Let's go Brock.


All right, we're recording. Excellent. Okay. So welcome. I'm going to call to order the August 3rd meeting of the governance organization and legislation committee. At nine oh one pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 this meeting will be conducted via remote means members of the public are able to access the phone via Zoom or by telephone. I'm just going to take a moment to make sure that everybody can be heard and can hear. So I'll start with you, Pat. I can. Yeah, I'm here present. We hear you. I was off in Lala land thinking about. Which is here. You're still thinking about camping alone. Mandy present. And Jennifer. Present. Excellent. Wonderful. Okay. So today. We are, we haven't met in about a month. So if possible, I actually want to just go ahead and adopt the July 6th meeting minutes so that we don't forget to do that at the end. And so let's see. Mandy, do we normally pull the meeting minutes up when we. I think we do. I don't think so. Okay. Anyone like to make a motion to adopt those minutes. And also. May I vote, even though I wasn't there. I think that's a yes. Okay. Perfect. Okay. So I think Mandy made a. Moved to adopt those minutes. Second. Yeah. Great. Okay. Pat. Your vote. Hi. Oh God. Dumber. Maybe it was. There's no part I had with my eggs. I don't know. Is it a yes for you, Pat? Yes. Good. Mandy. Hi, Jennifer. I, and I'm an eye. All right. Great. So we are going to begin. I was not at the last town council meeting, but as I understand it, Mandy brought forward a request that was referred to GOL. For this committee to review. And I'm going to. Bylaw 3.8. License fees, which includes in holders, common vehiculars and lunch carts. Is that how you say that word? Vehicle or lures. Okay. Victual lures. Okay. And also bylaw 3.36, which is soliciting both of those were referred to us. So we're going to hand it over to Mandy to offer some background on that. Yeah. So I'm going to share the screen so people can see what we're talking about. And this is just from the memo. So early on in the last council, I talked with the, that chair of BLC, the board of license commissioners, Doug Slaughter, about a number of things that would help the board. And I had brought forth a amendment to the bylaws at that point regarding adoption of regulations. And at that point he had said, you know, putting the fees in the bylaws themselves really ties the board's hands. And so I put it on my to-do list. And obviously it's been three years. And I thought he was talking about a whole lot of fees in the bylaws. And I had just never gone through the 100 and some pages of the bylaws to see which fees he was talking about. And so I finally did that in earlier this year. I talked to Marion. I talked to the current chair. I talked to Gaston, who's also on the board. And I went through them and I actually only found these two. These are the only two bylaws in our general bylaws that set fees in the bylaws. And every other bylaw that has a fee sort of associated with it, gives permission to a specific individual or board or group or, you know, committee to set the fees. And so we're going to be able to go through those bylaws. We're going to be able to engage over so that we can see which ones those are. This is four of them. The dealing in used articles. Gives the fee setting authority to the board already. The gas inspector is the town manager gets to set the fee. The local historic district. Bylaw set gives the historic district commission. The authority to set the fee. The residential rental bylaw sits with us as the council. We've already dealt with that this year. We've already dealt with that this year. We've also dealt with the county council. And we're dealing with the county council, which is the county council's commission commission. Keg licensing is also another one. That one is given to the board of licensed commissioners. The dog licensing one. Regulations relating to animals is given to the town clerk. And so. You know, building commissioner is also given one for livestock in that one. And so these are the last two that set the fee in the just given to the group that deals with those licenses. And so my proposal is to, with the, I believe it has the support. I was not able to attend the BLC's meeting last Thursday because I was in CRC, but they're meeting again this Thursday to talk about it and what the potential fee might be. All I've heard from the BLC anecdotally is that they support this. This would then make all of the general bylaws sort of consistent with each other, meaning none of the fees are set within the bylaws. They are all set. The bylaws just give the particular committee or person that deals with them the right to set the fee. And the language I took was from one of the bylaws already. And so you can see from the red that that's for in holders and all, it would actually literally delete everything except for one sentence. I don't know whether we'd still need the bylaw. I assume we do to authorize who sets it, but it would now make the bylaw one sentence that says the fees get set by the BLC for soliciting. I did not put the soliciting bylaw in. The only change to soliciting is in this data block. The rest of soliciting I didn't copy into my memo, but it would just be fee and it would just again, the language mirrors it and it would give the licensed commissioners the ability to set those fees. So that's the request. This was also referred to BLC so that they could weigh in on whether they want that authority, but also because if we delete the fees from here, there aren't fees until whoever we've given the authority to adopts the fees. The referral to the BLC for this change indicated that we shouldn't vote on it in council if we're going to pass it until the BLC is ready to set the fees. And I'll know more about that this Thursday to see where they are on that. And I'll be in contact with them as sponsor about that to make sure the council doesn't essentially eliminate the fees before they're ready to read up the fees. So that's all I've got for it. Okay. I have two questions, but I'm happy to hold them if Pat or Jennifer have questions. Great. Nope. Okay. So my question, well, first as a comment, the way that I'm reading this and maybe, I don't know, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I'm reading it to say that MGL requires the Board of License Commissioners to be the fee setting body. No. So MGL chapter 40, section 22F is a general law that allows a town council or other governing body to designate another body to be this fee setter. So that MGL chapter 40, section 22F is referred to in giving the historic district the commission the right to set the local historic district fee. It's the same law that is referred to to give the town clerk, the dog license fee setting authority. So it's just one that, it essentially says, hey, it doesn't have to be the legislative body that sets the fees. The legislative body can do something to hand it off to someone else. Got it. Okay. So just from like the point of view of, I guess it's grammar, but I mean, wouldn't it, wouldn't in accordance with MGL wanna come first? I don't know. Somehow I'm reading that. If I didn't know what MGL was, but if it's already in a million other places, does anyone else read it that way? Or is it, I just guess I didn't know what, I didn't know what MGL 40 blah, blah, blah was. So... I took the language from here, which is the dog license fee. The town clerk self set the dog license fee in accordance with MGL chapter 40, section 22F. Okay. The livestock, the building commissioner may set fees in accordance with 40, 22F. So that's where I took it. I'm not saying it is grammatically correct. Okay. Okay. That's where I pulled it from other bylaws. Yeah. Yeah, I guess just without knowing what that is and that that repeats itself a dozen times, one might be led to believe that MGL is what is requiring the fee to be set for this by the Board of License Commissioners. But it's not, I'm not hung up on it. I just... Yeah, actually, I think putting the MGL thing first gives it a dominance that it doesn't have. Okay. Yeah. That makes sense too, Pat. Yeah, yeah, that makes sense too. Okay. And then my other question was, Mandi, why are these, why the Board of License Commissioners as the fee setting? So particularly with in-holders, common victualers, and lunch carts, but also with soliciting, the Board is the one that actually issues those licenses. So the board is, so the fee for income, so the in-holder, common victualers, and lunch carts all have licenses. And we've seen the lunch cart one, I think in this council maybe already, but I know the last council saw some regulations or some other things related to lunch carts. Common victualers is just your dining license, the license to operate a restaurant. And so the Board of License Commissioners controls the regulations surrounding the issuance of those licenses. They control whether to issue them, whether to suspend them and all of that. And so in my mind, it makes sense that they should also decide what the fee should be for those license, since they're the ones issuing it. And same with soliciting. So soliciting is the by-law that allows someone to go, I think it's sort of like not to order and ask for donations and stuff to places. And so the Board licenses, I think the Board's the one that licensed those. I'd have to go look at, let me pull up the whole general by-laws. That one was 3.6. Was it six or two? I thought it was 3.6. I could be wrong. I can tell you. 3.6, okay. Sorry, sorry, sorry. I was like, I thought there was a two or three in there. So that one, where we are. So this one, the police department does issue the registration. Well, then shouldn't they set the fee? So it could be potentially, well, I was just going with Doug wanted them all and it was a license, so I assumed it was, but yeah, it's the police chief is the application. So in theory, it might be better to get that away from the Board into the police department. I'd wanna talk to the police department to make sure they want the fee setting authority there if they're issuing them. But