Okay, great. So I'm going to call to order the May 11th meeting of the governance organization and legislation committee pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 2022. This meeting will be conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. No 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 via technological means. And now I'm just going to take a moment to make sure that everybody can be heard and can hear us. So starting with you, Mandy. Present. Anika. Present. And Pat. Excellent. Okay, so we have a big agenda today. And I was just saying a moment ago that I tried to put some times in here for myself. To help us stay on track as best we can. We are taking things in a certain order based on. Sponsors being able to be here, community sponsors. So we're going to begin. I'd like to approve the 427 meeting minutes. Just get that out of the way. And then we're going to go right to the Memorial Day proclamation. And we have Lynn who will be joining us for that. And then we'll, we'll move on from there. I'm trying after the Memorial Day proclamation, I'd like to get the proposed rescission out of the way, Mandy, if we can manage that. And then the standing committee structure. I have a proposal that I'd like to share with you on that and a potential motion. And then we'll move to plant medicine. And then we'll move on to student debt pride. And then we'll finish with the bylaw before reviewing. Future agenda items. So. Let's see here. I did everyone have a chance to review the 427 meeting minutes. Okay. Great. So I'm just going to go ahead and move that we approve the April 27th meeting minutes. Second. Okay. Great. Thank you. Any discussion on that. All right. Let's start with you, Pat. I'm an eye Mandy. Hi. And Anika. Hi. Great. All right. So those paths. And now I'm going to bring in. Lynn. And Mandy, if you could bring up the Memorial Day proclamation, that would be excellent. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Actually, Athena's going to bring in Lynn. Sorry, Athena. In HR. Jen has made me a cohost. So I got used to starting to bring people in. I appreciate that. Oh, I can do that if you'd like. It doesn't matter. I just, I just was. It doesn't matter either way. Hi, Lynn. Welcome. Hi. Welcome. Can I ask Athena when I do share screen. I don't get an application option anymore. I don't get an application option. I don't get an application option. Like I don't get an actual like. Just one document or something. I'm checking. I get like the screen or whiteboard and an iPhone iPad. When was the last time you updated zoom? I don't know. It could be, it could be a recent update. It looks like mine's working the same as it always has, but I can try making you a cohost and see if that resolves it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Let me see. Yeah. No, I'll just do a screen and deal with it. You can't take notes that way. Okay. I think you're a cohost now too, Mandy, if you. It didn't do it. It didn't work. Okay. All right. So welcome, Lynn. And thank you for being a sponsor of Memorial Day proclamation. It's great to have a Nica and Pam that are sponsoring this. And so I just want to turn it over to Lynn and a Nica. For a couple of minutes. We do have a really tight schedule today, Lynn. So, but if just turning it over to you to say, I know there was some updating that happened here. So if either one of you would speak about that quickly, that would be great. So yesterday prior to submitting this, I apologize for the late submission. I did talk with a Nica. If you would go down to the paragraphs that I cannot see. And she actually corrected the word from regiment to infantry. Well, these are my corrections, but I assume a Nica did it too. Well, Nica did. A changed. To infantry right. Okay. And also added the fifth regiment. Massachusetts volunteer. And then in the next paragraph, we added the fact that the Civil War tablets were given to us in in 1893 by the Grand Army of the Republic. And other than that, except to change the date and the sponsors, there were no other changes. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point from a proclamation. I think we did two years ago. Sorry, I was muted. That's good to know. So this was reviewed two years ago. Yes. Best of your memory. Okay. And then Nica, did you want to add anything to that? So, yes. So I was able to look after. And I just had. The first all black Civil War regiments, it should read again, we should use the word volunteer after all black and in between the Civil War. Just to be consistent and make that clear. And then my only other question was. And I imagine that this was from the 2020 document. Is it possible? Would it be more consistent? We just said. To honor those soldiers. Who have given their life. Is it necessary to say, I understand it was a Civil War, but is it necessary to add Union and Confederate soldiers? Where is that? Sorry, the first. Where up here. Yeah. That was it for me. I like that change. Yeah, me too. Okay. Is there anything. Sorry, please go ahead. Yeah, Manny. We want to try and move these quick. We list the council sponsors in alphabetical order. In general. So that was the reason for that one. This here said County. And I think it was supposed to say country. So I think that was just a, they're both words, but. And then my only other question was in these last two. Where as is. When I read it through, because we were appropriately saying things about our. All black regiments and all and our connection to those and the Civil War tablets. I read those last two where as is potentially only relating to Civil War veterans. Because it's directly after talking about the Civil War. And so I didn't know whether the sponsors. Read it that way, whether that was just me. And if it is read that way, whether there should be some change in language to potentially clarify that it's all veterans. Of all wars, not just. Of the Civil War. I personally think it should be for all veterans. I think it should be for good catch. And so you could say where as. We honor the legacy of patriotism and dedication. To our country. Country as. I don't know. Go ahead.   I'm I'm I'm sorry, I'm mumbling. It seems to me, whereas the legacy of patriotism and dedication. To country. Of all soldiers. From the Civil War through.  Is an inspiration to all Americans. Something like that. So all soldiers we make sure that people who think revolutionary wars included here are not. Slided. So just leave it. The other thing is I'm not a big history buff at all, but. Does Memorial Day. Only honor soldiers or I just did a quick look. Or is it like all military. Personnel of, you know, and I don't know exactly how. But all military. Personnel of, you know, and I don't know exactly what that. All military personnel who have died. I think it's maybe all. Oh, I don't know. I don't know. That's what it. Like all service because it would probably be like, you know. Those who went over probably like we're medical personnel or. Else. That's right. That's what that's what Wikipedia says. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. And it shouldn't just say of all wars, it's somehow or other should give a frame because are we celebrating. It might not be a bad idea. Vietnam soldiers who fought against America. We don't really memorialize or credit them or anything. And they're just like, you know, we're not going to be celebrating all American wars and conflicts. That language is up here in the third whereas or whatever. So that's where I took it from. Yeah. And then the next one, just to help you move on. Yeah. Please. I mean, I think if the first whereas is corrected, then the second one reflected the first one. Yeah. It was just that there seemed to be pointing to civil war. Veterans only. The last whereas reflects back to all service personnel then. I agree with that. And unless the Nica has any other comments, I'm fine with the changes you recommended. Great. You're good to Nica. Okay. The only other question I had was if there, I know there's a celebrate or there's something planned for the town, right? Yeah. So that's where we're going to be. We're going to be on Memorial Day. It is a parade. And then it ends up at the Memorial pool. Where there is a ceremony. And that's where this proclamation would be read. Okay. Great. And do we need to, do we write that in normally in the last paragraph? Okay. No. Sometimes we have, I feel like we've included a flag raising, for example. But that's okay. I think it's fine. We know.  Group and, but I don't have particulars. So yeah, I just know that there is a parade. There is a ceremony. I've been to both in the past. As I believe have other counselors as well. So yeah, great. But there wasn't anything last year. Okay. All right. Or maybe even 2020. So this, this may go back to 2019. Okay. All right. So if there aren't any other changes, Anika, would you like to make the motion to approve this? Okay. I move. Excuse me. Excuse me. I can put the language. Clear, consistent and actionable. Yes. Yes. I want to declare the Memorial Day proclamation, clear, consistent and actionable. Nice. I second that. And let's see. Pat. Hi. Anika. Hi. Mandy. Hi. And I'm an eye. Okay. Great. Thank you, Lynn. Thanks for joining us for this. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Yeah. I think we need a sticky note or something that goes. I don't know. I mean, it's, it's, it's three words. But it took me the same thing. I still sometimes when I'm asked, like, what do we do?  Thank you. That was really great. And thanks for making that fast. Okay. So Mandy, I was attempting to write a motion for the proposed rescission of zoning bylaw article 13. And then realized that I don't really know what we're supposed to be doing. So I'm going to ask you. So normally with bylaws, it's a declaration of clear, consistent and actionable too. This is there. There's no bylaw to look at per se because the plan for this one, which is the zoning bylaw only is to rescind the whole thing. Right. There's nothing to look at on. I don't even know what we'd look at, but, but I guess the motion then would be to declare the rescission of this bylaw clear, consistent and actionable. It seems kind of strange. Why not just actionable? Yeah. That's true. Yeah. Because that's all we're voting on. Yeah. That's a good point. Yeah. And is that what we were asking? Yeah. Yeah. That's a good point. Yeah. And is that what we were asked? So the reason it got referred to GOL is just, that's part of the process when a rescission is being proposed or any bylaw change the part of the, it goes to GOL for final declaration of clarity, consistency and actionability. And so that's why it was referred here, even though it's a rescission. And just for GOL purposes. CRC and planning. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that the board are not quite done with the general bylaw that accompanies this. So that's why that's not in front of us right now. Hopefully we'll be CRC will be finished with it tomorrow, but. Okay. Recision CRC is done with. So. GOL can knock it off its plate. Okay. So I, so. Yeah, please. I'm going to declare the recision of zoning bylaw article 13 demo, demolition delay for structures of historical or architectural significance actionable. That's us. Okay. Anika seconds and. Pat. Hi. Anika. Hi. Mandy. Hi. And I'm an eye as well. All right. Good. So. Let's see. I'm going to try to, um, I'm going to propose something around the standing committee structure. This is something that has been lagging on our agenda for quite some time. And I. Have spoken to both Mandy a while back about CRC's discussion. This is going now months back. And the, this is a really, a really interesting point for us to see. And I know that you've been talking about Carla Dorothy really about TSO's recommendation. I did provide their recommendation and their report. In the packet. But speaking with Anna most recently. And she's actually here. So if we need to, we could bring her in, but basically TSO, um, felt that there was a capacity issue with respect to adding that the outreach really hasn't been defined by TSO yet. So they've talked about what the O is. And Anika, you're here too, you're in TSO. So you could speak to this. Yeah. So my recommendation at this time is that we leave the current structure in place until, at least until TSO has had an opportunity to really define outreach. And then at that time, maybe GOL can then take another review of the committees. If there's more discussion, if that's not what this committee believes we should recommend to the town council, then I'm gonna hold off on this until later in the meeting. But if folks are comfortable with that, I do have a motion that could move us through so that that recommendation can move on. I'm not comfortable with that because I feel like the changes to committee structure, I think TSO is right on. Outreach belongs there. We're trying to do a lot of work that's unnecessary and reduce size, et cetera. I think we need to vote this down. I don't recommend it at all. Well, maybe there's a miscommunication, Pat. What are we voting down? There isn't anything to vote down that I don't hear out. We've talked about committee structure and Pam, Rooney gave us or Jennifer, I think it was Pam though. Gave us a thing about changing committees, increasing the number of committees, one without breach, one for economic development or something, and also reducing the number of counselors on a committee. And I don't see that going forward in any way. And so I really don't wanna spend a lot of time on this. I think TSO was clear. Yeah, and they're waiting for them to define outreach. It's their job to define outreach. When a committee defines some of their purpose or when the outreach, and what was the first committee, Mandy Jo, outreach communication? It's in appointments, yeah. They defined what they were doing and brought that to the council. I don't think it's up to us to look at their definition, but I don't know. Well, let me just clarify what I was, so sorry, Anika, let me just clarify. I wasn't suggesting that we look at their definition of outreach. I'm suggesting exactly what you are is that the standing committee structures stay as it is. Right. And that if after they've reviewed and defined outreach differently and have a different recommendation, then we could revisit the structure. Okay. That was what I was putting in. I'm sorry, sorry. No, no, that's okay. And Anika, please go ahead. Yes, I just wanted to be clear that TSO is not waiting to necessarily define what is outreach or give a definition of outreach. It's more in terms of having information to know where the parameters are around it for the committee. So that was something that we had to communicate with all of our comment. And staff for that. So it's, yeah. Can I just want to add one thing? I support Pat. I would go one step further than Michelle and Pat and say we shouldn't revisit it at all. We should just say we recommend not changing the committees. Yeah. We're going in right now. Oh, but we'll talk about it in four months or something. I would go the step further and just say whatever the motion is, the recommendation is to not change the committee structure or duties under the committees because that's that's the other part is not change the duties or the number of, you know, just leave everything the same. However, that motion looks. I'm good with that. If others are good with that. And then so I can read what I had written. I'll remove the piece about coming back, you know, to it. And you just added duties. So I had, I moved to recommend to the town council that the current standing committee structure remains unchanged. Do we need to say, including the duties of the or unchanged period? I think if you get rid of structure, you could just say the current standing committees remain unchanged. Okay. Current standing committees remain unchanged. Okay. Period. Okay. Great. Athena, did you get that? Hopefully. Yes, thanks for checking. Okay. Is there a second on that? The answer was second. Great. And Anika? I. Mandy? I. Pat? I. And I'm an I as well. Okay. Great. All right. So we are going to move on now to the plant medicine resolution. So we have Anna here and we also have James, our community sponsor. I'm just going to give a little bit of a framework of why we're coming back to this, but let's bring Anna and James in. Welcome, James. Welcome, Anna. Yeah, you're blurry, Anna. I'm over. Rude. It's a Wednesday, Pat. I had to clean mine this morning too. Okay. So welcome. So we are going to revisit this resolution today. But since the last time, well, the last time we met, we had a discussion that was really rich and also led to not a full recommendation to the town council. Mandy had addressed some concerns that she has. And I think that she's not alone in those concerns as it pertains not only to this resolution, but to other measures that the council is working on. And so the idea here is that we are bringing it back so that not to focus necessarily on everything else that we've already focused on in the upper half of the resolution, but really to focus on the conversation that we started and that we were having last week and to be able to try to come to some consensus here where everybody is comfortable with moving forward and bringing this to the town council for a vote.  I will add that there was a gazette piece that came out yesterday and James perhaps you had a chance to see that. I'm not sure if others have, but it spoke about sort of the council's intention to move forward with this resolution. And so Anna, can I pass it over to you just to speak for a moment more about that and just from our point of view around the policy piece of things. And also if Mandy, if you wanna bring it up or we can just talk and then bring it up in a minute. Sure. I'm gonna take care of my dog for a second. Thanks, Michelle. So hi everybody. I think the thing that I've been thinking about this a lot for the past couple of days, I think the thing that's really important here is partially a larger conversation that we have about whether or not we need to articulate in our rules of procedure the non-binding elements of resolutions because from what I understand some of the concerns, not all of the concerns but some of the concerns that were coming up were are we dictating policy in this resolution? And so I think that we might consider or I might ask GOL to consider what we need to do to stress that resolutions are non-binding. It's not explicitly written out even though it's been the understanding that resolutions are an expression of opinion. I mean, that's like the little literal dictionary definition, right? So however, there are places that use resolutions at to drive policy. And so I think it's important that we do consider that on a larger scale. This one in particular, this is not a decision that we have this is not in the bigger picture decision that we have the authority as a town council to make, right? This is a federal decision ultimately. And so there's something to be said for that. I understand the questions regarding policing and once again, that would require an entirely separate process not just a simple majority vote as a resolution. So this is not driving policy change. It is expressing a statement of opinion on behalf of the council if it passes that we support decriminalization. Michelle, I don't know if that's what you were talking about me speaking to but I wanted that was my important part of being clear. Yeah, that's really helpful and thank you. I did get some, so just so you know, two things happening. There were some questions that came through to Lynn that James has answered we put together the sponsors have put together a memo and it will go into the packet later today for the town council meeting before Monday. Councillor Steinberg also just this morning, unfortunately his timing has, he's been very busy but he did send over some concerns. But I really wanna just focus on this. So Mandy, would you like to add to or comment on what Anna just spoke about? I mean, yeah, in the packet there wasn't a change in language and I guess I still maintain that the charter that says exercise of powers in section 2.6 that says the policy leadership of the town council may be exercised in a manner, you know, we are the policy leaders and when a resolution whether or not someone says it's supposed to be non-binding when a resolution says the town council maintains it should be the policy of the town, X, I don't see how that's different than saying it is the policy of the town because we exercise the policy leadership. Now that policy might require future changes from the executive side, right? You know, we can say, you know, it's the policy to do X and then Paul might have to work out how that looks but we've set the policy that says X, Y or Z. And so I don't believe without changes to the language as long as those words are in there that I can say this is actionable because to me there is a conflict between people saying resolutions are not binding and language that a council by a majority vote adopts that says this is the policy because those two conflict and if we're going to set that policy we should put it way up at the top. This is a policy. And so that doesn't mean it can't go to the council for a vote, you know, a non-unanimous opinion here doesn't prevent a vote at the council. That's the thing. And so that's just my choice. That's true, but I think that it's if it comes with a unanimous vote and more importantly, if we actually can get to the root of what not only you but other counselors including Andy and others have talked about that would be really good. And we definitely didn't want this resolution to be the lightning rod for that whole conversation to happen, you know, necessarily. Let me just add one other thing. Getting to the root of a policy issue does not necessarily mean this will stay even if this vote gets there that it would stay on consent that it won't have opposition at the council. And so if that's the point then, you know that this conversation has nothing to do with the actual substantive matters other than policy versus not about what the resolution says. So... Yeah, that's true. Pat, I saw your hand and then Anna's hand. I agree with Mandy on many levels and having to come back to this made me do a little bit more looking and I pulled up Cambridge's resolution and I pulled up Eastampton because I believe it was you James said that there were differences and that you had made Amherst stronger. So one of the changes that I think is important is getting rid of the word maintains and in the other resolutions we have the word believes. And that seems to me any way to carry less weight. And there's also, I don't know how far to go so I can stop. No, go ahead. In the second be it further or the first be it further resolved there it has a statement that the town should not use any state or federal funds or resources to assist in the enforcement. Now Cambridge says should use city funds or resources. And without you guys having met with the chief of police I don't know what kind of impact this would have. So it's kind of niggling at me from my own history with creating a working on a bylaw. So I don't think this should say anything about federal funds or state funds. We're talking about our town. Well, yeah, that's okay James you can respond in a second. And I do want to hear you because I still support very strongly the idea of this resolution. What's the other thing? I don't know. There was one more thing that I'm not thinking of right now. Let me see if I could find it. Oh, and this would be an addition. I think I'll stop there. Okay, I'll come back in because I've lost part of my thought. Okay, fair enough Pat. Anna? Sure, so I think, yeah, I, Mandy, I agree. And I think that I'm less bent towards consensus than some other folks for better or for worse. I think it's lovely to pursue consensus. And I think poor Michelle has heard me say it doesn't need to be a consensus all the time. And I think she's probably sick of me saying that. However, there's value and consensus and I appreciate the energy towards it. And I think I do want to differentiate what we need to do to this resolution versus the larger conversation we need to have, right? And so I wonder if it is a simple language choice. I mean, the sponsors went around and around between the words shall and should. In my mind, shall is much more binding than should. And I think that if there are other things that we can do to specifically call out how this is non-binding, then I'm