regular Knowable therefore predictable rules Okay, as long as these rules exist. We do a check box we tick Every box and as long as all of these and at the same time So they coexist at the same time so Procedure number one and procedure number two and Procedure number three and procedure number four. It's never procedure number two or Procedure number three. No All of these should exist coexist at the same time. Okay, so so one set of scholars conceptualize democracy as a set of procedures the other scholars conceptualize democracy in terms of The outcomes of the political system We call these systems democratic these guys argue As long as This political system produces fairness This produce this political system leads to equality this political system Leads to or results in justice Okay, as long as these are These are all present These outcomes are ensured guaranteed. We do not really care about Whether those procedures exist or not. We just don't care these scholars argue It is as you can imagine way much easier to conceptualize operationalize and measure Procedures as opposed to Outcomes therefore most mainstream political scientists think in terms of the procedures Okay, therefore in comparative politics in that respect we generally look for whether these procedures exist and we build all kinds of Databases based on those procedures whether those procedures exist Okay So So we'll continue with the procedural approach We'll look at component procedures based on Schmitter and Carl's discussion in their Seminal article which was Written which was published in 1991 Tight with the title what democracy is and is not Then we'll talk about briefly about qualifiers of these procedures and what we call those regimes some With some deficient elements with some deficient Procedures what whatever we call those regimes And then we'll finally talk about Different models of democracy, you know Not conceptions, but different models of existing democracy Okay Let's continue like this We've covered all this and we were we just were starting off with Schmitter and Carl's procedural approach that is to say the rules and arrangements That need to exist in fact that need to coexist if We want our democracy to be stable. We want our democracy to endure Okay, and these procedures are Several in fact there are seven of these that I wish to highlight here Schmitter and Carl very famously defined democracy as a Modern well, they say modern political democracy is a system of governance is A system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens So rulers are held accountable for their actions by citizens in the public realm and these citizens are acting indirectly through Competition as well as cooperation of their elected representatives so so the rules the procedures the arrangements I Eat procedures here Start with the system of governance. What do we mean or what do they mean by system of governance? When they refer to system of governance, they refer to actually an institutionalized regime of governance Which represents an ensemble a collectivity of stable patterns Determining methods of access to public office so stable patterns institutionalized regimes institutionalized systems which determine How one gets to be Elected for public office They call the system or they represent they they they present the system as an institutionalized regime by institutionalization they mean patterns which are habitually know which are practiced Over and over again regularly practiced that is and which are accepted By majorities by most of the people living in that regime living under that regime living in that country Okay, so so this is a certain type of system of Governance, okay, that's that's procedure number one procedure number two Rulers what kind of rulers? Yes, there are rulers. They've always been rulers as long as there was one form of state or One form of hierarchy there were rulers, but in this Certain specific type of governance The rulers are held accountable They come to power by democratic norms they come to power through The workings the operation of democratic norms, okay, so rulers come to power They enjoy and they continue to enjoy office in accordance with preset principles i.e. democratic principles and They are democratically held accountable, so they're not Just accountable they're held Democratically accountable, okay, so there are rules and procedures for them to be accountable For their actions Okay, so there are norms rules That define how They will be held accountable and these rules and norms are defined democratically, okay a third procedure Public realm This pertains to the making the policy making or the norm making processes collective norm making collective policy making Collective decision-making and the public realm is basically the venue within which These norms are made Produced and reproduced these decisions are made produced and reproduced Okay, so all decisions There are binding and society All of these norms all of these decisions that are binding on society Are all made within the public realm Okay, it's a vague abstract concept But keep that in mind. It is one of the procedures that has to exist it is one of the elements of What makes a democracy and and all of these collective norm making there are rules for making these collective processes and They're all backed by state sanctions So they're institutionally backed by the state Through different sanctions by institutions. I mean the state here defines and enforces These procedures in the public realm another aspect of Modern political democracy and other elements another procedure of modern political democracy is Citizens an essential component here an essential element an essential in that respect One of the rules key rules of the game By citizens we mean by all native-born adults Who are eligible to participate in collective decision-making in the public realm and who in turn may be Voted for office and therefore become a ruler in this system of governance Okay, and All native-born adults Of course, there are age limits for participating in elections But there are no age limits to act as citizens in Civil society organizations in or participating in social movements, right? So so all native-born adults sometimes The native-born term becomes problematic because There is the element of or there are people who are Not necessarily native-born who have migrated to our system of governance, huh? who may be nationalized or naturalized who become citizens and who thus enjoy Political as well as social and economic rights Okay, so it doesn't have to be all native-born adults Please What if what happens if the citizens do not abide by the rules in that case There are state sanctions in the public realm because these collective decisions are made in the first place if a citizen is not abiding by the norms and the decisions and the rules which have previously been collectively made and You know in a legitimate and democratic way Then of course there will be some sanctions backed by the state Have been rejected has The referendum To make decisions What if there is apathy What if there is apathy in the system or what if well This should be allowed in a democratic system We'll talk about this in Three minutes, but so so so this is I mean a precursor to Institutions or procedures of competition and cooperation citizens may compete and Co-operate with one another through established means methods beyond elections so if You're the ruler You're democratically elected for a term of office of let's say four years You make a decision Then citizens should be able to Object to that decision In the interim of those four years within the duration of those four years So we'll talk about that, but just just give me three more minutes Okay, so we'll talk about that in more detail and well, I'll come back to this example Just wait, just wait, but but one of the one of the central procedures of democracy Yes elections should exist But but other aspects other elements other procedures should be existing too, but but before I continue with that Let me go back to the term citizen The concept citizen what used to be called citizens Of course it was limited to White male Well-see but in modern political democracies. This is no longer the case so The number of citizens Have been or has been expanding within a Populist a population that come that that live under that and under a given political regime So citizenship expands in time through time especially through the 20th century Starts from the mid 19th century or modern conceptions of citizenship Expanded all throughout the 20th century Now let me come back to Or come forward to other procedures One major element is competition Schmitter and Carl call this Elements and necessary evil for democracy it has to exist in a democracy This is contra to classic notions of democracy Which were based on direct? participation Leading to consensus so we do not seek Consensus in a modern political democracy Conflict is an essential structural component competition conflict these are all structural components of political regimes and In modern democracy there is even competition Within parties political parties not only among or between political parties. There is also competition within political parties, so By competition we refer to first and foremost of course elections, right? Elections should exist They are the sine qua non of democracy Without which democracy would not exist, right? It's an essential principle Or these elections are essential principles essential procedures set rules of the game institutionalized rules procedures within Modern political systems Elections should be fairly counted Well, I'm sorry fairly conducted and honestly counted Okay, so The fact that elections exist is not enough. They should be fairly Conducted Every political party that that goes into an election They have to be playing on a on an even level playing field and They should be honestly counted Okay, so so this is this is one major Elements