yeah, so that could be a mistake on my part. I'd be definitely willing to change that to the police department if they're willing to. And I can mention that to the Board too. They might have already talked about it. Like I said, I couldn't make their first meeting when they talked about these. Okay. So what are you hoping, Mandi, for us to be able to do today? Do you want a recommendation or do you want- Yeah, so the referral is for both a clear consistent and actionable designation, but also a recommendation on whether to adopt. So I guess given the potential issue with soliciting, my request today would be to recommend the Council adopt 3.8 as presented and also declare it clear, consistent and actionable. And 3.36, we could either potentially change it from the board today from the board to the police department or hold off on that until Thursday the board meets again. So I could talk to them and see what they say, I'll know on Thursday when I meet with them tomorrow on this. So we might just wanna hold off till the next meeting maybe before that declaration to see, in some sense, it makes sense that I screwed up and probably should have put the police chief. But maybe the chief doesn't want it or maybe they've talked to the chief, but I can talk to them and then I can touch base with the chief too before the next meeting to see which one's more appropriate. My whole goal is to get it with the appropriate people and the fee out of the bylaw. Jennifer. I guess that was sort of my question because I was gonna say, so we won't vote on it today pending what happens at the Thursday Board of License Commission, which would be fine if we vote it today, then if the Board of License Commissioners is comfortable then it could go to the town council meeting on the 15th or you'd wanna bring it back here to GOL first. I could go either way. So I think the in-holders one is more important to move forward quicker. And so if we don't have any problems with this as GOL, I would ask that we declare that that way. The Board will probably finish with it. It can sit here before it goes to the meeting until the Board knows what fees they would set until we get that confirmation. But I believe a lot of the renewals come forward in the second half of the year and in the fourth quarter. And so giving them that authority in time for them to potentially, I don't even know whether they wanna change it right now, right? They may come in and say, we're leaving it at 50 and 100 for this cycle, right? I don't know. But if they're seeking- I just wanna give them that authority. I would like to give them that authority and that option before most of the renewals come through. My guess is there are not many soliciting licenses actually issued. I have no idea. I'm not a clue, right? So that one, in terms of getting the authority to the right places to me a little less time, you know, dependent, does that make sense? So that one I'd be totally willing to wait until we figure out which person or commission is the correct one. Yeah, this is all common sense. So, and I think you already hear a consensus on the 3.8 and the, so I think we can recommend it to the council and call it clear, consistent and actionable. And the other one, I think we should wait just in terms, I'd like to, I feel like it'd be quicker to pass it with the idea that it defined later, blah, blah, but I don't think that's a good process. So I move, I guess, to recommend to the town council the amendments to 3.8, license fees, blah, blah, blah, and declare a clear, consistent and actionable or however that should be said. I'll second that. And I think you said it wonderful, Pat. I do too. Yeah, blah, blah, blah is a good. I think that I have a lot of experience for years together, so she understands. Just to clarify though, Mandy, we don't need two separate actions. The one action can cover the recommendation and the clear, consistent and actionable. Okay, so I think, yeah, Pat's motion. You seconded that, right, Mandy? Yeah. Okay, great. I think they're gonna read that back. Atheney, would you like to read that back? I will translate the de-angelists into plain English in a minute. Please. All right, so. Into fancy English, because blah, blah, blah is plain. So let's vote on that then. Let's start with you, Jennifer. Yes. I'm a yes, Pat. Aye. And Mandy. Aye. Great. Okay, and I just wanted to second that I would have been fine moving forward with the second one as well with the caveats in it, but I think that Pat's point about process is good. And so I'll just make a note and you'll let me know when you want me to put that back on the agenda. Yeah, I think it's good for us to not vote it until we know exactly which place is going. So I'll, it should be able to go back on the next meeting, but I'll confirm. All right, great. Okay. So moving on. Sorry, excuse me, I just, I'm working only on one screen today. Okay. So we have two other bylaws that at our last meeting we had agreed to review. The bylaw 3.23 peaking or appearing into a place of habitation and then 3.22 discharging of firearms. I did have an opportunity to speak with Chief Livingstone about both of these bylaws. So I could share with you, would you, Mandy, are you in a position where you can pull those up for us? Do you want the bylaws pulled up? I know we have the bylaws and then we have the notes that were offered from the last GOL, right? Well, let me just share with you. I think the bylaws will help me to remember a bit what Chief Livingstone talked about. Yeah, give me a second. Sure. And I'm just going to check this. Just to find the right ones. I don't have any attendees, so. So there's the peeping and peering one. Perfect, and we can start with that one. I think the recommendation or the suggestion potentially for this one was whether or not to include drones, I believe it was. And I spoke with Chief Livingstone and he quite frankly said, if we got rid of this bylaw altogether, he would not be unhappy. Yeah, he just doesn't, he said he's maybe had like one instance of this and it's just not, it's not something that normally would be handled through a criminal enforcement type of avenue. Like basically there's like another pathway that happens as a result of peeping or peering. And so he just said that if we got rid of it, he would have no problem with that. I don't know what you all think. What's the pathway? Yeah, that's my question. Like trespassing and stuff? Yeah, I like it. Is it other state laws? Exactly, exactly. That it doesn't, it's more like if somebody were doing this, it would go into like other state laws like Mandy just mentioned. And I'm so sorry, my notebook, which I did not bring to New Jersey with me, which had a couple more notes in it, but that essentially he said that this bylaw really has never been used to enforce peeping or peering and that he would be fine with it going away. So- Is he saying that peeping and peering hasn't happened or when it does, they use the other? Exactly, like the times that it does, which it has happened, but at the times that it does, it doesn't, this bylaw doesn't get evoked, basically. It's not like something- Oh, go ahead, Mandy. Sorry, I was just gonna ask, sorry, but interacting, is that because the state laws are more likely to be upheld at the district court level than the general by, than our town bylaws so that they actually get better enforcement by not using this one over others? That's exactly right. He said when it gets to like a district court, like this bylaw wouldn't, it doesn't really affect the situation like the state laws do. So this, that was his overall take on it. And he really sounded like, I mean, he didn't straight up say like, get rid of it, but he said, if you get rid of it, I won't be, there would be no problem with that on my end. Because he's saying they really don't use it when the incident happens, when something happens. Yeah, like they don't go, they can't go criminally enforced the $300 fine every time that gets escalated into a different track that is not, you know. So, but if you guys want, I mean, one of the things that we talked about is like in, okay, let me just, and please stop me, anybody, if you feel like I'm going beyond what this agenda item is. But one of the things that's sort of out there, and that I have spoken with Lynn more recently about is that a lot of these bylaws are going to need to be looked at in terms of now having press, which is a potential new enforcement body that is, you know, available to us now. So we're going to have to have conversations with the police department, with the press department for a lot of these different bylaws. So a handful at least. Yeah, I hear what you're saying and that makes really good sense, Michelle. But on this, in terms of this one, it doesn't say who's responsible. So I don't think in terms of Cress, it's, it wouldn't matter who we sent because it's not listed in the bylaw that it would be done by the police or be done by Cress. And it does seem to me, clearly there is some permission to peep and peer according to state law. But if it's, there, I think there's something about keeping it that I like, but it seems silly. So I know I have friends in Northampton who have had someone who was peaking and peering on their property and I know how it upset them. So I don't know. I think I saw Mandy's hand and then Jennifer. So this one, only police can criminally enforce anything and can write a criminal citation. And so the fact that this one has non-criminal disposition, no provision made, it can't be enforced non-criminally, which means there doesn't need to be an enforcement by. Only non-criminals enforcement can be done by anyone we designate. Thank you. So that's answer to that one. And I won't go into the Cress thing because that's not on our agenda. But I say if the chief thinks this one's not the way to enforce the peeping or peering issues that we have in town that they prefer other methods, then why keep it on the books? I guess my feeling is kind of, I'd like to get rid of the ones that we don't ever use or that they don't find helpful to clear up the books in some sense. And so if this is one