comfortable doing that. However, Pat, to your point, one of the things I spoke to one of the sponsors of the East Hampton resolution about theirs and they were talking about how they spoke with, or they said, well, you could consider speaking with the board of health and the police, et cetera, et cetera. And my point was once I start speaking to town departments, this feels less non-binding because once I start talking to them about what their policy changes would be, what their practices would be, should we do this? That to me indicates that I'm planning on changing their policy. And this resolution is not doing that. This resolution does provide the ground to do that if we decided to pursue it, but this resolution is not doing that. And so for me, I did not seek to speak with the chief of police about this because I did not want it to feel or be binding to them. And in speaking to them about the implications, that's how it would be. I think that's all I have for now. Okay. Before I go to you, James, just in case Pat wants to say something that you can then respond to within your, do you want me to go to James first, Pat? Okay, James, you're up. Hi, good morning, everyone. Thank you for all that you do. Really humbled to be here as a volunteer. I am doing my best. I volunteer for this group, right? It's a lot of work out of me. I do this because it's really important to me and I'm really passionate about it. I had no control over how journalists covered this in the Gazette. The journalists never responded to us. The police chief never responded to us. We reached out in good faith. And I just wanted to say we have conducted ourselves like, we've done a lot of work trying to just communicate this, the best of our abilities to your colleagues. It's important, what it is doing to the media. And we've just been a good faith partner all along the way. So I just wanted to put that out there because I have no control over how the press covers anything.  So I just wanted to say that with regards to the Gazette article, any language that you all want us to use, we're happy to use it. I think it's really disappointing that the police department did not reach back out to us and a sworn officer of the law, which is why I think that really making the position clear is a really important statement. There are researchers at UMass that are really excited to conduct this groundbreaking research. And I think in 10 or 20 years, people are gonna look back at this as a watershed moment in your town's history. And I don't say that lightly because the amount of innovation that will come from these compounds for treating Alzheimer's traumatic brain injuries, neurogenerative diseases is absolutely awe-inspiring. And so I just wanted to put that out there in context that this is actually really, really, really, really important stuff and really cool stuff too. It's not just at least from the advocate's perspective about this process, which is really dragged on and brought a lot of people down. And I just don't want it to demoralize volunteers anymore because there are people doing excellent, excellent work to make this happen. I'm open to language changes. I'm not really sure what is being referred to in the Cambridge measure, to be honest with you. That was a little over a year ago. And we were more on the advocacy side of it than the top level language changes that happen there. So if someone could, first of all, send me the newest draft for Amherst because I'm not really sure what the newest draft for Amherst is. And then if someone could send me, if you did have access to that, counselor D'Angelois, the Cambridge measure, I'm happy to take a look at that as well. I hope you'll forgive that I don't remember specific language in a measure over a year ago. And then... While you're thinking on that, James, I just wanna say yesterday I sent an email with a PDF that included the answers to the questions that you had responded. The latest version of the measure is at the bottom of that PDF, just in case you wanted to have it immediately. And it hasn't been changed since you were here last time. So whatever we had all voted on last time, nothing has changed between that time and today. And that's in that PDF there. Why don't we go ahead, Mandy, and bring up... And I just, I would like to ask you, Mandy, directly. And I hear what you're both saying about the consensus piece. I think my bigger point is that I was concerned that this would get messy in council because it wouldn't be focused on the resolution itself. It would sort of offshoot into this other conversation about policymaking. And I really wanted us to be able to have that conversation here. It doesn't mean it can't happen again, but my preference would be that it doesn't happen necessarily in relation to this measure because I think that that's problematic. However, I think that Mandy's absolutely correct in that. And I can say just from reading the questions that have come through from counselors that regardless of that matter, there's just substance matter that will come up and most likely will be addressed at the town council meetings. So those are separate for sure. But I guess my question to you, Mandy, is if we were, and Pat too, because you had brought up some things. So can we move into looking at the language and see if there's a place we can get to that feels like it resolves some of our concerns? And then we'll see where we get. You know, I'm really being careful about the time. So according to my estimates here, we have about 10 minutes here to continue working on this. So, Mandy, would you mind bringing that up? Thank you. And just to confirm, Pat, Ian is the student debt sponsor. He's in the audience. Is that? Okay, perfect. So just Ian, I have student debt coming up after we complete this discussion and vote. So I'm thinking about 10, 30, 10, 35 at the latest. So if you did wanna come back in 15 minutes, you're welcome to or please stick around and we'll bring you in when we get to that. Okay, great. So Pat, before we move to the bottom pieces with the shall and the should and that, can you point us to where you had concerns? Let me see, the first be it further resolved, that's where I'm concerned that it says, yeah, that no town should use any town, state or federal funds or resources. And I don't, I think that should only read town funds or resources partially because I don't know. Okay, let me putts in here a little bit. It needs to be the discretion of the police. It needs to be at the discretion of the police what actions they take. And what I bring up is the sanctuary bylaw that I worked on with other folks and we got passed in town meeting. And what the police chief said at that meeting, we had shell, they shall not do this, this, this. And he said may because officer discretion is very important. There is a line here for me between minor offenses of federal law, et cetera, and more complex ones. So I guess I would love to see that a police officer making a stop around some of this has in her ability, has in her backpack or whatever, the ability to assess the situation, thinking about the issues that are being brought up in this resolution and then making a decision on a course of action. And so I think that is important. And in terms of the, so that's okay. So those are the two things right there. I have other things, but like that's where I'd like to stick with one instead of getting scattered all over the place. Sure, yeah, that makes sense. So Anna and then James. Pat, could you clarify how not using state or federal funds impacts? Well, those I brought in two different things Anna. So yeah, so that's why and that's- So could you re-summarize apologies? Could you re-summarize your concerns regarding state or federal funds? I don't think that I, when we did the sanctuary bylaw we said this a very similar kind of thing that we would not, and in fact we would not help, we would not work with federal agents and things like that. This feels to me like it intrigued me why Cambridge is saying only town funds and resources. I don't have any control. We don't overest or how the police department is using state or federal funds. I'm talking myself out of this. Yeah, so I'm not convinced of it because I do think that we have control whether or not we apply for grants that the federal level have control. Like I do think that that is something we have control over and could ask to not use. And I agree with you. So- I like when that happens, but that was where my- I like it better when you agree with me but your point is well taken. Okay, James and then actually James just hang on because I want to give Mandy an opportunity. She may be responding to that as a member of the committee. Mandy, please. All I was going to say is if we're modeling it after other towns that have adopted some of these, Northampton also didn't refer to state or federal funds. They only referred to city funds and they only referred to funds, not resources. Resources I think brings in a whole nother level but that's a substantive issue that I don't want to discuss. Cause that's, you know, but, you know this is where our restrictions in DOL become problematic. But yeah, so Northampton is use any city funds is all it says. Okay, thank you for that. And James. Thank you. In terms of policy, towns regularly are approached by DEA for like matching grants and all sorts of resources that help them enforce pretty draconian drug laws that destroy lives and make research very difficult to do. So state and federal resources to police departments helps perpetuate the drug war. That's why that's in there. I don't recall that getting taken out in Northampton or Cambridge and for what it's worth, I think that it's better policy to include it. I think maybe the concern goes back to telling the police what to do. If we make it clear to them that it's a non-binding resolution, that's a choice that you all can make. It's not up to us as advocates. What I will say though is just again, I'm going back to the fact that a sworn officer reached out to the Amherst police department and was ignored. So it just, it seems like the culture of policing does need strong statements of policy or strong statements of what the policy ought to be. If they're going to continue to have, if they're going to have good faith conversations because that's ultimately our goal. In Somerville, we went back and they actually completely got rid of their narcotics unit. They actually went back and clarified that they had made zero arrests and that that was the policy that they train officers with. And that's ultimately our goal. So strong statements so we can have good dialogue with the police department after and stripping down the language or giving them Luke polls to use state or federal funds like just wavering on where you will stand on that. And my view weakens those conversations. However, on the other hand, it's not that big of a deal to just say town funds or resources or town funds. If you all feel that the intention is clear there to the police department. We just, I almost don't want it to be a bigger issue that we talk about in the city in the final city vote because I want people to be talking about plant medicine. And so if it's just easier to take that out, it's fine. But DEA and the state government do partner with local police departments to carry out the drug war for what it's worth. Thank you, James. And I'd like to add council Steinberg's voice where this may be relevant. So he had said that there's no indication of the position of the town manager of public safety departments, including crests. They haven't been consulted essentially or the board of health or the health director. And he doesn't say that it needs to be of the resolution but that it can be in the presentation of the resolution. He says they don't have to support it but it would be important to know that they don't oppose it. So I just, that's for sponsors really but just to sort of add into that piece of things. Anna, I see your hand. Yeah, this is just pulling back Mandy's comment from a couple of minutes ago, just of, I hear Andy's comment, but again, we are focusing on clarity, consistency and actionability and I don't think that impacts any of those three things. Okay. James, your hand is still up, is were you... To Andy's concern, we did