within democracy or a competition element of democracy Schmitter and Carl Worn make two warnings here one of them is the fallacy of What they call? electionism the problem with elections is that Schmitter and Carl argue that Elections allow citizens to choose between highly aggregated alternatives offered by different political parties therefore They they emphasize that elections or in elections the running competing political parties offer packages package a by party Why package B by party Z package C by party V We choose between different parties For different packages So they argue that this agglomeration this aggregation Presents a problem because as a citizen you may want to pick and choose Between and among and within those alternatives You may wish to you know Cherepic two items from the manifesto the election manifesto of party a or policy package of party a another two of party B and still another one from party C's Election manifesto so so we have to be very careful with the problem the fallacy of electionism Schmitter and Carl argue another fallacy of electionism is the existence of elections And nothing else sometimes the literature refers to fallacy of electionism in that respect elections exist but no other principle or rules of the game or Procedures exist in a political system. That's not enough Schmitter and Carl warn us Another problem is Problem it's called the problem of majority rule When numbers meet intensities Schmitter and Carl Emphasize in the sense that when a stable and self perpetuating majority Regularly comes to power and Makes decisions Tyranny of majority very good. So when a Majority comes to power again and again and again then The problem of tyranny of majority the potential problem of tyranny of majority may emerge So Schmitter and Carl argue we have to be very careful with respect to Disemerging problem of tyranny of majority, please very good very good, so so When if and when we have tyranny of majority some minority or some minorities may get affected Adversely, okay may get hurt may get harmed. So Majority rule Schmitter and Carl Emphasize should be qualified Through different other elements Democratic elements such as Bill of Rights Constitutional provisions Constitutional guarantees civil rights and liberties which are ingrained in the constitutions checks and balances separation of powers federalism Okay, more decentralized systems of policymaking and you know policy formulation and In addition to those they also emphasize that Neocorporatism may exist we'll give examples of neocorporatist Policymaking decision-making when we talk about the German case for example meaning that we have a state here Okay in social policymaking for example the state comes together with labor and Capital and form a tripartite decision-making triangle and Make decisions all together in for example determining the level of minimum wages Okay, so so these elements should complement elections as a side Guarantee to all these elements These elements should exist in addition to this Consociationalism anyone who's heard of the term Consociationalism before Consociationalism We'll talk about this when we discuss life arts models of democracy, but it's it's most it's basically a Consensus-based system with multiple layers and multiple actors Okay involved in norm-making decision-making in the system of Governance in the public realm Okay, which in turn make rulers accountable democratically so so all of these systems all of these I'm sorry all of these elements Should be complimenting elections, but we know that elections Take place periodically Under normal circumstances, let's say we have elections in the year 2000 then we have elections in 2004 we have elections in 2008 we have elections in 2012 and 2016 okay This is let's say for general elections every four years Yes, the ruling political parties Who come to office enjoy office in the interim but within this in this period competition is Not ending competition continues in other forms competition continues through interest associations social movements civil society organizations and others therefore a accountability is Not only taking place at these critical junctures accountability has to exist all Throughout meaning what I what I want to emphasize here. This is also existing This is also a key element of of Schmitter and Carl's discussion What they emphasize is yes elections exist and every four years We held our rulers accountable we vote them Into office again, or we vote them out of office if and when We don't like them anymore But in the interim period We continue to hold them accountable in this public realm in the system of governance We hold our rulers accountable through the workings of interest associations through the workings of social movements through the workings of civil society Okay, so groups or a group or different groups of people With a more or less formal or informal set of goals coming together Making decisions together independent of the government and They wish to articulate their interests Okay, not only at critical junctures of election elections. I'm sorry, but also in other periods So elections are not enough so competition Does not take place only at elections Competition also takes place in or within interest associations or interest associations competing against one another interest associations competing against or objecting to ruling political parties of social movements coming together Making their case against the government or different social movements Confronting one another Okay, so competition exists Throughout competition should exist in a modern political democracy War in Schmidder and Karl. Okay, so so all of these should exist at the same time In order to complement elections citizens in this respect compete To influence policymaking during intervals between the elections so not only at Election one election after another but during the intervals in between the elections So so this is this is very important And And all and these interest associations social movements civil society actors they place some aspects of governance beyond the reach of Majorities so in a way this is a check or a balance against Tyranny majority Fallacy of electionism. Okay, so all of these Should exist co-exist at the same time. That's that's what they emphasize and that that's what they They take to be very important Another element another keep please yes Any Remember we talked about checks and balances Separation of powers. We'll we'll we'll talk about these in way much more detail This is I'm trying to basically go over some conceptual approaches got some conceptual elements, but we'll we'll see All of these with material evidence in each of the five cases that that we shall be discussing, but of course there are Bill of Rights Constitutional provisions Consolidationism Neocorporist decision-making procedures all of these are in fact Elements which protect democracies And also sometimes it doesn't mean anything So how do democratic systems protect themselves that's that's see it's all of these procedures if and when they Co-exist Okay, so all of these procedures if and when they coexist including others that I just mentioned as Long as they exist Simultaneously at the same time These political systems are supposed to endure Okay, but but mind you once again. This is one approach to conceptualizing democracy This is one version of Conceptualizing democracy. This is one group of scholars Which happens to be the mainstream? Which happens to represent the mainstream thinking in comparative political studies as long as these procedures exist at the same time and All of them existing at the same time Without any exception All of them co-existing without any exception These systems of governance we call Democracy this is the procedural approach other guys are saying hey We don't care about them. We find them useless Even if competition cooperation representative system of governance accountability exists They don't guarantee equality. They don't gala guarantee fairness. They don't bring about justice Okay, so So let me emphasize once again that there are two approaches to conceptualizing democracy Yes, within the procedural approach all of these should exist coexist But there is the other side of the debate Scholars who argue that hey these are you know Useless we just don't care about them what we care most is whether a system of governance guarantees those outcomes and that's it Regardless of these procedures regardless of the existing of existence of these procedures so so So in order to come back to your question once again These guys are saying the procedural approach Scholars or scholars who advocate the procedural approach who who conceptualized democracy from the procedural Approach or perspective argue that these should exist at the same time They all should be present. We we should all tick all these boxes If and when we don't we can't take one we don't call that system of political democracy or a modern political democracy Is that clear? That's that's very important. So all of these have to coexist Then comes cooperation Yes, there should be competition as the necessary evil in a modern political democracy, but there should also be cooperation cooperation Shubitra and Carl argue should exist and Citizens must cooperate in order to be able to compete So cooperation should exist For Honest and fair competition They should be able to cooperate Collectively mobilize collectively articulate their interests collectively express their needs in order to be able to compete against one another in Collectivities Okay, so citizens should be able to cooperate in institutions collective institutions such as political parties Interest associations civil society organizations social movements Political movements, okay, they should be able to come together Express their needs voice articulate their interests and freely mobilize and Be able to cooperate in all of these Institutions They should be able to make voluntarily Make