that the police don't use even when it is violated because they've found other methods of citation more helpful than I would support recommending rescinding this one completely. Jennifer? Yeah, in this case, actually I was just gonna ask Mandy Jo because I do think you're being, and having gone to law school is relevant here. I mean, is this, I mean, it's just interesting to me if there's a state that the courts may not really care what little Amherst said that they're gonna look at state law, is that what the chief is also saying? You know, I don't know. Because I don't practice, but I've heard with the noise violations, one of the, and this is just anecdotal, that our police can write as many noise violations in a weekend sometimes as they want. And then if they write them criminally, they show up in district court to do it and the district court just waves them and takes them right off. Whereas maybe the district court takes more seriously a violation of state law instead of a violation of local law. And so maybe that's why they choose to use for something as serious as peeping, right? Because yeah, it's not like I don't consider that serious. That maybe they've found that the best way to sort of, you know, in coupling go get the citations to stick, get the charges to stick is to use the state laws. Well, then let's get rid of this thing. I agree. Pat, you ready for another motion? Go for it. No, I'm gonna second this time. I'll make that. I moved to recommend the town council rescind general bylaw 3.23 peeping or peering into the place of habitation. Second, DeAngela's. Great. Okay, Jennifer. Yes. Pat. Aye. Mandy. Aye. And I'm an aye as well. This is where when they write up how you vote, some constituents gonna say, why did you? Yeah. But we have an explanation. I always say that I have a family member who does peeping and I want to keep them solvent financially. You know, I want to say something because this is so minor and has nothing. There's always yeses and ayes and stuff. And I thought I'd love to share why I say aye and not yes. And Sarah Schwartz, who was a counselor in the first council was very much ordered and knew Robert's rule zone of order and et cetera. And it is appropriate to say aye when you mean yes. And I don't care which we say, I say aye because I'm respecting Sarah. And I just wanted to say that because I don't know why. Because that's the kind of day it is. You know, I've thought about that online. Sometimes I feel like if the few people before me said yes and I say aye, do I sound pretentious? But maybe I'll just say aye. Yeah.  I mean, you just get triggered a certain way. I've started doing it because I feel like it's clearer for people listening that I'm not just answering to my name, I'm actually voting with an aye versus a yes. Anyway. If I start saying aye, I'm not being pretentious just so you won't. No, you're not, honey. No. We can add this to our next UL meeting for an amendment to the rules and regulations. We would like to make sure all councilors say aye. No. What do you say? Is it, what is the opposite of aye? So aye or? Nay, I think. I think it is nay, but I don't know for sure. I don't think anyone uses nay though. I think they all just say no. Nay. No, that's not good. That's hysterical. All right. You're saying that, Pat. I love when like something comes to you and you just, you know. She was an important voice on the council at times and I don't know. So she changed me around that. Very minor, but. All right. Now what, Toots? All right. Now on to firearms here. So if you would bring that up, Mandy, I would appreciate it and I'll, okay. Actually, Mandy, can we bring up the recommend, actually, I don't know if you can do side by side, but can you bring up the recommendation that was in the packet, this one, or maybe that's the, even if you can only do one, bring up that one. Give me a second. Which, what's the document title? Yeah, let me just go ahead and look. Is this the one of the table identified, bylaws identified for future consideration or the GOL report on bylaws? I think the table had some good information on that one. Also, what about, what has the supreme court affected any of our ability to do this? So just wondering. My guess is, given the KP law thing, it might not, that was dealing with licensing. Yeah. Okay, so give me a second. Do you want just the table shown or the two next to each other? Whatever, if you can, if you can do the two, that would be great, but if you can only do the table, that's fine too. You'll have to give me a second to. That's fine. Put it up. Oh, Mandy. That's not helpful. Mandy, I'm gonna work. You should go back and you should, on a night that you just feel like laughing, watch the GOL meeting that you weren't in attendance for. We fumbled to share our screen to edit in real time. We were very grateful for you. Right.  We did it though. We did it. Four, three proclamate. I don't even know how many there were. There was a lot that day. Okay, so. No members of the public were present. Right. We didn't encourage viewers viewing that one. All right. So this one, we didn't, so Chief and I had a short time to speak and we didn't get to speak in super detail about this. I told him that I wanted to hear from the committee and then he and I could speak again. But he did not recommend any changes to this, although he said that he would be open if we wanted to have further discussion about this recommendation. And so I thought that Mandy and Pat, you were both, were you both in the committee that? No, maybe I was. Pat was. Pat, do you remember anything? No. Okay. Okay, so you don't remember making this particular recommendation or ask this question? No, I honestly don't. I wish I did, but. So I think if people, once they've read this, if I could share the actual bylaw, it might help people understand what's being said. And it might trigger some memory. So this one is, do shotguns and air guns still stay excluded? And then what's the difference between fouling peace and shotgun? He said there, I believe that he said that they're used interchangeably is what he said. Which then begs the question when you see it, fouling peace is excluded from this bylaw, shotgun is not. Yeah. Or one of the two, right? Like they're, they fall under different ones. So if they're interchangeable words. I know, I know. So let me pull up the bylaw. Yeah, because there was also something that he said about like it being very rare. It like, we talked about hunting a bit for a moment. Let's see. So this says you can't discharge a fouling peace, but you can discharge a shotgun. Unless, although now that I read it again, it says it gun fouling peace firearm is meant to include everything. And then it says, but you can discharge shotguns, air guns and firearms for these particular reasons.  I Googled it. I assume so. Yeah, that's why we were talking about hunting peace. Yeah, exactly. So, yeah, so the first sentence says firearms can't be discharged, right? That's what the first sentence says. And then the next part is, except these particular firearms can be. And it is air guns and shotguns can be and firearms can be for specific things. Yep. But even if you can discharge them for specific things, you can't do so within 150 feet of a rail trail. That's on the next page. Yeah. And that's on there too. Yeah, that's the area. So it might not be inconsistent with itself. That's kind of what, like when I talked to him, he said they're interchangeable. Yeah, it didn't sound like he felt that it was, there was an inconsistency at all. But stepping just for a moment for us to like step, aside from what Chief Livingstone said about the particular recommendation of the last GOL, just looking at this by-law, is there anything that anybody raises as a concern or a question or a flag or anything like that? I can, these damn public meetings, they make it hard to share personal circumstances sometimes. Yeah. The Chief wants us to keep this one, right? Yes, absolutely. Yeah, no, there was absolutely no discussion about removing this. And he didn't feel like it needed to be changed. But again, he said that he would be open to discussion about that. What was the, again, Mandi, the potential recommendation? Could you just... That table said the committee recommends future consideration of whether shotguns and airguns should be, should continue to be excluded from the provisions. Additional clarification about the difference between a fouling piece, which is not excluded and a shotgun, which is excluded. So you can use a shotgun, but you can't use a fouling piece. Would be advisable given that the two terms are interchangeable and common use. The committee also recommends two non-substantive amendments. The first is to reference the MGL laws relating to discharge. The second is to proactively expand the scope to apply to any state rail trail to avoid amending the bylaw if future state rail trails are developed in Amherst. I think those second two were actually done. Yes. Those two, the non-substantive, because they now reference the MGL and the other side instead of specifically saying Neuartic rail trail says state rail trail. But is this... Is what this is saying is that right now... Do we want to exempt shotguns and airguns from the provisions of MGL 26912E or whatever, right? Which would mean that you can't discharge. Right now, yeah. Right now you can discharge an airgun or a shotgun. And if we remove A1... Then you can't. Then you can't unless it's in accordance with... One of these other things. Well, one of those other things of lawful defense of a person, humane, all of that. Or I guess, I haven't read 26912E but... Or if 26912E allows you to do it, right? I would be in favor of taking that out personally. Me too. I would too. So the question I would have for the chief is about airguns. Are paintball guns considered airguns? You know, would removing airguns from this exception eliminate the ability to play paintball or whatever in town? It does say in C2C by a person lawfully on a target trap or skeet range to establish for these purposes. So paintball could be done where it is in a paintball, Hoosie thing.  