have a lot of people reach out to him and looked forward to chatting with him, have not heard back. Can a town bureaucracy take a position on these things? I mean, from my understanding, the reason why the police department might not be meeting with us is because they can't take a position. They look to the city council, the town council to have a position. So I just wanted clarity on that. Like can the town manager take a position on a resolution? I'm really not sure. I think with respect to policy, but Mandy, maybe you have a better answer for that. I just wanted to say all of the language that James has been using goes back to my point about that this is setting the policy. The reason the police wouldn't take a position necessarily is because it's the town council's role to set policy and then the police follow it. It's the town council's role to set policy and then Crest follows it. And even some of the language James has used. And I don't fault you, James, for this language. I'm not like saying, you know, I understand your position. This is where I get to action ability, which is the language and is, well, we take this resolution and then we can go to the police department and say, hey, the town council wants. Well, when the town council sets the policy, if the town council passes, this is where I struggle with what's the difference between a resolution that says this should be the policy and a document that says policy on top that says this should be the policy. And because what I'm hearing from the advocates is they're going to take this if it's passed and say, well, the council said it should be the policy and so you need to do it. And the council is policy leadership. And so that's where I struggle with if people are asking me where I would go or what I would need changed in order to potentially say this is not, that this is actionable on those grounds, you either have to change it to the top that says resolution and policy of and then leave policy in or you need to get rid of the words policy throughout this document and make it, I think last time I tried with language of supports, the lowest law enforcement priorities supports not spending money, but doesn't set policy on it. But says, if you're not going to we're gonna support you not spending that we're gonna support you not arresting credentialed researchers but saying it's the policy that that is not a high priority in the town is different than saying, we'll support that action. And so those, if you're looking for where the changes need to be it has to not use the words policy because that's my issue with actionability is resolutions in general should not be setting policy and should not be binding yet we as a council are the policy leadership. And so if you refer to policy in a document we're going to adopt, it does by default in my mind set policy. Okay, so practically speaking here because of our time I there are essentially two paths really that this can take. So we can either amend the language as Mandy has suggested and bring that resolution if then that leads to Mandy voting in favor of it being consistent and actionable and clear then it would go on to the consent agenda James have already explained this to you it doesn't mean it won't be pulled for substantive issues that counselors have but the discussion in council then will really be focused around those issues rather than this policy issue. The second pathway is that's not acceptable we leave policy in there we leave it as is Mandy leaves her vote as is and then we get to the council on Monday it's not in the consent agenda and for absolute certain this I would imagine will come up coupled with the policy discussion. If I'm not seeing a third if there's a third path that I haven't seen I would very much appreciate knowing what that is but those are the two paths that I see. I did see Anna your hand was up and then Pat and Anna James and then me. Okay, Anna and then James and Pat. I'm curious about the option of instead of saying policy if we said practice I mean if it's the literal word policy that feels like it's driving policy what would general thoughts be on shifting the word policy to say practice and we can add beliefs in there too but believes it should be the practice of the town of Amherst and its departments would that shift it? Cause essentially what we're saying is that it's interesting to think about actionability when what we're saying is that we don't want it to be actionable. So I'm a little stuck on that but I think if we say believes and practice if that would feel better for folks in terms of a actual policy getting it away from being read as policy. I support that. I know we talked about that last time and I think that that would be a good resolution. James? I disagree with using believes. I think that hereby maintains it should be the practice is accurate because under state law, we can't set policy. Like that's why we're not passing this as policy Mandy like it because it's not policy until the state law has changed. So it says like hereby maintains it should be the policy. It should be the policy but that's really up to the state to change that policy. I think hereby maintains it should be the practice actually is more clear and actionable because police departments do have their own training protocols. Police departments do have their own like guidance that they give to officers when they are training them. And in practice that is similar to policy. I mean, it certainly affects people's lives and certainly destroy people's lives for trying to treat their depression with a plant that's been safely used for 8,000 years. So for us like stripping down the language to believes it just makes it sound like this is daycare like, oh, we all believe we believe that this should someday manifest to be sort of something I think that the town council should make a pretty clear statement that it should be the practice like in practice, police officers should not do this so that we can have conversations with the police department to formalize training and they don't even know what these plans are, right? They ignored a sworn officer of the law, a city councilor that has said that they wanted to meet with their policy experts has ignored no shortage of like 10 of them. We've had over a hundred volunteers reach out. We've had people share their stories. I think that it should be a strong statement and I think that hereby maintains it should be the practice as a good compromise for what it's worth. So let me ask you, Mandy, would the word practice be acceptable to you? I'm still thinking. Okay. Since my screen is shared, I can't do anything that shows how I'm thinking without like finding another document. I can share my screen. Mandy, if you want, I can pull it up on mine so you can take that down. So you can do what you need. And I just want to check in with Anika to see if you have anything. I know your hands on that up. It would be maybe if you had some, but I just want to check in with you. Yeah, so I was just actually looking at just the numbers of minutes in between opioid deaths in a day and they're best, you know, quite a number since we've been having this conversation. So I'm really motivated to move towards whatever language is that it feels strong enough without setting policy. So we can really move towards being a part of saving lives and making lives easier for a lot of struggling folks and protecting the resources that some of these medicines are coming from. That's what I have at this moment. Thank you, Anika. And I really, I support that. That really resonates. So thank you for saying that.  Okay, that's a common challenge. So this is, and James, I'm not sure what your timeline is. I do want Mandy to be able to have a couple of minutes to think this through. And so I wonder if it makes sense for us to move on and move on to the next thing on our, although Mandy, I don't know how much you can think if we're moving on or maybe we can take just a couple of minutes recess. What do folks think would be the best, Pat? I feel, is there something brewing in your head? Please. Right now the focus is on Mandy as the one dissenting voice, but at this point, I don't think I can vote that this is actionable right now. So I really need more time around this also. So I'm not sure what to move, but I think it has to be re-voted whatever happens today before it comes to the council. Okay, and Pat, what, other than the concerns that you brought up, which I think James said he was fine with removing the state and federal, was there something else in addition to that? For me, it is the issue of policy. What are we doing? Yeah, I have many friends in my life who have been incarcerated for drug arrests. That shouldn't, if this were a policy they would not have been arrested. And some of them, Devante was arrested at 17 and in prison for 10 years before he was sentenced, was commuted. So I have real experience with the people that are affected by this. So when I talk about the policy issue, it's not light. It's not, I'm really trying to understand what the role of the council is because I feel like in some ways we're, and that's a separate issue in a certain way. So in terms of how to do this, I don't know. I like the change that, I could live with James's maintains it should be the practice of, but if that's still establishes policy then I have a problem with it. And I don't know, I don't know. So one thing that I looked at in this journey as we've been dealing with this is I looked back at the anti-black structural racism resolution. And there's a lot in there that says essentially like it should be the policy that we do not accept bigotry. We do not accept all of these things. And in fact, we've seen where we were able to use that resolution more recently in a way that isn't binding, but that sort of stood our ground. And so I don't see this as any different than that. Honestly, I think that that's what we're saying here is that we're making a strong statement. And I do believe that changing the language to maintains it should be the practice does in my mind fit the bill to kind of manage the concerns. And again, looking at the anti-black structural racism resolution, it was really clear in there that those concerns weren't raised in there. And we've actually used that resolution in really healthy ways, I think. And so I do think that it's sort of, yeah, I'll stop there. But that was helpful for me. So James, did you have your hand up for real this time? Yeah, I think the points have been made are really strong ones. Amherst can't set policy. Like Amherst can't set policy, it's a state policy. And so police can still follow the controlled substances act at the state level. So when we've talked with all these city councils, the understanding was that it was a very strong statement of values to catalyze better conversations with local law enforcement, who I think a lot of them actually do oppose the war on drugs and understand why this matters, but also sometimes they'll make excuses and be like, well, this is already a low priority. And yet people are still arrested. There's no accountability in a lot of the cities where we've heard police say that. So this is a way for us to open up a dialogue and a productive dialogue. And that's why I think strong language is important, but we don't understand it to be policy because the city can't set policy on drug charges, unfortunately, it can only try to set the priority, which there's a long, rich constitutional tradition of setting enforcement priorities with masks, right? To let towns and localities make these types of advisory decisions and how they want police to enforce the law. So I think that the pandemic provides a great avenue to understand this cannabis is still very illegal, still a Schedule I drug, the most illegal type of drug there is, and yet it's sold here because we were able to change state law. And this is what creates momentum to get the state law right because we are inundated with corporate money that is just trying to make this another pharmaceutical drug and charge people $15,000. We're at the minimum $5,000 for treatments and we don't wanna see that happen. We want everyone to be able to afford to sit with a facilitator because it's so helpful. And the only way we're gonna force Beacon Hill to do this right is if we have enough cities and towns that have done the right thing and said that this is what they believe the practice should be and have modeled it and showed the sky doesn't fall. People are actually benefiting a ton. So for what it's worth and I appreciate all the concerns raised. I think they're really good ones. I'll say this genuinely, Mandy, like I think your concerns are appreciated that you brought them up since the beginning for sure. Okay, thank you, James, Anika. Yeah, so I just wanna say also I appreciate Mandy's concerns. I also appreciate what you Michelle and James have just said. And I definitely think that it's worth noting that surely we are not looking at a police department that is uplifting and withholding the Warren drugs here in Amherst. I mean, in most parts, we don't see it across the country. There's neighborhoods, neighborhoods alone bigger than the town of Amherst that have been completely annihilated by the Warren drugs. You can't not see it. And so in some of them, you won't see it now due to gentrification, but this is also why this happened.  