collective decisions freely voluntarily make collective decisions independent of any institution which includes the state of course, okay, and Citizens should also be able to deliberate among themselves within civil society which are diverse units of social identity social interests Once again independent of the state For a civil society association organization to be and remain civil It should be independent It should be autonomous from the government, okay, and In this way civil society and all those forms of cooperation Including political parties social movements interest associations and all those represent intermediate levels of governance between the state and the individual so these are Intermediate levels of governance or instruments of governance between the state and the individual and And all of these are to ensure Restraining the arbitrariness or potential arbitrariness of state Institutions or rulers themselves so They should be able to participate in Not only policy-making but also conflict resolution Okay, so all of these should exist at the same time and And finally Representatives Who are these representatives these representatives in a modern political democracy are democratically chosen and They're held accountable by citizens in the public realm Okay, they're democratically chosen and they're held accountable by citizens in the public realm Channels of representation Schmidt or and Carl point to two major channels one is electoral as you can imagine, right elections they help represent Interests they help articulate needs they help voice Different voices and they are periodically Accountable I mean rulers the elected officials representatives are periodically accountable to citizens on the basis of territorial constituencies elections Whenever you go to the pole station ladies and gentlemen you remember that You reside In a district and you vote on the basis of that district huh, so so Constituencies are based on territoriality geography when you go to the polls Anyone who's ever participated in elections either as a Vote as being a voter like casting a vote or you know representing themselves in the class Anyone who's who's participated in elections here? No one Hey, come on guys all of you have or most of you have right so when you go to the polls those of you who reside at the residences whose official residence is The residences like like up here You vote for Chankaya the district of Chankaya, right those of you who Reside elsewhere in Ankara you vote for their own for your own districts Those of you or some of you may have to go back to their own cities Of where their official residence is and vote there so so so representatives in terms of challenge of representation Elections take place based on territorial constituencies and In addition to those territorial constituencies there is of course interest representation through interest associations Social movements civil society actors Which is Is a special kind of representation in addition to or as well as Constituent consider territorial constituencies You may be representing your functional interests. You may be representing your class interests You may be representing your ethnic interests or ethnic identities. You may be representing your Your your religious identities, okay, so all those should exist in a modern political democracy so just to conclude in a modern political democracy all of these Procedures Schmitter and Carl and others whose side with them. They should exist side by side with one another and all of these should coexist Meaning that they should be there as a as a Collectivity So we cannot say oh in this political system. We call this modern political democracy, but cooperation is impaired All of these should exist in high quality and They should they should be enduring they should be stable. They should be predictable within system a regular system of governance Any questions? I think I covered a lot in about 45 minutes So what we'll come back to this as we as we continue in the course, okay, so so if there will be questions You may be right raising When we study these five five different cases. So we'll talk about them in more detail. Yes, please An interest association any example of an interest association ladies and gentlemen Lobby representative What else trade unions or labor unions any others business associations? Any anything else the union of Architects and engineers Huh, which have been very influential chambers of commerce chambers of industry Anything else? So all of these are representing sometimes functional interests, but sometimes not so so all of these are civil society associations representing some kind of interest or Representing some kind of identity Okay, any other questions Please democracy overthrown by democracy Plutocracy Market their ideas Mm-hmm, of course in the American system in the US system In part that's why Schmitter and Karl warned us against this agglomeration problem policy package of party a policy package of party b You want to pick and choose you you just can't right? There are two major political parties that come to power that alternate coming to power in the US for example, right? And Citizens are you know felt obliged to vote for one or the other so this is this is one major major problem of agglomeration aggregation problem Okay, yes Of course, yeah So is this allowed in the political system? Of course it is allowed in the political system and and in in in a modern democracy conceptualizes such all of these Interest representation should be allowed in the system. Okay Any other questions? All right, so let's take a break


Thank you. All right, we're recording. Okay, no attendees right now. And I'm going to. Okay. I'm going. I haven't had public. I haven't had any sleep since 333 o'clock this morning and I'm exhausted. I will be wonky. I'm seeing a presence of the quorum. I'm going to call the May 24, 2023 meeting of the GL committee to order pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. This meeting will be conducted by a remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting shall do so via zoom or by telephone. No in-person 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 by a technological means. I'm going to call the role as a way of checking that we, everyone can hear and be heard. Then Greece. Present. Jennifer Tau. Present. Mandy Joe Hankey. Present. And I am present. Pat the Angeles. Michelle Miller is not with us today. I would like to get right to the non-voting members of the finance committee. It's been two weeks since the bulletin board notice went out. I have received no new CAFs. I sent out 10 or 11 CAFs to people as far back as 2019. I've had two rejections and no other responses. So right now, unless I missed a CAF in my email, but I don't think I did, but right now we have new CAFs from Bob Hegner and Matt Holloway. And who are currently members of the resident non-voting resident members of the finance committee. There are terms and in June. Is it possible? It's a question to simply say the pool is sufficient because we have two good candidates or do we need to wait until they are three or and what happens if there aren't. Mandy, do you have any? Go ahead. The decision on sufficiency per the policy is up to the committee. So the committee could make that decision. Acknowledging. You know, I would be hesitant to acknowledge, despite my views about how good the candidates are, that that's one of the reasons we're declaring the pool sufficient. You know, I think. You know, we could say it's sufficient given the timing and given, you know, that the pool includes people who are maybe already on the finance committee, you know, you know, the pool is sufficient. And given that everyone that you reached out to that had prior replied has not, you know, I think we could do it in a way that doesn't necessarily say.  That's what I was worried about. Is how it would appear, which is kind of sad. I'm just checking to make sure we didn't receive any more because I actually thought we did. So Sarah Marshalls from well before the. Sarah Marshalls calf. Submitted one that I believe had finance on it, but it was before the bulletin board was posted. Okay. I'm going to call on Jennifer because I was trying to get her to respond. Yeah. So I haven't personally, I mean. I mean, I don't know how much. So it, we did, we've publicized it. I don't know how much individual counselors have been reaching out. I do believe. Sarah Marshall.  She's an alternate for the ZBA. And has applied for that. So I would think she. To make a decision for her. She would rather continue on the ZBA where she's a voting member. Let me just. Let me just mention. I just came across her calf and it says finance. ZBA. Yeah. But, but under the policy, unless she submits a separate one after the finance committee, bulletin board notice was posted. She is not technically an applicant for bulletin board. So I assume. She is someone who Pat reached out to. I will do a double check. I sent out between nine and 11. I will reach. I'll check my sent list and I'll reach out. What I'd like us to do then. Is wait until our next meeting, which is June 7th, which is still in time. What's the council meeting after the 7th. 12th. Okay. So that would work. In the 12th and then another one Pat. Wait. Henry. Listed district advisory board finance committee. Who is this. And ZBA. Who ever rolled Henry. But we have to remember under the council policy. Only those. Only those people who submit CAFs after the bulletin board notice goes up are technically applicants. Anyone that submitted within two years of that notice gets contacted by someone from GOL to ask if they're still interested in that. And if so, they're told to submit a new calf. Yeah, I don't know where my list is of who I sent to, but. I'm sending you a number of them because I just came across another one. So I think we just need Pat to double check to make sure she reached out to those that were recently submitted. Likely because