I would just want, if there's, you know, if that, I would want clarification as to whether if we removed airguns, something like paintball ranges and paintball games would be still exempted or not. Does that make sense? And also, what about, like, I think that paintball should be allowed on somebody's land, on their own land. If they set up a paintball course in their backyard and they're, you know, that's, that's sport. People do it for birthday parties all the time. Absolutely. My kids, I will be honest, my son and my sort of step child, they have paint guns. And so, but we would never use them anywhere else but on our property, you know, or at a birth, like you said, like if there's a, so do you want me, do you want us to kind of like hold this and I can ask Chief Livingstone those questions? I see Pat. I've got one other question after Pat. Okay. I was just, I just looked up airgun and it basically is a gun that fires projectiles pneumatically with compressed air or gases. So it has velocity and it can do harm. So I think it needs to be included. And removed away from the exemptions. Is a paintball gun, Pat, considered? Could you see that anywhere? It fires paintballs through pneumatic air pressure. So it would be considered an air gun, in my understanding. I didn't catch that. Try tapping above to edit. Sorry. And what else do you use an air gun for? So instead of using, so an air gun could be used instead of, you know, so ammunition gets fired out of a weapon either through compressed air pushing it out, right? Or through, you know, the creation of an actual explosion pushing it out. And so a firearm creates, you know, most guns creates that explosion, right? If you think of an old school civil war type where there are lighting things to create the explosion to press to push it out. An air gun does it through pneumatic type pressure and air pressure. So it could be any type.  Probably, yeah. But that can cause harm, right? So I have no experience with guns. I had, I don't mean to understeer it. I just with the air guns worry we'd be going too far given some uses of what air, some classifications of what an air gun is. So I'd just like to talk to the chief about it, mainly. And then I have a question about discharge of shotguns. In two, I don't see any exemption for hunting. And I believe in Amherst there is some hunting grounds, especially towards the notch. And so that could be why number one was originally included was because you tend to use shotguns for hunting, not traditional handguns, right? And so I would want to talk to the chief about if we remove one completely, have we just eliminated hunting in Amherst? Would it be totally unconventional to call chief Livingstone during our meeting right now and see if we can get them on the line? Probably. Dang it. I'm prepared. You're muted. It does seem that we could, I'd like to see us muad hunting for purposes of hunting in appropriate sites or whatever you'd want to say, two, two. And I'm getting more and more, I think we should leave air guns alone because of paintball and other things. I think so. I'd like to see that change happen. I think that not having a prohibition against shotguns is not a good idea. No, I just want to make sure we don't prohibit hunting. And I would say we could add it. Yeah, so I think we need to just talk to the chief. Yeah, talk to the chief and then maybe come in with potential changes that would eliminate maybe shotguns in one, but add hunting in two, figure out what air guns are and what they're used for. Okay, so because I want to be, I'm gonna probably end up sending him an email and I just want to be very clear. So what we're recommending is to, first of all, we want a clarification on air guns to see if paintballs are included in that and what else may be included in that. We want to get rid of shotguns and then under two, we want to add hunting and there must be some language like in state approved areas or there must be some like, I don't think that there's just random hunting grounds. It has to be like approved by some state, you know. People who need hunting licenses, but there are hunters that hunt in Amethyst Brook conservation area during hunting season. I'm not sure the state has specific hunting areas. Certainly state land does get hunted. I've seen the signs, but private land, if you've got a large enough private land, you can hunt on your own land. But isn't that covered under G? That's where I'm a little bit confused here because I will say I was up looking. No, so G is if a fox, if you're a farmer and a fox or we don't have wolves really in Amethyst, but if a fox is coming in and eating your chickens, you can shoot the fox.  That's G1 and G2 is the humane way to kill animals raised as livestock sometimes. Just like B2B, when a horse gets injured, they tend to be put down by shotgun. Could we add a number three potentially here that talks about hunting on your own land, like given that this is talking about being your own land? Well, but then you wouldn't be able to allow friends to hunt on your land if you put it under G versus just hunting as an extra H or something. But I think we need language from the chief. Okay, so we'll ask for language. Yeah, because I was up at like the solar, one of the solar arrays in North Amherst and somebody was hunting and it the shot, I mean, I felt like it was gonna hit me. It was so close and it was kind of, it was scary. And I was actually, I was with Cynda and she didn't know where it was coming from and it was out of season. Aren't there certain seasons that you're allowed? Yes. So I think we should definitely, yeah, get that language from the chief. I think we just need the chief's language because we would wanna include things like within appropriate season, you know. With licenses. Licenses by people with licenses during that particular, there's bow and arrow hunting seasons, there's all sorts of different hunting seasons. And also different seasons to hunt different animals. Animals, yeah. Okay, okay. Do we have a hunting bylaw? Do we have a bylaw that refers to any hunting or anything like that? No, I think so. But I do wanna protect hunting. I'm totally opposed to guns, but I wanna protect hunting. Hunting is not in the general bylaw. The word hunting is not in the general bylaws right now. Right. Okay, that's interesting. So would that be worth exploring with chief Livingstone a little bit? Just to see if that- Fishing, hunting and trapping license is unlisted, but no. Oh, but let's see what that one's for. Cause that one I just came up with, right? Yeah. For hunting, so yeah, hold on. So that one is in licenses and permits, denial, revocation or suspension for failure to pay taxes is what that one is. So that's where the license is. Can you look at that? What did you say, Pat? Yeah, that I wanted her to lower. Okay, so it's in the tax paying. Right. You can't suspend that license if you don't pay your taxes. That's the only one that's popping up. So that's the only reference in the bylaws. Okay. Does this body think that a bylaw should be written for hunting if we feel like that's something that we wanna protect but have recognition around? The state has so many rules around hunting that I think it would be very complicated for us to- Delve into that. Delve into that. And then you get back to the same thing with that hold up and quarter. Do they want you to, like the Board of Licensing use the state laws? Okay. Yeah. All right. Well, I have the three pieces here that I can ask Chief Livingstone. So we're not gonna make any recommendation on this. We've had a discussion and we're going to get some questions answered and then we'll come back to that one. Is that fair? Yes, we need more information. Great. Okay. So that was all we had on our agenda today. I did want to cover future agenda items. I wanted us to choose a couple more bylaws that are on that list to review for our next meeting. But I also, so this equity lens review process has been on our agenda since we started working together. And I had a proposal that I wanted to just put out there to plant the seed. And I really want Anika to be here to have the full conversation around this. But I wondered if before we go on to decide on future bylaws and future agenda items, if I could just plant that seed quickly since it is on our agenda for you all to think about. And then when we hopefully Anika will be able to join us at our next meeting. Does that work for everyone? Okay. All right. So I've been giving it a lot of thought and I looked at different equity lens review models that are out there. But what keeps coming to me is that this body, its charge basically is to review things for clarity, consistency and actionability. And we have talked a lot about what that means. I think we have some written documents about what clarity, consistency and actionability. And I've actually heard some controversy around or maybe not controversy, but different viewpoints about what clarity, consistency and actionability mean. Specifically when we were doing the plant medicine, sorry to bring that one up, but it did sort of evoke some like, well, are we talking grammar here? Or are we talking the actual content? And so what occurred to me is that what if we made a recommendation to include equity? So we had clarity, consistency, actionability and equity, which is something that we would review all documents for. And then if we took some time to sort of make sure that we understood what those four, what those four pieces actually mean to this body and be able to further clarify that to the full, like have a discussion about those particular qualifications that we're looking for when we review things. Because to create an entire process outside of what we already do seems like in some ways, equity should be included in everything we do. We should be looking at everything through that lens. And so why are we looking at clarity, consistency and actionability and not equity and then having some other process for that that may or may not get enshrined into the process of the council's work. And so that was my thought. And I see Jennifer, your hand is