And this is where you've had some of these efforts set up shop. So again, I think that whatever language we could get to agree on that we're not telling the police department what to do especially when we're clearly looking at a department that does not have a record of really enforcing what we're trying to bring light to in terms of decriminalization and really just kind of move towards what we can agree upon knowing that when we pass this word, we're five, we do not speak for the entire council but just to be able to comfortably pass it forward for a vote. Thank you, Anika. Mandy? Yeah, so my brief research because what I was trying to figure out is is there a difference between practice and policy and all and there might be one place I found basically said a policy sort of the equivalent of, you know in a legal sense of binding legal so we could equate it to a bylaw or something that's binding, that it must be followed. And I found this in a business context not a government context. So I'll say that, but it was like, it must be filed. If you don't follow it, there are repercussions in the business, you know, you violated the policy you can be reprimanded whatever by your employer. Whereas a practice is more like a thing people tend to do but is not binding, you know and so if you don't do that then you can't be reprimanded, you can't you haven't violated any formal rule. So it's more of a tradition instead of, you know I'm missing the other word but more tradition and all instead of, you know binding rule and if that translates into a government setting using the word practice then in a resolution I think, you know at this point with hesitation I would be able to say it's actionable using that word. If as long, you know translating that sort of, you know that sort of definitional difference to the municipal policy setting, legal setting area of government that we are I think then that would satisfy my concerns on actionability. Thank you, Mandy. And Pat, did that, yeah, okay. So if we, I could go ahead and bring it up if you just give me or actually, Mandy, are you gonna be able to edit in real time? Is there something wrong with yours today or you're good, okay. Thank you. I don't have the option I normally have of just sharing a document and not my whole screen and so anything I do on my screen, you see. Right, I was googling something. Which is why I couldn't like without I'm sharing look up things or that's what everyone would have been staring at. Normally I have the option of having a portion so I'll have to update Zoom. I guess that's the problem with it. Okay, awesome. All right, so the, so we're gonna go ahead and we're gonna change all of the policy to practice. Are we removing state and federal? Pat, you feel, how are you feeling about that in this moment? I, you can leave it. Okay, and then we're not, we're using the word maintains, not believes and were there any other matters here? Any other changes? All right, so in that case, would somebody like to make a motion to declare this? Anyone? Okay, I will make the motion then to declare the hold on now. I can't see the whole name of it. I can get it. Oh, sorry, hold on. No, no, you're good. I have it actually, I think right here. Okay, I declare the, so I declare a resolution protecting adult access to plant medicines and prioritizing public health responses to controlled substance possession, clear, consistent and actionable. Is there? I hold up, second. Okay. Okay, excellent. Anika has seconded it, Pat. I wanted to call on you, Anna. I really wanted, Mandy. I. Sorry, and thank you. Thank you for all of the dialogue. And Anika, did you second it, but you didn't vote, so you have to vote? I. Okay, great. All right, thank you very much. James, what's gonna happen now, just so you know, I'll follow up with you, but Mandy will send me a clean version of this that includes all of the stuff that we just talked about. And then I will include it in that larger PDF and I will send it to you so you have everything. The council will also receive that PDF with the answer to your questions, all of the other documentation you provided plus the voted on resolution. Amazing. Thank you all so much for your patience with all of this.  Like it's actually really impressive. I think you're doing your constituents proud. Kind of on that note, do you think it would be helpful if we just do declared that we were gonna have an info session meeting and then invited the city councilors to just drop in if they are available, like say tomorrow evening, because I feel like reaching out to them individually to try to set up times is a little difficult, but maybe we could just give a presentation and then whoever can join will join. Do you think that that would be appropriate or good? I think most of us have things in the evening. I can't speak for everyone, but I know I do meetings and other things. Oh, tomorrow Thursday. Present the day after the evening Thursday. Yes. Yeah, I'm talking about Thursday, did I say? Anyway, the other thing is, I think your presentation needs to happen in council. Okay. Not separately in trying, because we can't come together and look at your presentation and discuss policy without breaking open meeting ball. So I think just bring it to the council and that would be part of the discussion and the vote would be the presentation. The only piece with that, and Pat's absolutely right. So if a large number of councilors came to that info session, then we would, I mean, not if we weren't debating, we could just listen, but the only thing Pat is, I don't believe, and I've never seen where a resolution like this, I don't believe that Lynn has set this up and Anna, maybe you could speak to this as where there will be any opportunity for presentation by the community sponsors. Am I wrong on that, Anna? Please speak to that. You could request it, but it would mean it wouldn't go on consent as far as I know. Because otherwise it's public comment that they'll, like that you could bring people to three minutes each of public comment to sort of make your presentation in addition to what we're including in the packet. But we can talk about that offline, so we can move on if that works for you. Absolutely, and if you could just invite people when you send the packet, like if you could include my email and my number and say like call, email anytime if they have more questions, just really happy to be a resource and help however we can. Awesome, I will definitely do that. Okay, thank you, James. All right, so let's move on to where am I here? Student debt I believe is what I wanted to move on to next and we have Ian, our community sponsor. You'll recall that we worked on this several weeks ago. Now it went back for some changes. There was an additional sponsor added. Councilor Steinberg is now a sponsor of this and I believe worked with the group. And is Alicia still a sponsor? Okay, great. Okay, so welcome Ian, nice to see you. Hi all. Hello, would you and or Anna please just quickly brief us on what has occurred in terms from the last time we reviewed this and what we should be looking for here? Sure, Anna, do you want me to do or? Sure, and Pat also would probably have to. Oh yes, excuse me, sorry, it's... Ian, do you want to start? Do you feel like comfortable starting off? Sure, sure. So we originally passed this at a GOL meeting of I think March 2nd and then the town council meeting that it was going to be presented at. There were maybe at least one or two objections to passing it by, is it unanimous consent or the passing it by consent? And so we went back to looking at the language of it, both in terms of the flow and structure of the resolution to make it have a readable narrative and to have the articles sort of lead up to the ultimate therefore. And so there are a couple right there in the beginning that sort of illustrate the crisis of student loan debt that are the newest ones. I think the first three or four ones are new. And we also inserted one that acknowledges the advocacy of our congressional delegates on student debt cancellation while still pushing for full cancellation rather than just the $50,000 number. So I think that's what I have to add in terms of framing this for today's meeting. I'm just gonna say I apologize. I pull up the ones that have my notes in them, so. And Mandy, I want you to go through those but Anna or Pat would you wanna add? Do you wanna add to what Ian has said? Not right now, no. Okay. I just wanna note if I can that the process, I mean, I think we had a fine resolution the first time it was clear consistent and actionable. And I do think that while this has been admittedly a very long second drafting, I think that we have come up with something that's really solid. And so I'm pretty proud of this one. I think I know a lot of work went into it. And we've also, we made sure to include sources that were readily available and supported by, for example, our state and local state and federal legislators and things like that. So enjoy. Yeah, and I just wanna really thank you. Honestly, I've been hearing more and more about this in many different arenas and on many different levels. And so I appreciate the sponsors for bringing this forward and doing so much work on it. So Mandy, do you wanna go through your changes? Yes, so my first one was the second whereas I read it and it was just so confusing and didn't seem to be a sentence. So I attempted to, it's original was pursuing further education and training serves as a means of learning individual advancement betterment of a community's investment in our economy's improvement in our draft markets has long been touted. And it was, how do you, it didn't seem to what has long been, there was missing words. There should have been an and has long been touted. Oh, okay. Sorry. I don't know if that fixes your- That might, hold on. I think that might fix it easier than I did. Nice. I'm glad I forgot and I'm sorry I forgot it. No, you, I wasn't sure whether you were trying to say further education and training does all of the, I wasn't sure what the purpose was or whether like the means of learning and that was like- It does all of the middle things and- No, I wasn't sure exactly what it was all doing. So that's why I was changing things. So I think that works for my concern. And I'm not sure how consistent we've been on this, but in some cases after markets, there would be a comma there to really distinguish like I think the two- Love an Oxford comma, put it out. The Oxford comma, yeah. Yeah. That's what this one is for me. I feel wrongly about Oxford commas. So my next one was an addition of federal student loan debt.  I was never mentioned whether it was federal and private or just federal and all. And so, you know, that was a suggestion. I had to make it clearer. I think somewhere further on it's been made clearer that way too. And then my, an Oxford comma, but my biggest one was it was signed to kind of plopped in here in a way that broke up, I thought. The whereas is between black women, 20 years, more than 44 million, oh, more than this. And so I thought it could actually go more appropriately after this higher education act. I agree. I just thought it was in the wrong part of the resolution. I also agree with your statement adding a federal student loan debt because that is the call is for that specifically. So I think that is, that does make it clearer. I don't know, Ian or Pat, feel free to. Yeah, I echo both of what you just said. Yep. I'd also like to take a moment to invite Andy Steinberg into the room who is here in the audience and he is a sponsor of this measure. Welcome, Andy. Can you hear us? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you for joining us. So we're just, we got a brief, I don't know how long you've been here. I just checked the audience, but we got a brief overview of the changes that have been made from Ian and from Anna and Pat. And well, I think just from Ian and a little bit from Anna and now we're going through some changes that Mandy has suggested. Do you want to add anything? I'm very happy with where everything is. Keep going. Okay. My only other one, and I'll check this one, I finalized that that one moved a footnote and it doesn't look like it renumbered the other ones, but we'll make sure that they start at one when things are accepted. My only other one was this is like this date was nearly a year ago at this point. Is there not a better more up-to-date number and date? Or the question is, or if you used a more up-to-date date, would that number change significantly so that you didn't want to? I guess that was my question. Yeah, the study that was released was published in April of this year, but the data goes up until June 1st of last year. Okay. And previously we had cited data that went up to, I think, March or April of last year. And that was 32 individuals that had been forgiven in the past 25 years of income-driven repayment. But as we see, it's actually 157, which is a huge difference. Pardon my sarcasm. Okay. I think those were my only things. Okay. And you're gonna move that paragraph. I did move that paragraph. So. All right, good. So looking at the time here, I'd like to wrap this up if we can, unless the sponsors have anything more to add or if any members of GOL would like to make any other suggestions. Okay. I don't see any hands. Let me just double-check. Oh, I do. Ian, yes. Sorry. All right. No, I just added, raised my hand. I do wanna, as Anna mentioned, this has been sort of a drawn-out process, but it has been very productive in terms of addressing all the issues that sort of come up in this debate, or as many as we could think of for a town resolution. And so I'm grateful in particular for a level of pushback to the original resolution from Andy. And that's been really helpful in, I think, making a stronger, more fruitful discussion and stronger resolution. And I think this is an ideal time to pass this resolution. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you. And we hope that you'll be able to join us on Monday when it gets voted at the town council meeting. So Pat, do you wanna make the motion on this? Yes. Can I see the title? Yes. I move that we declare the resolution calling on President Joe Biden to immediately cancel all student loan debt is clear, consistent and actionable, whatever. Athena will fix it. Thank you, Athena. Is there a second? Second. Okay. One seconds and any further discussion? Okay. I'm a yes. Mandy. Hi. Pat. Hi. Anika. Hi. Great. All right. Congratulations. Thank you so much, Ian, for being here and Andy for joining us. I know you're sticking around, but thank you as well. Thank you. And we'll see you soon. Okay. So we are moving on to the Pride proclamation and I did touch base with our community sponsor, Evan. Unfortunately, he had a conflict and isn't able to join us, but felt very comfortable that Anna and Pat would represent the whole group. So we can bring that up whenever Mandy take a minute because there's a lot going on and just doing a time check. So we have to get to the bylaw while Mandy's doing that. I will say that the bylaw concerning deceptive advertising practices of limited services pregnancy centers. This is going to be more like a first discussion because town manager Backelman is still waiting to receive the legal review so we don't have that yet. So that gives us a little more leeway. Yes, Anna. I was just going to say so, and because my timing is off again next week, or sorry, next GOL, I want to try to capture as many of your questions and so that I can answer them either in writing if I'm not able to be there. So I'm going to try, but I know that next week I won't get canceled out of my class. Okay, and you know our next meeting is the 25th. I keep saying next week, and I mean next week. I know you know what it is. Thank you. All right, so Pat and Anna, if you would take it away on this one and share with us whatever you'd like and then we'll go through it. Pat? This is an important proclamation for me and it was created by myself and Evan when we first came on the council. I came out 46 years ago and there are still times where it becomes difficult to say who I am in many, many situations. And I know that's something that affects many, many people. So this resolution is extremely important to me. And I think we've made some changes, the information about Stonewall was added. And there's a now a plus, which I must admit Anna, I don't know what it means on the, and how you say it. So if you could clarify that for me, the LGBTQ plus. That's how you say it. Okay, and it's represents. Oh, it includes asking what does it mean? Yeah, sorry, sorry, sorry. So typically people would add QIA, right? So it's intersex, asexual, like it continues to be more inclusive of potentially missing some, they add a plus. Okay, so I don't think there's a lot to say, there's one correction, one thing I want us to look at in the fourth whereas, but I think if Anna would like to speak, that should happen first. No, I'm okay, we can. In the fourth whereas, it says we celebrate and reflect upon the courage and accomplishments of the LGBTQ plus community. Who continues? It should, I believe it, who continue or that. So it needs to be one or the other of those. I went between which and who. So I didn't even go to that. So I'm happy to hear other advice on it. Cause I agree. Yeah. Pat and Anna has this, I'm sorry, I didn't look at the original, it sounds like, so since you've originally written it, Pat, this has been updated with some additional information. Is there anything to highlight or just in terms of like relevance in our times right now, anything? Well, given what the Supreme Court is gonna do about abortion rights, you know, we're in danger also. Civil rights for, you know, everything is in danger that we value. So I don't know. Besides, it's really fun to celebrate publicly. And you know, sometime I'll tell you all the story of what it was like when the marriage, our ability to marriage changed. And what they did in Amherst in the town hall made me cry, you know, because they had a cake and they were celebrating. And so that's what this is about. This is a celebration of who we are. So all right, Pat did speak eloquently and I'm gonna try to speak eloquently. You will, you always do. No, I won't. Because I might tear up, which I hate doing. So I'm still not fully out to everyone in my family and my friends. And so for me, this is terrifying. So, I mean, you know, Pat was talking about working with the town to do a celebration. And I was like, I'm barely getting through the proclamation. And so I appreciate everyone's eyes on this. And you know, I think the parts we added really did try to reflect where we're at and recognizing a little bit more of our history. And so, you know, I think that, like Pat said, the stonewall pieces were new. And then if you can scroll down, Mandy, the other keep going to the resolved parts. Oh yeah. Thank you. So I appreciate the change to proclaim. So we also added a, I added, so this was like a smaller thing. I wanted there to be at least three now therefores because I wanted each of the sponsors to be able to read one. And so I did break those out a bit. And then if you can scroll up again, sorry. The other element that I shifted was, there were small wording changes really, but the most, yeah, sorry. I was trying to remember when I was doing this. So the more significant additions were kind of the historical elements referencing the different hate crimes acts and the stonewall uprising. Yeah, and for me, that's thanks to Anika when you have added history to proclamations. It's been important and it helped me be able to see that how important it was for us to add our history as well. So thank you, Anika. Oh, you're more than welcome. I like to add when I first, well, actually I had been at Boston first when I first left to go to New York, I was at the new school and my first home was right on A Street. So super close to the stonewall and yeah, what a party, what a celebration. Yeah, so to wrap up my like tier interrupted saying, I think my statement is I am still terrified and I grew up in Amherst. I grew up in an incredibly progressive and welcoming place and have had many, many positive interactions and some that were still really hard based on who I have come out to. And so it's not something I hide, but it's not something that I'm publicly claiming. And so I think that that, while that I'm sure is part my personality, it's also due to outside factors. And so it just speaks to the importance of reaffirming where we can and reaffirming people's choices of when and how and where they choose to do this, right? Or choose to come out or proclaim themselves, right? And so I think doing this proclamation, what I don't want is for it to just become another a month that we do, because this is something that's, it has an incredibly deep meaning for people. And so yeah, I just, I wanted to note that. Thank you, Anna. Thank you, Anna. Okay, were there any other editing changes before we go ahead and make a motion on this? Oh, Anika, yes. I just had a comment. I just wanted to, you know, really I appreciate Pat and Anna and Evan who is not here. I think that one of the things that I've seen and it's nice to see how it's reflected in the past council is really just, you know, people owning their truths and in history not having them be told for them, you know, and, you know, and dictated by others. So I guess I think that it's just, it's just nice to watch people come and claim their own histories and stories. And Mandy? Yeah, so you'll see a couple more. We've never done this with proclamations before, but I didn't think that now their efforts were appropriate. When we have multiple resolved clauses and resolutions, we do be it further resolved. So I thought we'd do it, be it further proclaimed. I just realized we normally just do each one as a sentence, not with an and. But thank you, Anna, for, I was trying to say, why are they three separate ones? So thank you for explaining why you decided to do three separate ones because I was like, weren't they all the same one last year? Yes, they were. So thanks for giving us a reason, giving me a reason why you had separated them. I appreciate it. Now we can vote it clear and consistent and actionable, whatever. Okay, awesome. Can we, are we ready to vote on this? All right. Pat. Hi. We didn't make a motion. Do you want to make a motion again? Make a motion. You're going to make me do that again? All right. Oh, God, I move that we, we claim that the town of Amherst proclamation recognizing June as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, plus pride month to be clear, consistent and actionable. Second. Mandy seconds and Anika. Hi. And I'm an I and Pat. Nay. No, I. Mandy. I. All right, awesome. Congratulations. And keep us posted about, or do you know actually what's happening in terms of celebration or could you announce that? We're still being worked on. We're not. Okay. Yeah. Okay. But we'll keep you posted for sure. The CPOs are working on it, not us as much yet. Great. Okay. All right. So I just want to do a public comment call. We do have one attendee. Andy's still in the audience. So I want to just go ahead and read the public comment statement. Public. I'm going to be right back. Sure. Okay. Public comment on matters within the jurisdiction. Wait. Residents are welcome to express their views for a, wait, I don't know what's happening here. Hang on. Okay. This is the public comment