of the ZBA and planning board process that might have included finance on them. To see if they're. Yeah. No, that's fine. That's fine. Finance in terms of timing. The last council meeting meeting in June is June 26. That means that interviews for the positions have to happen. By the end decisions on recommendations. Athena can correct me have to be made by Thursday, the 22nd. At like four so that Athena can put the names on the notice meeting notice. So. If we don't make it, if we make a decision on June 7. We would have to do the interviews on June 21. The statements of interest would have to be due before the 14th because under the policy, the statements of interest need posted one full week before the interviews. And all the applicants would have to be available for the 21st or whenever we're meeting. So because their term ends, if we don't get it done by then. Because, you know, they can't make the interviews. Or new people. And they can't do what happens to the finance committee. Do they, can they. They just don't have them or can. Mandy. And then I'll call you Jennifer. I would suggest. If we can't get every applicant in for an interview by that 21st date. Because of scheduling issues. Pat, you may want to start now ask if the two people whose terms are ending would be willing to extend their terms by one or two months. And the GOL could vote that on the 21st as a recommendation. The process. And the council could make that. Happen on the 26th. Okay. That seems reasonable. Okay. Jennifer. And then anybody else. I was just to say, yeah, if we have another, I mean, I'll do some active outreach, you know, between now and the end of the weekend. I just have to say for planning board and ZBA. I for. For the last like two months. Any time I correspond with. With my district, even if it's depressed, I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. Any time I correspond with. With my district, even if it's to pass on the traffic alerts, because they've been impacting our district. I always have the links to the, you know, calves for planning. I mean, I have a blurb that I just sort of cut and paste into everything. I got two. You know, one for each. It's really challenging. I don't know what to do about that. And I guess I feel more relaxed because we have two really good people, but that's not. Yeah. Yeah. A couple of observations. First of all, I mistakenly sent you. Two or three submissions from 2022. So just, they're probably people. You already reached out to second of all. Their names that are not on the council. I'm not on the finance committee. Yeah. And you're right. Sarah Marshall submitted. With. I'm not really naming at least two. I don't know the timing, but I just sent that one to you. Bob Hagner. Who, you know, is an outstanding member. Of finance as is Matt Holloway Bob has actually been on. He's been on a total of. Four plus years because he was appointed. In the first group. He's been on a total of six years. He's been on a total of six years. However, but he's not, he has not served six years. Right. And Matt Holloway has only served one year. Yeah. So those are just. Yes. Observations. That's helpful to know. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I guess I'd be more. No. I get, I be. One, I want to do this properly. But I guess I would be more concerned if we. I would be more comfortable on the finance committee generally. So, but that's not. Yeah. Okay. So that's that update. I guess we can go right now. Get the two proclamations out of the way. Where I had those set up. Okay. Yeah, let's look at the citation. Okay. I'm sorry. In the first. And I found a couple of things that I thought needed correcting. In the first now, therefore. Which one are we on? The citation. Okay. Recognition of Arwin. I'm sorry. In the first now, therefore it says here achievement. And it means it should be her. If you look, it says a copy of this citation. It just says B sent. It should be to be sent. And I believe there's a comma in the last whereas after 2023. That should be there. Yeah, you're right. There should be. I always forget that to be sent. Yes. Let's get that one. This one's right to cause a copy. Be sent. No. Cause a copy. I think to be sent. Do you think. If it's correct with just B, then that's fine. It just sounds. Jennifer's name is added to counselor sponsors. Okay. One thing at a time. Are we, are we going to add to. Here or leave it be as Athena is suggesting. Cause a copy of the station B. To cause something. I think you're causing it to be. Yeah, that's, I think so too. Mandy has her hand up, but I don't think we need to. It's not on that, but you could just say to send a copy of the station. To. Arwin. I like to be better. We're not to be. That is the question. So many. Yeah. Go ahead. Mandy, Joe has her hand up. Go ahead, Mandy. I had, yeah, go ahead. The second, whereas this is a couple of questions. So. It says highest achievement of girl can earn in girl scouting. So I just have a couple of questions because I know Boy Scouts have. Really changed their whole thing. Is Girl Scouts limited to. Only girls or girls. Boys. Be there. And then number two. Do you have to earn the gold award before you turn 18? Okay. I think it's girls, girls and, and. People who identify as girls. Okay. Then should we say that a person can earn. I was worried about the 18. Do you have the gold award before you turn 18? I can try to find that, but I. My sense is it's in, might be in the year you turn 18. So that it covers you all the way through high school. I, I can connect, I can connect with my girl scout connections and find that out. Is there a reason you're asking this? Is there certain, because they reviewed this. No, I guess the question about 18 is. At 18, we tend not to refer to.  Right. And so, so I was curious. It just that, that word stuck out to me for those two reasons. Which is why I was asking the questions. So let me, you're saying in the second whereas. Yeah. That a young woman can earn. Or a major highest achievement. Please don't talk over each other. I'd like things to be casual. Jennifer and then. Well, I was just going to say highest achievement that a member can earn in girl scouting. That would work. Does that feel okay to you? Fine. I think, I think they're called girls until they're, they're not girl scouts. They're girl scouts until they're, there's a different category of girl scouts once they turn 18. Right. So I think it's a girl scout term. Yeah. Just let me mention this was built off of the one that we did two years ago or three years ago. And I'm fine with the change. I don't think that the people asking us will have a problem, but I do agree that with the thing about how they refer to girls. May not be what we want, but. I think that if you say that a member can earn. That's fine. Jennifer has her hand up. She's a sponsor as well. Sorry. Jennifer, you're cutting out. I was going to say member in girl scouting. I mean it. But I think members fine. Or the highest achievement that can be earned in girl scouting. Mandy. Yes. I'm okay. Not changing it. If. I don't want to go back to Jennifer's suggestion. I like that. Okay. Can you say it again, Jennifer? It's the highest achievement that. Can be earned in girl scouting. As to achievement that can be earned in girl scouting. Yeah. Everybody comfortable with that. Our people comfortable. Did we get all the other ones? I think. It needs a date fixed to it as well. Maybe that's on the next page. No. It's down there. Oh, God. Thank you. And we changed. Here to her. We put in the comma after. 2023. So I think that's it. Someone make a motion. I move that we. Layer the citation. They're consistent and actionable. Is that how we do it for this? Yeah. Second. Second. Okay. And then we'll do a round of voting. Lynn Griezmer. Yes. Mandy. Joe. Hi. Jennifer. Yes. And I'm an eye. Okay. Let's go on to the Juneteenth proclamation. Mandy. The one in the packet. Had two sponsors, but I believe that. Alicia Walker. Wanted to sponsor it too. That's right. That's true. Thank you. Is there anything that. People are seeing. Or have seen. Mandy. The community sponsor shouldn't have a comma after it unless. We were supposed to be adding other name. Yeah. Ancestral bridges or something. That's interesting that Anika didn't put that down. Yeah. And Dabora is. Not. Ancestral bridges per se. Right. Yeah. It was just. Yeah. It could have been. So. Should we add it? Let me check. If you can get an answer right now. While she's doing that. Can anyone see anything that needs to be. That impacts clarity consistency or action ability. Is it otherwise the same as last year? I think there was some new. Changes. First. I think this, there have been some changes, but I don't remember what they are. Apologize. Should the two and a half under the second whereas joined together. Yeah. Thank you. Spell check on. Texting. Oh. I'm not going to ask what you're saying. Don't worry about it. I'm not.  You'll have to try harder. I bet we can rise to the occasion. At Nica's request, please add. Ancestral bridges per se. I'm not going to ask what you mistakenly put in. Don't worry about it. I'm not.  