up. No, I'm sort of getting a little aside. Could you share with us maybe after the meeting just send us some of those models that you've seen that would be really helpful. Yeah, for the next meeting in the packet, I'll include what I have been able to find. And they don't, to be honest with you, what I have found isn't really in relationship to municipal government. So more like in organizations, in educational institutions, things like that. So we are sort of, at least from what I could find in terms of creating this. And I see Mandy, your hand's up. Yeah, initial thoughts, because I haven't thought much about this. And it's not that I don't support an equity review. I wonder if GOL is the right place to be adding it. Not, and so GOL might be the right place to define what equity lens review means. But if GOL is not doing the substantive review and the substantive review is done by TSO say for whatever parking plans or these water regulations say, or CRC looks at some zoning by law, if they pass it off as we're good with this and then it comes to GOL and GOL is like, you know, equity-wise, this is horrible. Doesn't it have to go back then to CRC or TSO? So shouldn't that review be done at the time the substantive review is done to make sure substantively, because I see it as more of a substantive thing than a non-substantive thing. That doesn't mean that GOL can't have a role in figuring out what does an equity lens review look like. And so maybe that's where our role and our recommendation to the council lies is, hey, we think all of these regulations, bylaws, whatever these other committees are reviewing and substantively need an equity review, here's our recommendation for how to do that. But I wonder if, I guess, where in the process should that review happen is sort of my concern over more than it should happen, right? But let's put it in the right spot. Yeah, I really appreciate that. And if I could just quickly respond, I do think it needs to happen with the body that's creating whatever policy they're creating or whatever they're looking at in the substantive piece. But I also, so maybe there's two things that happen. Maybe it is creating and making a recommendation on a process for all bodies to use. But then when it gets to GOL, we're the last line. Like we're the last people that get to look at basically everything. So to me, it seems like if we're looking at clarity, consistency, and actionability, we should also be checking that whatever groups were working on something substantively also dealt with the equity. And so it gets that final check. And that's, you know, and by building it in and by adding equity as one of our guidelines, I feel like we're ensuring that whatever substantive process for equity occurred, it did occur and we're just sort of declaring it. You know, as we do with clarity, consistency, and actionability. I think I saw Pat and then Jennifer. So please. I just want to say that I agree with that. I developing an equity process, I think does reside in this committee. And then it does need to be applied by other committees. And then, and therefore I think Michelle's right, what's the review? But I think it will be an area that we're going to as this committee have to really look at carefully because we still can't deal with substance. And so it's going to be very interesting, but I think a very possible process. And I also have, in addition to what Michelle is going to send out, I have the equity and empowerment lens from Portland, Oregon, Multomam County, which I can send out to people. That would be great, Pat. That would be great. And I'll try to even, there's nothing that I can create a packet for our next meeting now and start adding to it, right? Okay, I'll do that as soon as we sign off so that Pat, you can even throw it in there as well, if that's easy too. Jennifer. Yeah, I did think that that, I think it's appropriate for GOL to help create the lens. And I did understand that as, either an assignment or a role that it was agreed we would take on. And I remember with the plant-based medicine because we were asked to review it more substantively. And I asked the question during the council is could GOL review something for substance? Because I hadn't understand that was our role. And I was told, well, whatever the council asked GOL to do, it can do. And I did understand it that that had come to us. So I think it's appropriate for us to at least develop it and then send it back to the council and then it would go to the other committees. Great. Okay, so it sounds like there's some consensus that we're gonna work to develop a process that can be recommended to the council for all committees to use. And that we will also discuss adding it as one of our guidelines of clarity consistency action ability to include equity so that we can ensure when that document gets to us as the final place it goes before it comes back to the council, it's been reviewed, it's been, that's been included in all of that. And I think that developing the actual process because I think we think about equity and we think about, at least I do often I'm thinking about racial equity and social equity. Also, we have so many varying opinions in the community. We are not all of like-minded. And so I think it's important that we like broaden our definition of what equity really means beyond just racial equity or social equity but to include equity of just voice and things like that. So I don't know, I'm rambling now but that's my initial thoughts on that. And Pat, were you gonna say something else? You're muted. No, okay. All right, so Pat's gonna put something in the packet. I'm gonna put some things in the packet if anybody else comes across anything about this and we'll add it to the next agenda for a bigger conversation. Okay, so we want to, we don't have anybody in attendees. I'm calling for public comment but we don't have anyone here. And so what I'd like to do is get really clear about our next meeting and what we want to include on the agenda. I do know that we will be responsible for at least part of the process of the town manager review which will be coming up soon and I'm set to meet with the Lynn when she's back from vacation to discuss what we'll need to know for that. And I think Pat and Mandy will also have experience with that. But Mandy, would you pull up the list of bylaws that were recommended for us to look at? And maybe we can decide on two more or even more than that since we don't have, in your memory, Pat or Mandy at this time of year other than what could come to us as a referral from the council and the town manager review process are you aware of anything else that is just seasonal for us? I can't think of anything that's seasonal. I mean, there are proclamations and things like that but we've got that on a schedule. Right. Mandy, do you have that? I was just gonna say, I think there's a couple of proclamations coming or should be coming some of those annual ones that we should check on, but... Yes, and I am looking right now at potential future agenda items on our agenda. Also, did Paul at the last meeting review the bylaws that he had been asked to look into? It was in the packet, but that was it. Okay, and do we have to take any further action on that? Given that he, I mean, there was a motion that came from the council with respect to that, but I don't, and I guess there's nothing else we would have to do. Let me just see here. This isn't the document I wanted. I wanted an easier one. So I have, if you look at the agenda, it's also, I think, on there, if you're just looking. Yeah, we do wanna see, I guess, what, what... I found the right document. Okay. I just opened the wrong one. Okay. Okay. So, we just, this one we just made a recommendation on. And discharging, we're... We're working on this one. We made this one to CRC. Okay, great. Soliciting, we should wonder what that one is for. Since we're looking at soliciting anyway, I wonder what the... How is that different? Yeah. What were they saying with it? Hold on. I can look at, okay, are you gonna, cause I can also... I'm going to give me a second and then I'll share that one. Awesome. Let me just find it. Okay. Revisit the exception section, especially in relation to seeking contributions and then needs a KP law regarding retention. Would that be related to like, it wouldn't be elections? Campaigning. But just under the state? Hold on. Yeah, we need to look at the exceptions. Yeah. So this is the soliciting by law. That's the exceptions. Contributions for non-commercial purposes from other than their own members. Organizations seeking contributions for non-commercial purposes from other than their own members. So if you've got a nonprofit going around seeking contributions, the nonprofit might have membership like some Boys and Girls Club has a membership site. But if they start door knocking, seeking contributions other than from Boys and Girls Club members, they're supposed to notify the police department, I guess. But what are non-commercial purposes? A donation to Boys and Girls Club, a donation to pro-abortion legislation. Commercial purposes would be Amazon soliciting money to paint their cars. I don't know. Oh, I see. Okay, okay. We don't have a lot of commercial solicitation in our community, do we? Yeah, so commercial solicitation, painting of houses, right? Yeah. I mean, if somebody- I've had people come here who wanted to paint my house. So they leave something like that. Okay, yeah, yeah, right, yeah, okay. So the exception, we're gonna, and the exception to what? The exception to what? So let me pull that one up again. So it's on there. We visit the exception section, especially in relationship to seeking contributions. If it's retained, we need to be sure it aligns with recent case law. Okay. So really, this is a question for KP Law. Yeah. Yeah. In order, okay. And do you feel, Mandy, that that in, does that impact the soliciting discussion earlier? I think the only way it would impact the soliciting discussion earlier is if KP Law is like, dude, you need to repeal this, right? You know, if we're keeping it, they're still going to, in theory, be