period. And public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of GOL should be made at this time. Residents are welcome to express their views for one to three minutes at the discretion of the GOL chair based upon the number of people who want to speak. GOL will not engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment. If you'd like to participate in public comment, please raise your hand and we will bring you into the room. All right. Not seeing any. So that means we are going to move to the bylaw. And I just want to make sure we reserve a couple minutes toward the end. I'm not going to be here at our next meeting. So I want it to review some agenda items that I'm aware of and then open it up for any other agenda items. So whenever you're ready, Mandy to bring the bylaw up. And Anna, if you'd like while Mandy's doing that, if you want to just kind of frame this for us, that would be great. Sure. So yeah, I know it was a while ago that we looked at it at council really this, what this bylaws intended to do is there's not a lot that local municipalities can do to support reproductive justice, but ensuring fair and equitable access to abortion services and reproductive services is one thing that we can support. And one way that we can support it is by ensuring that when people look for these services, they're not being misled or deceived by advertising on behalf of limited services pregnancy crisis centers. So these centers have been found, there's multiple, I keep meaning to send it to the council and forgetting I'll do it today. There have been reports from the federal government from doctors as part of the American Medical Association and more who have found that the advertising practices of these CPCs are both deceptive and the doctors from the AMA found it unethical. And so there's in terms of our sphere of control, what we can do is say that within Amherst they cannot deceptively advertise. And it's not saying they cannot exist. It is not saying that they can not advertise truthfully, but it is limiting deceptive advertising from pregnancy crisis centers in Amherst. And so yeah, and then again for today, I may not have answers to all of your questions, right? And so I hope that you will bear with me because we have the advantage and the disadvantage of having this come back to GOL at your next meeting, but I will collect the answer, the questions that I don't have answers to and be sure to get responses to you. That's great. Thank you. And just to say once again that we've been asked to do a substantive review on this. So that is different than what our normal role is, which is only to look at clarity, consistency and actionability. So the questions that you raise can have substance and should have substance if you have them. And we're also, I assume we'll look at this as a final go for clarity, consistency and actionability when that time comes. But right now we're focused on substance. We do not have a legal review yet. That is nothing from what I can understand to do with any complexities with the actual bylaw itself, but that it sounds to me like our legal firm is very busy right now. So it might take a little time for us to get that. And so we're gonna, especially because, and Anna and I spoke about this, what's happening right now, we really wanna stay on top of this and get this moving. So I'm gonna just open it up at this point for any comments and Mandy, I see your hand. Thank you. Just a first one, very basic concerning was spelled wrong. But I wonder in looking at that, whether it should be prohibiting instead of concerning just to be a little more clear. So I'm not gonna change anything else. You're obviously looking at my notes, but that one for when you bring it back maybe consider the word prohibiting. And then the only other question I had basically was under prohibited activities. It doesn't ever say in Amherst or where in Amherst. And so a little more clarity on like is it a pregnant, limited service pregnancy center who is located in Amherst that this prohibits their deceptive advertising or is it someone that might be a center that might be located in Springfield that advertises by sending stuff to Amherst residents? Would that be a violation by advertising on Facebook with a location services that's within 50 miles or whatever? And then an Amherst resident happens to see it. Would that be a violation? And so more clarity is to exactly what the violation is might also actually help the legal review too. And I just wasn't sure which way you were going, but adding language like that. Thank you. Anna, you can go ahead. Thank you. So, you know, Mandy, I think in a perfect world it would be great for it to apply to every CPC advertising in Amherst. But when I think about the practicality of enforcement I'm not sure how that's doable. And so that would be my right. So if they are located in Amherst we can pull a business license, we can find. And so that exact question has been on my mind for the past two weeks. And so I do think that I want to clarity this. I want to clarify that because what I'm fairly certain of is that it would be not even, we wouldn't be able to evenly apply enforcement if we included this to mean CPCs outside of it. I'm happy to hear your opinion on it but that's my thought is that we'd have to find so much information and we don't want this to be a burden on our staff. And so we're not necessarily chasing down CPCs in other towns. It's kind of an unfortunate thing because we'd like to stop all of the deceptive advertising within the town. In terms of the things like Facebook and Google that I believe would have to be, I also was seeking clarity on this, that I believe would have to be from the state level because I don't think that there's, additionally, I don't think that there's a way to fully track them down from a municipal standpoint. So my suggestion maybe is to put those questions in writing from Michelle to forward to Paul of like, how far can we go if I wanted to do this, what would the language be or how would I or could I legally do it so that Paul can forward it to KP law because then we can get those answers back. I'll definitely do that. I will just note that similar resolutions that have been passed in Somerville and are being considered in East Hampton do contain this general language. And so that for what it's worth, right? That doesn't mean we can't do it better but Somerville passed it with the general language and has not yet had any legal challenges. They only have had it on the books for a couple months. Okay. I'm not seeing any hands right now but Anna, I had a question related to the word deceptive and being that it's in the title and it's, I guess I'm wondering how is deceptive defined? Like, can that be, will that, especially when it comes to enforcement will there be an ambiguity there in terms of how that word is defined and is there a way to sort of qualify it better or more clearly in the bylaw so that, because what may be deceptive to one person may not necessarily be deceptive to another or that's an argument that could be made. So I'm just wondering about that. Yep. So if you look at exactly where Mandy is right now, the, it is the concerning the service or the provision of the service that whether by statement or mission is deceptive and what all that means is giving the appearance or impression that is different from the truth, which is just the dictionary definition of deceptive. One of the reasons why it's challenging to define deceptive is that there are consumer protection laws that relate to deceptive advertising that CPCs are typically not, that CPCs are typically exempted from because they do not sell a product is my understanding of why they're, why this is necessary, right? And why it's not covered under typical consumer protection against deceptive. So, I mean, I think we could include deceptive just as the dictionary definition, but I don't necessarily think that that changes or strengthens it. And what I don't wanna do is get into a situation where I'm saying that our definition of deceptive is different than the states and something like that, if that makes sense. So, I mean, if it's- Yeah, it does. I'm sorry, go ahead. If it's something that you all feel is so necessary and you don't wanna vote for it without that being in there, I'll just put the dictionary definition in and that's fine, but I think it does, it feels a little trickier to me. Is there a state definition that has been adopted for deceptive? Like I know there's a whole organization of, that deals with deceptive advertising practices. So have they used some definition that clarifies what deceptive means? They define deceptive advertising, I believe. I don't know if they specifically define the word deceptive. Okay, so deceptive advertising. But to be clear, when they just find deceptive advertising, the reason why we need this is because they define it as, I can't pull the exact wording right now, but the way that they define it, CPCs have managed to get around. Right, because it's not a product that they're selling. Okay. The exact wording right for you, but that's my general understanding. Yeah, I also think that putting the dictionary definition could really actually act as a straight jacket, because, so I really think it should not be in there. Yeah, I'm not a fan of doing that either. I just, when it comes to enforcement, my concern is how is the enforcer going to know, if especially we're talking about social media and things, because it's, I looked at, and I guess maybe if you could offer like a real world example, but like I've looked at some of what, I think in your presentation and on my own, what is being put out there. And wow, it's just, you know, but for in terms of like what one's lens is, in terms of the enforcer's lens and the way that they're looking at it, I have concerns around that and whether the, and this isn't like to be aggressive toward men or anything, but like depending on who the enforcer is, I just want to make sure that there's no issue around like the lens and determining what is deceptive and not. Sure, so, you know, I mean, I think the clearest example is if saying they offer STD screening or birth control pills and they do not, you know, and that's something that would be deceptive if that's in their marketing and they say, you know, come talk to us about all of your options and they don't talk to you about actually all of the options that would be deceptive. So I think that there's, there are clear examples in that sense. And again, because it's complaint driven, it would, there would need to be an example provided and the inspector would say, okay, did they say they offered something and then they do not offer it or did they omit that they do not offer something? Right, like that's, yeah. Yeah. My statement or a mission. Or a mission, okay, that's good. Anika. So I was actually, I should put my head out, I was actually looking up, I remember seeing something I couldn't find it, it was about like one of these organizations, I guess posing as an establishment that gave services or provided services rather and actually received like money for it. Oh yeah, they've got like a PVP. So it's like, you know, for that, like a misrepresentation, I think it's especially when there's money involved. There's so many, like I know that's it. You're absolutely right, Anika. And the medical end of this is a whole other ballgame that it's something that I'm gonna look into to see if it's a municipal level decision, but I believe it's more state level, right? Of saying, of offering and purveying medical services by someone who's not a licensed medical provider. That's a whole other thing that happens at these CPCs. This does not cover that to be clear, this is just the advertising component, but that is a whole other issue within really just the worst. And are these CPCs all privately owned? Are they nonprofit? Like how do they, what is their governmental structure or their corporate structure? It varies. They are not, they're not governmentally owned. Either private for-profit or nonprofit institutions. Are there any other comments right now or questions? And I think it sounds like there's a clear channel for getting questions to Anna after this meeting since it's been daylighted in council. And here we get