I'm not going to ask what you mistakenly put in. I'm not going to ask what you mistakenly put in. I'm not going to ask what you mistakenly put in. Please request, please add ancestral bridges as a sponsor. Unless someone sees something else that needs. To be amended. I make a motion that we declare the 2023 Juneteenth proclamation clear consistent and actionable. Second. Okay. And let's vote. Mandy Joe. Hi. Jennifer. Hi. Lynn. And I'm an eye. So it's unanimous. With one absent. I'm not saying that. Oh. Okay. Let me look at this list. The other thing that I'd like to. Hear a little bit. From you guys. Well, let's go to the ensuring safe access. To legally protected reproductive. Gender affirming healthcare services. Which were referred to us by the council. And Lynn. No, Mandy Joe, you're one of the sponsors of that. No, you can continue. I'm texting Anna. Okay. In some ways, I feel like I need to recuse myself. I'm not really, but I am so in favor of this. I don't think that's a reason for. We're all there. I think the only question is that we want to make sure that before we send it to legal counsel that we've. Through it carefully and under looked at it, but the other thing is have. So did you and Anna, you and or Anna. Consult with Paul regarding any issues around implementation. So we do have comments from Paul. On the whole bylaw, we did not include those in the presentation of the. One we put in the packet for the council for referrals. So I don't know whether Anna. I don't think Anna is going to be able to jump on, but I'm waiting for that. Let me pull up. So I can go through some of the comments or talk about them at least. Okay. Thank you. Mandy, I don't think I have a word version. So if there are edits, you can either send me a word version and I'll keep track or you can share. Yeah. So, so I have a word version that I think. It includes the comments Paul had and was also what was referred, but I haven't gone back because, because Anna's the one that finally accepted everything and then removed the comments. I can send that to you. Let me do that now. Give me a second. So I think it's the one that was referred, but includes the comments. But I, I will say, I have not compared the two, but I'm pretty sure it is. Okay. If you know, you should be getting that. And so, you know, like I said, Paul had given us comments. We did not make, we made a few changes related to those comments more of the things we could address without necessarily legal review. Many of his comments relate to the need for legal review or further discussion at with some other staff members. But we did not make changes related to that because we needed, you know, unless the bylaw was referred for discussion and recommendation, there's no sense in putting all that time in, which is why we pulled the comments out. And now it's time to show you all those comments so that we know what we're asking for in terms of legal and all. And I have a question or two. Yeah, so I can go through some of these. It looks like Athena has brought it up. And it'd be made a tad larger. I can see Paul Bachman, but I can't quite see his comment. So the first one is on the definition of Amherst official. And he indicates it's a very broad definition. It's exactly what we expected Paul to say. Pat, if you remember, it's exactly what he said to this is the definition we used in our face recognition bylaw before we pulled face recognition. So it's exactly what I expected him to say. We, we just need to hammer out exactly who would count. So my question in this is many Joe. Does this include elected officials? Yes. As long as we are acting on behalf of the town. So again, it's something that needs discussed and all, and I would caution us getting into discussions today. I just thought I'd go through the comments. So that when Pat, I assume we'll say send it to legal. Pat can talk about. Are there other definitions legal would like to see or something. I have a question about the official. The new sent a health center. That is in our building, but I don't. Isn't it run by the Hilltown health center or something like that. So if they're not employees of the town, how are they covered in terms of maintaining privacy, et cetera, et cetera. So the health center itself. Is an actual health. Health care entity. And so they actually have a whole lot of requirements. Under federal law, including the HIPAA requirements. You know, and so there's other things there that some places have, if you're actually a health thing, and this gets into a different. Issue that this particular. Safe access doesn't deal with, which is in some sense the crisis pregnancy centers and their advertising of what is presumably health. The health center would be subject to health care without actually being health care providers and being subject to those. HIPAA and other health care regulations that someone like the Musante health center or a hospital would be subject to. That's not what this is. So this definition as Paul says is very broad. You'll see it's pretty much any. You'll see it's very broad. You'll see it's very broad. You'll see it's very broad. While acting on behalf of the town. That's, that's one of the key phrases while acting on behalf of the town. And when performing work for the town under something. And so. For example, if we give money to Musante health center. I don't know whether we do, but say we did. Because they got a grant from us or something. If they were. They would be subject to this, but if they're performing work under some other grant or some other funding, that, that work performed under that other stuff under this definition would not be subject to this bylaw. Only the work performed under this grant. So, so what I will say is it is an extremely broad definition. Which is what Anna and I started out with, but. But we should hear from KP law as to whether it's even manageable. But we intended to start out with something as broad as possible. Okay. Thank you. Can we move on to Paul's next comment. Or any comment or question that other members of the committee have. Yeah, I do. And I do. I'm not sure what I'm going to do. I think the reason I raised it is because in the meeting. You know, because I kept making. I wanted. I explained to Mandy Joe and Anna. I was trying to get as good an example as possible. And the one Mandy Joe you used was, you know, you as accounts, you as a person who lives in Amherst. Provides a place for somebody here from out of state. Who's come here for an abortion. You're not acting on behalf of the town. No, I'm not. And, and that's not what, what this would do. So. No, I'm not. Yeah. The Amherst official defines who can give information. To someone seeking information. From another state, basically. So you'd have to look at the prohibitions, which is actually where the next comments are. You know, and so. So, you know, I was talking about, you know, information. So what the bylaws planning is intending to do is to. Prohibit Amherst officials. If we're acting in our official capacity from a handing information over. And ensuring that if we're acting in our capacity as Amherst officials, that information is kept confidential. Whether or not it actually falls under those rules that Pat was talking about. And so it really is aimed at what. People acting on behalf of the town can disclose. To. Other people. Not what I as a private individual can disclose. So as Paul says in this comment. He's, he, he understands with the broad definition, how does prohibition number one interact with that definition. Legal proceedings and all of that. So he basically sets forth his concern there and the need for the KP law review in his comment as to C1. And C2, since he copied the comment basically. Right. Which is why we. You know, Anna and I did not change the definition. We recognize we have to have those conversations with legal. How do they interact and what can we. Do. The next one. Is about public records. And I guess this one again probably goes to legal because. Yep. And then the next one is to under state law as a town. Narrow the definition of public records, I guess would probably be the way I. Would phrase it to KP law because I think that's what we're intending to do is to say, Hey, we can't give this information out.  No, you can't disclose that information or hand that information over. Even if you receive a public records request in the state. You can't use that definition and say, no, it's not a public record anymore. Not if you're going to use it for that purpose. So that's our intent in the bylaw. Lynn. Yeah, I'm glad this will go to KP law. Having been this. Been. Subject to a significant significant public records request. And the redaction thereof. Is there anything that is health related identified youth, et cetera? I mean, Athena knows this much better than I do. Maybe in the public record, but they're then struck out of the public record. They're blocked. They're X doubt or blocked out. So I, I'm glad this is in there because that's the issue of health related things in public records. Clearly. Are part of what you're allowed to eliminate. But I think that the question is how much of it. Okay. Thank you. Jennifer. I guess more of a question. What legal counsel would weigh in on this. Can a town supersede a states regulation or are we. We can. I thought we would make it stricter if we, but we can't make it less restrict. Oh, we can make it stricter. Okay. That's good. Generally that's the case in, in legal standards. It's why we need KP law to. To weigh in on that. Okay. Let me see. This is a really good. I was concerned about competent understanding competent jurisdiction when I first read this in the council packet. And does it. What does it refer to because right now the federal courts would probably support Massachusetts, but who knows how long that will stay. Do you have any comment beyond that beyond your question maybe. So let me talk about number four Paul Paul said he would need to talk to obviously town attorney and police chief on custody issues. Where the highlight on competent, you know, in the two places where I put the comment of limit to Massachusetts Court, what about federal courts and he actually brought that up to me during the last meeting, maybe during a break. So I highlighted it and added that in. The phrase accept is required by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. And he said, okay, so what if the Texas court has the subpoena. Does this essentially create the big loophole. We're trying to close. I guess the way it would be. Because Texas is court is a court of quote, competent jurisdiction. So I think the question on that one is, can we limit it to specific courts or can we even. Get rid of that exception completely. You know, or could we say only a Massachusetts court is a court of competent jurisdiction, not a court in Texas or in Florida, or