a license issued. The fee would still be there. It's who issues the fee, right? So the only reason it would have impacted is if KP Law comes back with, you shouldn't even have this. Okay, based on that case law that they're referencing. And the by-law, you can- I have a question. This is all items in like, the charter and our by-laws, but they've already, so we're just reviewing their legal or they wouldn't be there now. Things change though, you know, legislation changes. And we just went through a by-law where we got rid of it because what, which one did we get rid of peaking and peering? Or no, it was the other one. See what I mean about my memory. The gathering on town common we got rid of, or something. And so what by-laws are no longer necessary? What, and what needs to change? And where are clarifications that have to happen? Because none of us know what we're talking about when we read it. Yeah, right. So I'm just wondering who flagged these? I mean, I'm just curious. The by-law review committee, which was a committee with several lawyers and people on it and myself, Evan Ross, Alyssa Brewer, and we reviewed all of the by-laws when we were changes because we moved from town meeting to town council. So there were changes that automatically had to be made. And you did it at the beginning of the last council when you were first to council. Right, yeah. And like four or some plus years ago, which is why my memory is weak. And then GOL took it on. Right. So that committee, as Pat said, that committee was tasked with doing non-substantive changes to bring, well, they were substantive too, but to bring the by-laws in conformance with the new charter, meaning get rid of every reference to select board, get rid of references to town meeting. Okay. So it was non-substantive and now we're doing the substantive. Yeah, and so in that review, they came across things that they had a lot of questions of that were more substantive. And they said, look at these, but we think it's outside of our charge. And so it took GOL two plus years and this is where we got. And now GOL finally has time to look at things. Okay, okay. And the zoning by-laws, we were charged with doing those as well. We made minor changes, but we sent that to the planning department to work and review. Okay. So for soliciting, I'm gonna inquire through Paul to KP Law about that one. And then I'll also report that back to you, Mandy, just in case there's any impact that is in needs immediate. And then, all right, we'll continue looking at these. So I mean, street numbering of houses and snow and ice, both relate to safety probably, and our short by-laws. I don't know what the, I'd have to look up what the by-law review committee wanted us to look at with either of them, but they might be the most logical next ones. The snow and ice was who was responsible, literally for the sidewalks outside their homes and things like that. And the street numbering of houses, there's kind of a lack of logic. Like my street goes 2133, but that's not gonna change because even if I built an accessory dwelling unit, it would have to be 21A or B or something like that. So, you know, there's a, if you just ride around and look at mailbox numbers, because it's fascinating, and I do not see us organizing or changing the whole town. That's a little quickly. Yeah, that would be great. Thank you. That one was what, 3.39 and 3.40. Okay. Oh wait, that's the wrong one. Actually, yeah, no, that's the wrong one. Let me find the right one. Are you looking for the chart, as opposed to the narrative? Yeah. They're sort of similar, but yeah, the chart seems easier to follow. Okay, so. Numbering on any given is your regular numbers to be required so they can, oh, so it's also the irregularity, but also should we require better? Visuals. Visuals, yeah. Emergency vehicles and yeah. Yeah. This is also something to consider. Put it right, the word 30 out. So we can probably talk about that one next week. Okay. I'll add that. And also I just thought about the rental registration by law piece. I know there's something in that, and then that's not on our agenda here, but just in terms of really clearly for the police and fire to be able to identify, I have gone by so many houses where you can't even, you can't even see what their address is, you know what I mean? So is there, you know, something there? Okay, and then snow and ice. Delete. The committee recommends consideration of future amendments to incorporate the policy of the town for DPW to clear sidewalks from snow and ice from certain sidewalks. In other words, the DPW now does some clearing and no one knows what they learned. So I think the committee's recommendation was, can we at least reference that in the bylaw somewhere? Okay.  Yeah. So they will clear some sidewalks? They do clear some sidewalks. Maybe downtown. They do downtown. They do wildflower in my neighborhood for some reason. I'm still not sure why. But we've heard different reasons, but yeah. One of which is they actually on wildflower, the town owns a large piece of frontage. So they have to do that part. And so one of the reason we've heard is they just do the whole thing then, I don't know. Yeah, well, you rich people, you know, how that goes. So those two look like we could probably have that discussion, those discussions next time. Perfect. Okay. And does this discussion require, are there any questions from DPW superintendent that we would want to have answered for this discussion or not really? Like, is there, should we find out right now what's available if there's a street list that's already. Yeah, I think that's, yeah, okay. Because we'd wanna know why different streets why these different decisions have been made. Perfect. Like the town used to clear Allen, I can't remember Allen would, it's a private street and the town used to clear it because there was one house on it that was the beginning of the property and there have been constant fights with the people who own the street about whether the town should clear it or not because there's access to Amethyst Brook, et cetera. Yeah, okay. There are issues. Okay, Pat, go ahead. No, I was gonna bring up something entirely different before we leave, so. Well, I'm just wondering if we should just pick maybe two more right now because I don't know that we're gonna have anything major on our agenda for the next time given that we have one council meeting and I don't have anything that I'm aware of. Well, we have the equity lens. Yeah, so we could just really dive into that if there's nothing that's urgent here and we have some questions that we need to answer on these other things. So maybe you're right, Pat, if everyone's good with that. Yeah, I think this is the time to do it because we keep pushing it back. So this time to do that. Okay. It would be great if Annika could be here but if she's not, we can still start the conversation. The other thing is, and this is what I wanted to bring up about our process with the equity lens, we should be including Pamela Young the way we include the planning department in zoning things. And I think that would be critical. If you look at some, yeah. Yeah, that's a great suggestion. That's a great suggestion. Yeah, and should we include Pamela and Jennifer? Well, that would be up to Pamela probably. Yeah, she's the director and if they were both here, that would be grand because Jennifer knows Amherst even better but it's yeah, she'll probably bring her everything. Okay, so I should attempt to invite her to our meeting, our next meeting. Yeah. Okay. All right, and our next meeting is August 17th. Is everyone that's here able to attend that meeting at 9 a.m.? Yes, yeah. Okay, great. And let me just, we already adopted our minutes from last time. Let me just take a quick look here. Were there any other announcements? I don't have anything that wasn't anticipated. Did any other members have any announcements? Athena has her hand raised, yes. I just have a quick question before you wrap up. I want to make sure because we have agenda setting this afternoon, I want to make sure that I'm bringing what you're ready to bring. So it sounds like you'd like to move forward with bylaw 3.8, those changes more quickly. And so those could be on the next council agenda if there's space and also the peaking or peering. Is that right? Or did you want to wait for both pieces of the license fees and soliciting to be ready before bringing those up at the council? Go ahead, Mandy. Can I just request that you wait on 3.8 the license fees until after the BLC meeting tomorrow? Cause that's when I'll know whether they're ready. The referral was to both GOL and BLC. Right, but I don't think you voted on 3.8. So those were those. No, we did. We did. Yeah. 3.8 was the. Oh, yes. Okay. Yes. It was the other one that you didn't. Until we know whether BLC is ready. So it might be able to go on for first reading if the BLC will be ready in a month and a half to institute fees. But I won't know that till tomorrow. Okay. But are you saying, Mandy, the common, the first one, is that going to be included? Well, that's the one. I don't know whether they're going to be ready. The one we voted on for in-holders, lunch carts and common victuallers. The referral to, the referral for my sponsorship was to both GOL, which has now finished. It's for you. Okay. So to BLC and part of the BLC referral was something like to ensure that they are ready for instituting the fees at passage. So we could probably do a first reading, but the second reading may have to hold off Athena until they're ready to adopt fees. Something like that. Or we could hold off until BLC has met on Thursday. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I'll tell you. We have time. I don't think we're finalizing until next Wednesday. So I think that that makes sense. And then for peaking or peering, that one's ready to go. Right? That one's ready to go. Yeah. That one's ready to go. Okay. Thank you all. All right. Any other comments or questions? Okay. Then I'm going to move to adjourn at 10, 24 a.m. And thank you, everyone. Thank you. Have a great week. Yep. Bye-bye. You, bye.