you questions and then maybe you could provide answers to, did you suggest, Mandy, the whole council or just to back to us? No, the legal review in theory comes back to us. So the questions that, you know, my question might help with, you know, might be helped answered by a comment from KP law, right? On what extent we can do, is it just, if we can only regulate those that are located in Amherst then adding something about in Amherst, you know, located in Amherst is an easy ad. If it's, if someone receives the advertising in Amherst we can regulate it then. And if that's what Anna wants to do then that might require a lot more language that would come back to you, Michelle, after those questions are asked, GOL would deal with it. And then what GOL has done in the past is include in the packet the legal opinion that was received by GOL when it goes to the council so that everyone can see what KP law said. Great, Anna. Can I just clarify the three questions that I'm hearing just to make sure I didn't miss any? So, yes, thank you for catching concerning. I don't know why multiple word processing programs didn't catch that. And people. And people, yeah, right, like this is anyway. So first question was should we change this to prohibiting instead of concerning? And then under prohibited activities it doesn't clarify if they need to be located in Amherst or if it's just advertising within Amherst by external and so getting some clarity in language about that and asking that question of KP law in terms of the difference. And then the last question about whether or not to define the word deceptive and do we need to put that in there? And I can think further on that. I'm leaning towards no, but I can think further on that. Great. Was there anything I missed? I would just say for the second one, the one that I was... Yeah. The question is not, is which it does cover, but it's also could we cover just advertising in Amherst? And if so, what's the language look like? And that might be why all these other towns and cities leave it this vague so that it is open to covering both when they decide to, right? You know, a leaflet drop in Amherst that for pregnancy center in Hadley, if you wrote pregnancy center located in Amherst wouldn't allow a fine if you added those languages, would if you didn't in a clear sense that, you know, this way you could do that potentially if they actually targeted UMass students or something, you know, and so it might be wise to leave it open. And for that exact reason, I would like to leave it open, but I also wanna make sure that you all still think it's actionable. If we do that, so that maybe that'll be my like, my prompt to you all is think through whether or not it would be actionable if it's left open. That's where KP Law's opinion comes in. Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. All right, thank you. Thank you, Anna. Okay, so depending on what we get when we get the legal review back and when we hear back from Paul, it's I think we'll definitely add it to the agenda for next week and hope for the two weeks and hope for the best. And we'll take it from there. Can I add one more question and clarification? So I believe Michelle, you had also asked Paul to comment regarding staff, demand on staff. Did he get back to you? No, so, and they were sort of, I don't know whether he's waiting to get something back from KP Law. I don't know what steps he's taken, but I do want to get a response from him both on the enforcement and the legal piece. Absolutely, and fully agree next sentence, not negating that. I have run this by Paul prior to introducing it to the council. And I did ask that question. So I'm not concerned about it, but I would like him to formally state it to you all. Great, yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Anna. Thank you very much. All seven things that I was related to on you. I know, it's amazing. Thank you for all your work, Anna. Thank you for accommodating my schedule. I apologize. And yeah, so we'll figure out the 25th. We'll figure it out. Yeah, we'll see you soon. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, wow, we did really well today, I have to say. This is some great successes. Thank you. So in terms of our next, I just, I wanted to say that I had a brief conversation to be continued with Lynn and Anna, just to talk about proclamations and how we're dealing with them. And we've already talked about this on multiple occasions, but I did look at the proclamation calendar. And actually we were really front-loaded with proclamations when we started our work together. And there's not much in the way of proclamations. So we'll have time to get to other work. One proclamation that will definitely need to be reviewed next week that we have is the race, or on the 25th, 5th is the race amity day proclamation. So that's a definite. And then unless something else comes my way, which very well could because anytime a resolution or proclamation or bylaws proposed it will come to us, but we won't know that right now. And I can take a quicker look before I get with Anika to do the agenda for the 25th. But we have been wanting for a while to talk about the equity lens review process. And we have also talked about working with the Human Rights Commission to develop a better process for proclamations overall and in general. So let me just take a quick look and make sure there are a bunch of bylaws that in the opinion of GOL should be carried over to the next council. But yeah, Mandy, please. And then Pat. You can finish. I just had some agenda agenda. Go for it. Go for it. Maybe you'll have it. The next agenda should really include a bunch of finance committee, not non-voting member appointment stuff, including declaring a pool sufficient if we can. Selection criteria, adopting selection criteria, which requires pre-action by someone to get the chair of finances thoughts on what the committee needs. And then potentially even interview questions. A decision on interview questions are sort of the three things that would need done soon. Interview questions can wait a little bit depending on what we do with the rest, but we're coming up at late May. So those are the three things that the council, the committee really needs to vote. So that should be on next. Next agenda, okay. I'll say we've only received one application so far. And the person whose term is expiring has not decided one way or another and has not put through an application. So we should encourage folks, continue to encourage folks. I see that Andy's still on here. So he's just sort of heard what we're talking about. And Andy, if you're listening, because I'm a member of the finance committee, Anika and I spoke about her really managing this so that I can stay as neutral as possible. But so Anika will, maybe Anika, you could get with Andy to talk about some of these items and figure out he has any interview questions or criteria. Sorry, Andy, go ahead. I was gonna say Anika and I still need to set up that meeting, but to help Anika. And I said, I will mail you right after this, I'll email you. So, and then we can follow with Andy. And then the other item I had was potentially the preservation by-law, the general by-law might be, might be ready, but again, it needs, actually it might not have to go through another KP law review. It's been reviewed a couple of times by KP law, but not the most recent changes. But CRC isn't dealing with it till tomorrow, hopefully we'll finish. And then, so that might be ready for the 25th, depending on decision on legal review. The planning board won't, I'm not even sure they're gonna touch it on the 18th. So it's not formally referred to them. So that's a decision that's going to need to be made as to what to do about that. Only the zoning by-law rescission was referred to them. And they actually aren't dealing with that till May 18th either, but rescission is kind of obvious in consistency and action ability. But yeah, so I'll have to talk to Anika about depending on what happens tomorrow and an update from planning department as to whether the 25th is logical for the preservation, but that's a possibility, I would say. Okay, good. So we have that as a possibility. And just to remind, we're going back to the normal nine to 11 on the 25th. So today was just an exception. An aberration. Yeah. Pat, did you have any, or Anika, did you have any other items? I just had a question about, for to bring in someone for finance. I know that this was posted on the town's website. And so is it possible just to do another push of that? Like, you know, just to have it fresh. Maybe we miss someone. In the bulletin board notice, you mean? Is that possible? Can Athena speak to that? Or even like with the, like a community calendar is, if there's like something else where we do not need necessarily like the two weeks in advance posting, there's something to help us further get the word. I wonder if we could ask the CPO's to put it again on Facebook. Like they tend to put some stuff on, you know, like, oh, this seeking whatever, if they could maybe put that again up as a new in the news or whatever notices that they do, even if it's not quote new anymore. Yeah. You asked them, I'm always like all the time, can you push this out weekly and every week? I'm sure they're tired of my requests for pushing every week. I'd be happy to ask on that one. I'll ask if they can do a push of something to get the word out that we're, because that's a really important and meaningful position. They all are, but like, I think it's important to re-highlight it again. And also we have to be able to say that the poll is sufficient. And I don't know what that actually means, but we'll find out. All right. Any other agenda items or any, I don't have anything that was not anticipated. Are there any other announcements, Pat? Yes. Yeah. This is not an agenda item or an announcement, but apparently you received some materials from Andy and stuff that were referred to when we were talking. And again, I didn't get to see those materials. So somehow or other, I'm trying to remember what it was and I apologize for my memory. But I guess what I'm saying is I wanna make sure that if you get last-minute things that you send them out to us so that we can review them either before the meeting, if there's time or during the meeting or after the meeting. Because I'm trying to remember what it was and I apologize that I don't remember. No, I think I know what you're talking about. So just before our meeting this morning, Andy sent me an email with some thoughts about the plant medicine. Right, and that's, yeah. Yeah. You'd all get that. I don't know. I think we should get it or you should have read it or something. I did read out the component. Yeah. So just to be clear, his email was sort of partially for me as a sponsor of the resolution and then partially for GOL. And the pieces that were for GOL, I did verbalize in the meeting. Okay. But if that should be in the packet, I can somehow pull out the questions that were particular to GOL and then make a new document and send them or... Well, there probably wouldn't have been time to do all that this morning, but as you said, you did share the part that was relevant. So thank you for that. I just want us to be careful. There just feels like last minute things somehow or other we need as much access as we can get. And I think that we're all trying to do that. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. Okay. And I think that is really important. Absolutely. It's amazing how like many emails are shooting all over the place and how sometimes it can be, like there's really important information that needs to be transparent to everybody. So yeah. All right. Any other comments or questions or concerns? Okay. Then I'm gonna move to adjourn the meeting at 1141. Yeah. And Michelle. Yeah. I didn't, I can meet Tuesday after one o'clock. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, Tuesday after one o'clock or between 1130 and two on Thursday, I think that was... Are you, let's do two... Next week. We're talking about next week. Tuesday would be great at one or 1.30 or maybe at the works or something. I think we're still recording here. Oh. Get home home, just record it. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Yeah. All right.