only the Massachusetts district court of the federal courts? Like, can we limit that? Because as Andy pointed out, that phrase might actually basically allow Texas to drive a hole through what we're trying to prevent. Say. Yeah. Okay. Anything else. You'll see some resolved issues that we didn't delete in this one. We had the wrong words. So that comment can be deleted with it. It actually says town agenda because we just typed something in wrong. In Scrivener type things. So the resolved ones we, we, it was just. A lot of. Issues that we fixed before we presented it to you all. And then he talks about the contract issues in terms of how we would enforce this, which would also need to be reviewed. On whether it's possible. And if so, how. In terms of getting that information, I would say before. GOL discusses substantively. Are these the enforcement mechanisms we want. Anything else. Those were the comments he proposed. He provided to us. Are there any other comments from members of the committee or Athena. Lynn. I. I'm hoping that in the legal opinion. We might. The KP law might comment on how this. Act goes further than the state law. And I'm sure it does, but I want to make, I'd like to have the council understand that. Okay. Mandy. Yeah, I would say with that one. Goes further than the other phrases I could use as supports the state law. And also interacts with that state law. You know, sort of what's that interaction. How does it support it? And. Those are some other phrases to use to get to, I think, what Lynn's asking for. Thank you. Okay. All right. Anything else. And Mandy, Joe, why don't you make the recommendation. The motion. I don't, I don't know whether we need a full vote, but. Yeah. So I think we need a. I think this is one. I think we need a, so do you want a motion, Pat? I don't know. I would just say it. I think we should get a KP law opinion before we talk about this substantively. Yes. Absolutely agreed. So that's done. Right. That was easier than I thought it was going to be. Where am I? Okay. Yeah. I would like to just ask a clarifying question. It's a memory question. Anna introduced back, I think in the fall, the whole issue around the clinics that. Are. Yeah. They are, you know, trying to talk people out of abortions. She withdrew that. Am I correct? That is correct. Thank you. That's all I needed to know. Thank you. I think we're going to get a little bit of a, a little bit of a smooth draw on and in its, in some sense in its place, we're trying, we're thinking about this route over reintroducing that one. Thank you. Okay. All right. So we can move ahead on that. Where are we? I had written in the minutes review and make a recommendation of the proposed flag policy. Okay. Okay. I requested Paul have KP law look quickly at the banner changes that we made in the public way. And I think I confused what I put in the packet. So, but we haven't referred. Lynn, go ahead. Did we get an opinion? No, no, not yet. Let me just mention it. Yeah. I think the KP law is very backed up right now because of town meetings and budget periods. And so we're having trouble getting opinions on just about everything. Yeah. Yeah. And it's interesting because in the bylaw, disposition thing, when it gets to parades and stuff like that. Again, it talks about free speech issues. Which is what we tried to address. Clearly in the banner changes. So I hope we can make those limits. By defining it as a government speech. Okay. I guess we can go over the bylaw review committee. Recommendations and the memo that we receive from Paul. It's taken forever to get him to respond, which has been a little bit stressing. And it came into the packet last minute because he said he would have it ready and then it was not ready. So have you had a chance to look through it? Lynn. I have to some extent, but also he referred to this as the second memo. The first memo went out and there have been several men, memos there. A memo went out to him, I think in January of 2021. And I did not find a response to that. So this is his latest response to these items. I had a meeting with him where he basically went through these. The legal opinion on parades and public. Meetings we did not go through, but the other. Items we did. And the goal, I just want to, you know, because I was, I've been on and off GOL around this issue over. You know, two different times. The goal in this case is either the, these, these bylaws were identified during the initial bylaw review. That was done by a committee per the charter. Okay. And then they were referred to GOL. And then they were referred to GOL. And then they were referred to GOL. For resolution as to whether we were going to look at them, make changes and or say, no, they're fine the way they are. I, as I looked at this memo, it did not seem like it was the full list of all those bylaws.  I don't have those numbers. I'd have to look back on another, and I might actually, I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if that's the case. Well, we had casually informally said. They're fine. Let's leave them alone. Okay. But these were all ones with larger questions. Okay. Athena on the ones that we have quote. Casually said, they're fine. Do we need to bring that back to the council to officially take them off the list. I think. I think we need to bring that back to the council. So our report. Or something to kind of close that. That loop. Okay. So what I'm, I guess what I'm trying to move toward is. We can start reviewing Paul's memo. And that's perfectly fine. But I'm trying to get us as GOL. I think we need to bring that back to the council. We want it in a consolidated way. Bring this list back to the council. As an update and say either we're. This one's fine. Or this one we moved with. Etcetera. Any ideas. When your hands still up. No, that was my, my whole. I don't want it. I don't want this to come back to the council in a piece meal fashion. Okay. Okay. Make some decisions and communicate it and then take what actions we need to. Okay. Thank you. No, that's fine. And Jennifer, you seem frozen. Although you're. Not sure. You guys keep freezing to my frozen now. Now you're, no, now you're moving. Now, yeah. But one of the things that I can do is I could go. Start that. I mean. These are clear. I think there's some actions and things we need to look at within it. And I can go back to that. The list of bylaws that we informally said, let's, let's leave them alone. Okay. Okay. So why don't you and I plan to, to meet before the next GOL meeting and see if we can get this all cleaned up so that you can provide a report. And it's, it's clear what, what. That would be great. So you and I can work on that before the next meeting. Okay. The next meeting is on the seventh. And I will not be back until June 7th. Yeah. So I have to, I'll have to meet with you before somewhere next. Cause I will be out of town. Is that possible for you? Yeah, we can do that. Okay. We can set that up at the end of the meeting. Thank you. Okay. So is that comfortable with two people? Yes, that makes sense. And I know that there were other ones. I'm sorry. I should raise my hand. Don't worry about it. It doesn't bother me. I'm not talking over each other like I'm doing over you. That's okay. There were other ones that maybe needed. Yeah, there were. From other people. Yes. Those, most of those are right here. Yeah. Okay. That's what I, that was my. In the meeting that I had with him. So I will go through because they had, we had the bylaw review committee had prioritized items.  So we can look at that. And these were items that. They considered top priority. So. Okay. Jennifer. I'm just wondering the bylaw review committee. Did that exist the first year of the council only? Yes, it did. Yeah. Yeah. And it was a huge effort. I mean, they did. Unbelievable. Work. Bob Richie was kind of the chair coordinator of it. And there were two other. It was not a council committee, but Evan Ross, Alyssa Brewer, and I were all on the committee. Bob Richie, as Lynn said, and then I'm blanking on. Oh, Bernie. Bernie Kubiak was on the committee. And there was one other person. Jeff Kravitz. Yeah. Jeff Kravitz. And it began with. The committee that was before. Anyway, yes. Oh, I didn't know that. Okay. That's interesting. That's one reason why I want, I asked. Provided a little groundwork, Jennifer, because I knew that. You weren't on the council at that point. And yet I also want to just. Contribute to the fact that it was a huge effort. And what we're trying to do is clean this up. Because it started with GOL. All right. It was referred to GOL in our first term. It was on the transition document from the first to the second term. And I'd like it just not to be on the transition documents from the second to the third. Well, it's like what we just did with the CRC. Yes. Exactly. Stay there forever. Right. Right. Right. All right. Do we want to go over. Paul's list. Or. I think the ones I had. Questions about. Would be the parade one. Residential. Renner property. That's in CRC. I'm not even worried about that one. But it was prioritized. Or do you want to wait? I guess I'm trying to understand that there's a very. Long attorney's opinion. About parades. And again. It seems like we can. We can really only affect a few things like the time. Providing alternative. Roots. If there is a conflict with something that's already. Parade that's already happening. Do people want to talk about this now or wait until Athena. Until the next meeting. I'm fine with going ahead. I would actually suggest. We deal with the easy ones. And just say, okay, now that can go on the chart is resolved or whatever. Yeah. Most of them. The library. One. Let me see. So I think that the. Personnel bylaw one. I think is fine. That's, I think the update answers that. The human rights commission. That's been taken care of it. Well, it's. The DEI director and the human rights director will be working on that when I say taken care of. And that's also true of the personnel by law. The human rights. And I think that the. Personnel bylaw one. I think is fine. That's, I think the update answers that. The human rights and human rights commission. The DEI director and the. Human resources director will be working on that. I'm hoping we can move these along because all of those things were said before. Yeah. So. Let me see. License and permits and denial. It's a. It did seem that it was fine that. Yeah, it's it the term other municipal charges. Is broad and it encompasses everything that's listed in the bylaw. So I think that one is fine. Unless somebody has seen something that I'm not seeing. I haven't. I didn't read this one that carefully. Yeah, it's a tricky one. Well, let's, let's let it be then and go on to the ones that I'm not seeing. I think that's fine. Yeah, because I don't want to wait. I do want to get to the snow and ice because we have a couple of things that have come up about that. Again, wetlands protection. All of this is supposed to have been happening. I'm hoping it will happen this time. Right to farm. Same thing bylaw three, four, six. Am I going too fast? I think that were. Yeah, I think that's fine. I think that's fine. I think that's fine. I think that's perfectly what this is telling me. And that's what I thought it was telling me was.  