Since the topic is saying talking about who is an Indian citizen. I have been writing on an RC and then I made a video on this in My YouTube series called legal awareness web series who is an Indian citizen Believe me every day. I Receive about hundred emails and it is not that most of these males are coming from Muslims I receive mails from many many non-muslims who are saying that in Our high school certificate. The spelling is this but in our passport the spelling is this Will we be included if national and RC is undertaken or not a state For five years is doing nothing except searching documents and And if the whole nation Starts doing this document search to prove their existence Then you know where our GDP is going to be We are already about five percent the realistic estimate is that it is probably three point five It will become maybe one point five or two point five. I don't want to take you to concepts of citizenship But there are narrower concepts of citizenship and There are broader and liberal concepts of citizenship So our constitution adopted the broader concept. We said anyone who is born on our soil will be our citizen US also has a similar thing many of us many of you will be the beneficiaries when you go there and the children will Be born there and if Trump is not there Then they will get citizenship But this whole idea of citizenship is an idea of exclusion. It is not an idea of inclusion Citizenship is an idea where we say you are the other so I define myself with reference to some other and Then I say get lost You will not get this you will not get this The problem with our country is and in both the cases I am going to demonstrate to you Facts have become irrelevant. How much media has contributed to it? How much political parties have contributed to it? How much we as citizens by listening to nonsense have contributed to it? I Really don't know but it has really become so difficult To talk of plain naked facts we were told That there are 40,000,000 Bangladeshi foreigners illegal immigrants 80,000,000 Somebody said one carol another person said 1.2 Yet another minister union minister said two carols at the end of the day When on 31st of August you got this final NRC We are told 19 lakhs people are not there Out of these 19 legs About four lakh people are having their refugee certificate We didn't take them into account So they will definitely be included now So for four lakhs 4.5 other Another four lakhs are those who did not apply for NRC. That means they're dead Then you have a huge majority of Assam's indigenous people Bengali Hindus are in big majority around sick clacks or so You have people who are neither speaking Bengali nor speaking Assamese Who have been excluded probably Biharis and UP Wallahs and other states people who are there So my rough estimate is That at the end when all these foreign tribunals with whatever you know Process they call it judicial process. I called that they are like kangaroo coats With the no-do process In fact, they are contracts to continue as members of the foreign tribunals Depend on how many people they have excluded So there is a performance sheet which was submitted even to Guwahati High Court We said oh X the number of people he declared as foreigners is Y and this is below the Expected level so his contract is not to be renewed and there are people Members of the foreigners tribunal who declare a lot of people as non-Indians Their contracts are to be renewed all these people who are members of These foreigners tribunals Which were supposed to be the quasi judicial bodies many of them are civil servants retired civil servants Many of them are lawyers The original idea of the foreigners act now foreigners act is not Independent India's law. It is a 1946 colonial law This law deals with people who are foreigners Not with citizens. You do not have any concept of tribunal under the citizenship act Now when you are an independent Independent country with a constitutional democracy with liberalism You can't be dealing with people whose Citizenship could not be proved just because there is some discrepancy in a document and With what state we are dealing There are people who had faced devastating floods four times five times in their life the entire record has been swept away in the Floods and we are asking them to bring the record Women are the worst victims Because child marriages are still rampant in Assam Their name could not come in their parents Village's voter list because they were not 21 This 18 voting age will come when Rajiv Gandhi became the prime minister. So that is a recent thing So since they were married when they were not 21 Or now when they are still married when they are not 18 This record is not there In the village where they are married and they are the worst victims I feel that NRC is a self-inflicted wound. It is a Something worse than the partition If 20th century has seen a man-made disaster On Indian subcontinent because we thought nations are made in the name of religion and created artificial boundaries Which proved to be futile because within 25 years or so Bangladesh was created Even though all these Bengalis were Muslims, but they said that we are a different nation in a constitutional democracy yet again We have Created a man-made disaster where we are asking our own people to prove their citizenship and We did this propaganda in such a systematic way That the highest court of the country got carried away and the highest court of the country is Started behaving as government rather than judiciary So which document will be accepted which will not be accepted Ideally it should be the function of the executive So print court itself is deciding so certificates issued by village head will not be accepted If a village head has issued a certificate That village head has to come and testify Many a times people have received Notices from the foreigners tribunals 24 hours notice 48 hours notice and they are asked to appear 400 kilometers away from their village These are poor people they don't have means and The entire village receives the notice so many people have committed suicide In Bengal itself Where there is mere apprehension That an NRC will be implemented 11 people so far have committed suicide And when we talk of deportation How many people are going to be deported In last six years we have deported only five people to Bangladesh I was reading news It seems that the Bangladeshi prime minister Raised up this issue with our honorable prime minister in New York Of course there is no official statement from India But there is a statement from Bangladeshi foreign ministry Where it seems our prime minister has said don't worry We are not going to send back these people to you Our minister is on record Rajnath Singh Saying we are not sending back anybody Our foreign minister is on record During his visit to Dhaka An RC is an internal matter If it is an internal matter If we are not going to send these people away from India Why spend about 1500 crores on this exercise The narrative accepted by the court Was this that these people are in such big numbers They are influencing our democratic process They are a burden on our resources Even if I take entire 19 lakhs who have been excluded This is less than 4% of your population of Assam Can 4% people be such a threat To our culture or democratic process That they can adversely affect election results And once we found out that the results are not to our liking Look at the statement of the minister Chief minister himself Sonowal Who went to the supreme court twice on this issue Look at the statement of Himanta Biswas On the day an RC finalist was released When we realized that the reality is different From what we had been convincing people all these years We said no no we are going to give them legal aid Just because somebody's name is not in an RC That doesn't mean he is not our citizen In 1997 One fine morning Election commissioner TN session was there Very powerful election commissioner Did number of good things for our elections But one thing which was done in Assam Was without any inquiry Some low level officer Just in front of certain names he said Doubtful doubtful doubtful doubtful These people became what is now known as devoters Doubtful voters Their names have not been included In 2001 or 2003 like more people were added to this list Their descendants have also not been included So you have roughly 4-5 lakh people Who are sons and daughters of these devoters Who are our citizens Who will be eventually included You have out of 19 lakhs 2 lakh children Then names of both their parents are in the analysis Children's names are not there There are people who have a record of their property dating back to 1924 And their names are not there People who have served in our army and their names are not there Because the whole process itself was faulty We are overemphasizing 1951 An RC Which was a kind of a census Which was done in few days Without any notice We are saying that your Some relatives name should be there in what they call Legacy document Which should be some 1971 document 1966 voter list Some bank account I think we need to thank our Prime Minister That because of his initiative Now many of us have bank accounts But poor people in 66, 71 did not have bank accounts What percentage of people had bank accounts at that point of time Then you will have some family tree And then you need some legacy document And then connection from this document is to be made to a legacy document Then only your name will be included There are lakhs of people Whose name is there In the legacy document I was looking at a case of one person Whose father's name was there In the 1966 voter list His age was written 1966 His age is written 30 years I think in 1951 the age is written 30 years In 1966 voter list And of course no citizen has a right to make a voter list Voter list is made by government officials And it is not made by senior government officials It is made by lower level officers Of course under the overall supervision of senior officers This man's age is written 95 1966 The age should have been written 45 But it is written 95 He is arguing but it is a clerical mistake But the name was excluded Because his father was not accepted as his father They said it is a projected father We have made an RC Under a law called section 6A Of the Citizenship Act The constitutionality of this law is under challenge A three judge bench of supreme court Has accepted That yes this is a substantive question of law Whether section 6A is constitutional or not And therefore frame not one and two Thirteen questions On the constitutionality of section 6A And referred it to a five judge constitution bench Bench had one hearing Then one judge from the bench got retired Superannuated The bench got dissolved Don't you think Before we tell people That you are not our citizen We should be Able to have in our hand A supreme court order Upholding the law under which We are denying people citizenship Our own supreme court doubts The constitutionality of section 6A If a three judge bench Does not doubt the constitutionality of section 6A How can it refer it to a five judge bench You have to first convince a three judge bench Only when three judge bench is convinced Then only matter goes to a larger bench What are the questions Interesting One of the question is State does not mean mayor territory Here state means state of Assam It also means people And their culture Since Bangladesh illegal immigrants Are coming to Assam There is a threat To state meaning people And culture And since central government Could not stop illegal infiltration Central government is in violation Of its duty and article 355 To protect states from external