Come back from staff. Yeah. So, well, we hope, I mean. Yeah, we hope. So, so would the, would the committee's action be to take them off the list and. Yeah, I think that was proposed by the town manager. Just to. I think I would like, I'd like. I'm sorry, Jennifer, go ahead. No, finish. My question can come after. I would like us to keep them on a list. But. Be very clear that we. Need either another update and or. Propose changes to these bylaws. To be brought forth to the council. You know, when ready, I. I'm looking at this and I'm going, there's no way we're going to resolve all of this by 2000 end of 2020. No, no, but the thing that I've, I'm sorry. I just want to say one thing. The thing that feels critical to me is that we keep pushing Paul, because these are the same requests we had last year. And possibly the year before, and I know he's extraordinarily busy. But, you know. So, so I just want to, I agree that we need to keep track of them so that we know whether. We get updates on them periodically, Jennifer. Yeah. And I don't want to waylaid the decision, but. The illegal dumping and littering. Does that apply town wide? Or is that being thought just for conservation land? Well, that one of the things is that with that, they were, the question was, do we want to expand where that's happening? Okay. So can I ask a question? Cause this is a really huge issue in. District three. No, no, no, because. I know. No, I'm not. I knew you were going to say that. That's all. Right. No, no, no, but it's, it's a really problematic. I have pictures after picture after picture. Of, you know, it's just, yeah. So could that apply? You know, the. Yeah, I'm trying, I'm trying to get the actual bylaw. Hold on. All right. This says no person shall place or cause to be placed any waste, refuse boxes or any other matter in or on any street park or commons. So I think it's already covered in the original bylaw. It may not be enforced. And it talks about the public way or any other public land or inland waters. But what it doesn't say is conservation land. For say. I'm going to, Lynn, I'm going to go to Mandy and then I can come back to you. Please take my hand. Sorry. Lynn could have gone first. Yeah. So I. I'm trying to remember Pat, you probably remember better than me, but I think this was. You know, both of those paragraphs are fairly vague. Right. Within 20 yards of this and in theory, what that says it waters property of another lands dedicated for open space. You know, it says conservation agriculture, you know, in theory, 20 yards of a public way or any other public land in theory, it's not vague, but yet at the same time, it's kind of vague. Yeah. And so I think what they were thinking was. You know, I don't know. I don't know what specific. Get a little more specific or define some things instead of just use words, maybe start defining.  So I think that's what they were. Yes, it is exactly what they were concerned to it. Well, you're right up. Yeah. So, so perhaps that I don't, I can work on that too. I want to go back to. Jennifer's concern. And that is that. At in looking at this bylaw. How do we deal in fact with people who literally walk through neighborhoods and litter. And is this the place to deal with that? And maybe, you know. Paul or somebody I can't remember in what situation was talking about. You know, four beer kegs that got left on. And the town really couldn't do anything about it because it was on private property. And yet. In neighborhoods near. The university. This is a serious problem. Well, there is criminal. There's a $250 fine. There's a $250 fine. There's a $250 fine. With for criminal enforcement and the same penalty or non-criminal enforcement is by police officers, superintendent of public works, public health agents, health officers, or a health director. So I'm, I'm. I need some clarification and perhaps one of either land or mandate can give it. About private property. But this, what if it's the street? The street is included in here. And we, you know, and we can, and if we define the terms, we can be very specific about public ways, et cetera. Mandy. So what's interesting is the streets covered by this first sentence and the second sentence, but property of another is included in the second paragraph. I think that's one long sentence, believe it or not. So that's a second paragraph. But it does say. Or within 20 yards of such water, it's more on property of another or on lands dedicated. So. You know, again, I think part of the thing was it's so. Everything's mixed up together in this and vague and not clear as to. given what we've talked about with snow and ice, we're looking at like five different people here. And do we run into similar problems with that that we've run into with snow and ice of people just pass the buck off to, well, it's not me, it's the health director. No, it's not me, it's the DPW. Do they not know who should be writing the ticket given? And not everybody can write a ticket because DPW can't write tickets. So again, and probably police officers would be traffic officers. Superintendent of Public Works can't enforce it really. Health agents, health office, can they issue citations? The health inspector, I believe can, but I don't know about that. I didn't even know if that's true. And this would be- I would assume they do because aren't they the ones that issue it for restaurants? It makes, yeah, okay. And the other thing is, it seems to me that this should be in the inspection department because they're the ones that see the property and they're gonna hate us. Jennifer? Yeah, I'm just gonna say, I mean, the issue with all this is you rarely see the person doing it. So that's the challenge in terms of issuing a ticket or citation. Right. Every house in your district needs a video camera that's on 24 hours a day paid for through these fines. All we need is university to retain someone to clean up the streets every Monday. Right. I like that better. That's a great idea. They won't do it. I can't, you're- I made a request, it was not asking. I'm asking, I know I keep freezing. I'm gonna- Yeah, that's okay. Where are we? Regulations of signs is gonna become an important priority for, I'm moving from littering and illegal dumping. Is that okay? The regulation of signs is gonna be the planning director. It's an important priority. So they will work on it. They'll add it to their work plan. So who knows? And then I'm back to parades. I wanna look at the time. Oh, we're fine. Okay, I wanna make sure that we look at Snow and Ice a little bit before, so do people have people had time to read this? Tracy's email? No, that's for Snow and Ice. Yeah, yeah. No, the parades and public meetings issue. Okay, all right, then we'll leave that for the next meetings because it's gonna be a whopper, I guess, maybe, maybe. All right, then I would like us to move to Snow and Ice and Tracy's comments are kind of important and she was not able to be here to make them. There's no one right now in our audience. There are a couple of things that I noticed that she's talking about having DPW. Be the enforcer and because they have snow removal equipment and stuff, but that seems to me to be part of the problem and that we've had is that DPW has cleaned things that residents then want them to continue to clean where it's not their responsibility.  Yeah, I think Tracy is okay with inspection services or DPW. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I wanna, I will reach out to her about why it's not DPW. Well, didn't Paul not want it? I thought maybe Paul would be more amenable to inspection services. Paul wanted one entity and we offered he wanted either the police department or inspection services. So I thought. So I think Tracy would feel good with inspection services over the police. Yes, absolutely, yeah, from everything I can. But I will reach out to her. I wanna explain why DPW is not because they don't generally issue citations. And she also brought up the idea of curb cuts or curb ramps or and making it or to mention where it says abutting sidewalks at crosswalks and intersections. Where is that? In the charge, I believe. Yeah, and then she offered even language from Greenfield or Northampton. Right, right. Let me see. So what she's talking about section A under purpose revising access to sidewalks and public ways to access the two sidewalks including abutting curb cuts, curb ramps and to public ways. So it would be people be comfortable with adding that in the purpose. Her amendment. Can you read that? Yes, she's suggesting revising access to sidewalks and public ways is to amend it to say access to sidewalks including abutting curb cuts slash curb ramps and to public ways. And the rest of the sentence continue. Curb cuts and curb ramps? Yes, as curb cuts slash curb ramps. And what was the, I'm sorry. Public ways. Public ways and then it would say public parking places. Okay. Yeah. I don't think we need the and to in front of public ways. Yeah, I don't think so. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, that was my error. And let me see. Is there anything else that's come up? I'm trying to remember. I think that was, yeah. Yeah, I think that was everything that she was saying. Am I wrong Jennifer? You looked at it clearfully as well. Yeah, you know, I did. Cause I just wrote her back and said, thanks for sending it. And then she wrote back, but I see it's already there and just responded. She said, Michelle had asked a question whether other towns include snow and ice and vegetative overgrowth in one by law. And she said, some happen separately if we were going to have it together, which is good to include vegetative overgrowth. But I see we have that. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Mandy? Going along with what Tracy had us add in section A about purpose. I'm just looking at, we talk about sidewalks in section B, but section C is public ways. And so this is where Tracy talked about the plowing onto corners essentially from things. And so I wonder, I think we should add in that first sentence that says obstruction on any public way sidewalk or public parking place, any public way sidewalk, including whatever that phrase we just added was. Curb cuts. A budding curb cuts and curb ramps. Or just, I don't think we need a budding there. Any public way sidewalk, curb cut, curb ramp or public parking space, maybe. Yeah, what was that? And then I think it covers both sections. And clears up the other thing Tracy was talking about. Right, right. Anything else? Go ahead, Mandy. This is more for the motion. Athena, would this just be easier as a repeal and replace at this point? Yeah, that would be so much easier. Just thinking about the motion going forward. Yes, please recommend to repeal and replace. Mandy, would you make the motion? Athena, can you create quickly a separate document that just calls this 3.40 obstruction of public ways and snow and ice removal? Just like accept everything. And because then we can just in the motion reference the document. Yeah, let me see if I can do this quickly. I just want to make sure I retain all the changes. Yeah. Okay, so it looks like, no, I can't because these are actually underlined and struck through. So I have to go through and take out all the crossed out language and unread and not underlined. I thought it was all track changes, but it's not. So weird. If you want to do minutes or something and I can try and quickly do that. Okay, in the packet we have the May 10th, 2023. Meeting minutes. Are there any issues that anyone wants to address seeing any hands? I would like to make a motion that we accept the May 10th, 2023 meeting minutes as presented. Is there a second? Mandy, okay. Oh, Jennifer, thank you. Yeah. Okay, and we'll start with you for the vote, Jennifer. Yes. Okay, Lynn. Yes. Mandy. Aye. And I'm an aye. So it's four in favor, one absent. Is that enough time? No, huh? What can we do? I'm almost there. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, please, please. I could tell a joke since nobody's there. It's just weird that it showed up like it was track changes, but it actually wasn't. I think we did a lot of progress with this bylaw revision. Yeah, I think we did too. I have a question because I have trouble when I go to copy sent so I can send somebody the track changes or I just want to print a copy with the track changes of something that's in our packet or the council's packet. And I'm having, how do you print something so the track changes are visible for yourself? You don't need to answer that, Athena. I was trying to give you more time, but it's a legitimate question and I can get the answer from you later. Okay, I think that's it. Amazing, thank you. I see two more quick things. In C, there's that lined out or, and then in non-criminal disposition, there's just a missing comma between snow and ice. Those were the only two I quickly saw. So with that, I guess I'll make a motion. One second because I realized that one of the Tracy's other things was about the complaint letter that DPW sends out. If they receive a complaint, they send a letter that says, we had this in the packet a while ago, that there are a number of days before it has to be addressed, which is now slightly different than this by-law because we're saying a shorter period of time. We changed B3 to 10 days. Oh, that's right, okay. Right. The overgrowth. So the complaint letter can go out with 10 days, yeah. Okay, thank you. I didn't remember that. Okay. Are you ready for it, Pat? Absolutely. Okay. I move to recommend the council repeal general by-law 3.40 snow and ice in its entirety and replace it with general by-law 3.40 obstruction of public ways and snow and ice removal as presented at GOL on May 24th, 2023? Or as recommended. Does that work, Athena? As presented. Why wouldn't we say recommended? Oh, I moved to recommend the council adopt or rescind and replace. Yeah, got it. Thank you. I guess, sorry, I forgot one thing. And to declare the obstruction of public ways and snow and ice removal by-law clear consistent and actionable. This is fun getting this one out of GOL. Is there a second? Second. And I just want to say Mandy, Joe and Jennifer at the council meeting that will now, oh, I don't know. Can we do this first reading on Monday the 5th, Athena? I don't think so. You could put the first reading on the 5th as long as by Friday. We post. That reading can be on the 12th. Yeah, okay. If it's posted on the bulletin board on Friday, the 26th. Yeah. All right, so we'll put this as first reading and I'm going to be calling since Pat won't be there. So Jennifer and Mandy, Joe, you're going to be speaking on this one. Yeah. Mandy, Joe, keep quiet if you can. I would love to see Jennifer present as vice president. I'm happy to do it. Yeah. I would love to see Jennifer do it too. Jennifer's our vice chair. I'm happy to do it. If there's a report to be made, I hope you're going somewhere fun. I'm going to my great nephew's graduation in Florida. Oh, that sounds fun. It'll be nice, but I don't like Florida. So for many ideological reasons and also it's just not my kind of land, but I love my family and I love my Brian. So it'll be really wonderful. That's great. I will be delighted not to be here for a little bit. I really need a break. Yeah, you do. Many ways. Much deserved. For all of us, but yeah. Okay, let's vote. We have to vote on this, right? I'm going to vote aye. We have a second. Yes. Yes, Jennifer was second. Excellent. Lynn Breesmer. Yes. Andy Joe Haneke. Aye. And Jennifer Taub. Yes. All right. It's unanimous with one absent Jennifer. Yeah, no, I just wanted to express appreciation to Tracy Zafian for really careful reading, great suggestions. Yeah, she's a really thoughtful person on so many levels. That's great. He is. Where are we? The banner, I told you. So did we send, the flag policy has been reviewed, I believe by KP law, or have we recommended it to the council yet? I don't believe that we have. No. Yeah. Because there were questions at the last meeting. Okay. Do you remember what they, all right. So I'm wrong about that. So go ahead, Mandy. I think the question was, do we adopt the proposed flag policy before we can get answers to how to do the banner, public ways delegation, or do we try to do them together? Thank you. I think was the biggest question outstanding. And I thought GL wanted to try and do the two together. And then we had quite big questions about the street banners and how to word all of that given what all's there. Okay. So is that still what people would like to do? That seems logical. Okay. So if I'm looking through this right now, the agenda, we could go to public comment, but there are no public participants today. Not even, oh, no, I'm wrong. Julian Hines has come in. So I'm going to call for a period of public comment. And if anyone would like to make public comment for up to three minutes, they may raise their hand. Please don't say attendees names. No, I, even in a little bit that I, yeah, I'm sorry. Not seeing any hands raised. I'm going to call an end to public comment period. And unless the item is not anticipated by the chair, 48 hours in advance or discussion of future agenda items. One of the things that Michelle had brought forward when she was chair was an equity review process. And I'm going to be talking with the panel young about that and seeing where to go with that. So is there anything else that anyone can see that we should deal with before we adjourn the meeting? Mandy and then Jennifer. I apologize. Cause I had to take a phone call in the middle of the meeting. Did we just postpone the rules of procedure? Yeah. Okay. No, we didn't, but we are. Okay. And that's the same. No, there were a lot of different things and we were talking about adjusting areas and stuff like that. So I would like us to have enough time to read that. And I don't know if we can meet, but you were thinking about some of the same section movements that I was. So I don't know, I'll email you my thoughts about that. Jennifer. Yeah. Will you be back for the June 7th, GOL meeting? Yes. Okay. So I might just confer with you about the report to the council, but I'll email you about that. Yeah. I will have, I will be reading emails. I'm just not going to log in to the meetings when I'm traveling. We'll try not to bother you. Sorry, was there a discussion about changing meeting times while I was on the phone? I heard some, I was trying to sort of, okay. No, no, no. Okay. No. I apologize. No, for what? I ask you a question. All right. If there is nothing else that needs to come up, I am going to adjourn the meeting. Anthony, can you stay on and we can pick a date to meet? All right. See you. Okay. Bye-bye.