aggression Migration is a global phenomenon America even today has 11 million People who are supposedly illegal migrants From the times of Aryans Migration is a thing happening In film refugee you had that famous song All these boundaries Men have created This is not for birds Who can easily cross boundaries Is the same definition of state We are going to apply to Kashmir That it is not just the territory But also people and culture And if this is so How can you decide the bifurcation Without taking them on board Or will you have one definition Of a state for Assam And another definition for Kashmir There is one date for Assam Cut-off date 24th of March 1971 25th of March Bangladesh was born This you can't have one date in Assam And another date for other states As you know as we stand today The date for other state is 1st July 1987 So if you have two different laws Then that is unconstitutional The question is is it unconstitutional or not If court says it is unconstitutional Five judge bench Tomorrow decides it is unconstitutional Then entire exercise is to be redone Because the cut-off date changes The law is You can have one law What to say for one state One district What to say for one district One individual There can be a law against one individual Article 14 right to equality Forbids class legislation It does not prohibit classification If that one individual is a class in himself People who are similarly Circumstanced Will be governed by that one law We made one law called motor vehicle act Each state is coming up with Its own amendments The whole question was That under the 1983 This IMDT tribunals One law was passed to determine The question of citizenship Illegal migrants tribunals act This act in my opinion rightly said That the burden to prove That X is not our citizen Shall be on the state In entire criminal law This is how it is If you accuse that I committed rape You will prove it If you say I committed theft You will prove it If you say I committed murder You will prove it If you say this land is yours You will prove it Alleges must prove It is the global rule Unevidence Unless As I said That foreigners act 1946 pre-colonial If you arrested me When I was crossing the border Then you can say I should prove that I am Indian citizen I am coming back to my mother country If from my possession You got passport of some other country Then you can say Now you prove that you are an Indian citizen Though you are having a passport Of some other country But if someone is born in India The presumption is to be in favour Of that person And one who alleges that he is not the citizen Must prove that he is not the citizen Against this law And burden of proof The current chief minister Of Assam went to supreme court And supreme court Got carried away by that false narrative Of one billion infiltrators From Assam From Bangladesh in Assam Called these infiltrators as vultures And they stuck down this law Now there is a rule How law is stuck down If there is a law made by parliament The thumb rule is That the constitutionality of law Is to be presumed by the court One who Again alleges that law is not constitutional Must prove that it is not constitutional That burden was not discharged The other rule to look at the constitutionality Of a law made by parliament is Ask a simple question Is the matter on which parliament Has enacted law In the state list As you know there are three lists Union list on which only parliament Can make law And state list 66 items are there State list 66 items Where state can legislate And there are There is a third list Concurrent list on which both Center and state can legislate So if an item is in the state list Then parliament cannot legislate So your question should be Whether the Given item is in the state list If it is not there The first test is met Now you cannot hold that law as unconstitutional Unless a second test is there Whether the law Made by parliament Violates fundamental right You cannot strike down A law If parliament has jurisdiction To pass that law And that law does not violate Any fundamental right Supreme court did not follow this route And rather Imagined an external aggression And struck down Illegal migrant determination tribunal IMDT And that is the genesis of today's problem International law Clearly says You can arrest people Keep them in detention If they are foreigners Prior to their deportation So for three days Four days One month Maximum of three months You may keep them in detention centers When you have no plan of deporting them Can you keep people in detention For years together India is a signatory To international covenant On civil and political rights We are a signatory To international convention International human rights instruments They talk of right to nationality We are in violation of those conventions Because our court Stuck down a law Unnecessarily I believe That we should not be guided by false narratives Otherwise we will land up ourselves Up in this kind of situation After 1971 Experts on migration have been writing Large scale influx has not happened from Bangladesh Muslims have not been coming from there After creation of Bangladesh Hindus have been coming Because they feared persecution In last ten years Bangla economy is improving Do you know what number of Indians are there in Bangladesh About ten lakhs Our people are there Illegally living there Because Bangla economy is not doing Exceedingly well People who have taken birth on our soil Even if we talk to Bangladesh about deportation What record Bangladesh will have of those people Most of us We were not born in hospitals It is recent phenomena That people take birth in hospitals Poor people still don't go to hospitals for delivery Our record keeping is so poor And if at all We decide citizenship only on the basis of document I can tell you you have all kinds of judgments So somebody had a passport Issued by government of India And the court said No no no you are not our citizen So passport as a document was negative Somebody had a name in motor list And we said no no no this way we will not recall Somebody is having adhar And we said no no no this way we will not So what is the value of documents What is the value of documents Before I stop my discussion on NRC If we really believe In Akhand Bharat And consider that Bangladesh and Pakistan Are part of larger India I personally feel they are Because as I said that I don't believe nations Can be created in the name of religion And I consider that Pakistan and Bangladesh Were wrongly created Then at least listen to Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Listen to at least Hindu right wing philosophers Who have written including Deen Dayal Upadhyaya That first we should develop good trade relationship And then have some kind of loose confederation If we believe again I am picking up From classical Indian Ancient civilizational values Vasudev Kutamukam The whole world is a family How can then At the end of this exercise You will have maybe 1.5 lakh, 2 lakh Bangladeshis You can't keep them And we are saying We will have an RC in Haryana We will have an RC in Bengal An RC in Uttarakhand What nonsense Government of India's own population record is saying I think table 11A or so That earlier People who are not our citizen their number was 0.6% Now it has gone down To 0.4% In last decade Less than 1% people What kind of threat they are Winning election Should be the motto of every political party And I don't mind it But should we be dividing people Causing such hardship to people Are we not human Don't we have any heart Just because there is Some spelling mistake here And some spelling mistake there We are denying people their citizenship Citizenship is a right to rights If you are a citizen then you have other rights It is the most crucial right This right we want to be determined through foreigners Tribunal 78% of their judgments Have been given ex-party You decided on my back My citizenship And we want to be Vishwagru I think at a time When United States is conceding that Space of higher morality India should have filled that space As a world leader As a civilizational leader But we are constructing Big detention centers in one state And in another state I think this is frightening One Hindu technocrat IT expert From Bangalore wrote to me I cried reading that email And I will stop with that email I don't have the Ability to sustain myself This boy Is writing to me That I am into IT My wife lives in Assam My parents died in some accident Somebody in neighborhood adopted me So I know only that family I don't know my biological family And unless you prove your Ligesi, Ligeti, Document, Biological link You can't be included in an RC I really don't know My family tree He has written to me That in last one year He wrote number of Facebook posts On Twitter I am so and so I am so and so Does anyone know me Somebody read that post And phoned him And he was able to locate Some distant uncle He has written to me Five times he travelled to Assam in last one year Through that uncle He was able to get Name Of his grandfather Whose name incidentally was there In 1951 an RC So the link was established But when fine an RC was published This person's name is not there Do you think he is concentrating On his work No Do you think it will not effect our GDP It would Even the Muslim issue It's a purely constitutional issue Human issue If you look at how laws Have been amended in last 50 years We started with this law Anyone born in India will be our citizen Due to rightist narrative We brought in a change We said no Only people Who were born in India If first of July 1987 Alone will be Indian citizen So now if you are born after 1987 in India You don't automatically become Indian citizen Even though your constitution said so And I was told in my LLB class That constitution is the supreme law of land Between 1987 to 2003 When we brought in another amendment We said you will be an Indian citizen If in addition of India One of your parent Was also Indian citizen So from Soil Birth We started looking at relationship Then again we amended our law And now we say That not only you should be born in India But either both of your parents Should be an Indian citizen Or one of them should be an Indian citizen And another should not be an illegal migrant Under what law You can control My right to marry anyone And if I married somebody Who was subsequently Because of some spelling mistake Is found to be an illegal migrant You want to deny citizenship to my children Because both their parents Will not anymore be Indian citizen Do you think when fascism will come It will have a drum in its hand And it would say Oh I am fascism I have come I am fascism I have come You have to see the signs You have to make your own judgment Constitution of India in article 51 Is imposing the fundamental duty on us To cherish the noble ideals Which inspired our freedom struggle Look at the Motilal Nehru committee report of 1928 Were we talking of this kind of narrow idea of citizenship Look at the crunchy resolution Look at citizenship provisions of our constitution Entire NRC exercise in my opinion Is constitutionally suspect And morally pervert I will stop here As to my discussion on NRC there is so much to talk about


The story that a culture holds is the organizing principle of that culture and it the story gives meaning to the things that the people in that culture do and Orients them toward a collective aim and a collective purpose. I think that right now the dominant civilization of this planet is in a crisis of its story We so the question what is our story now? In a way you could say there isn't one We had one that still has a lot of power the story of humanity rising above nature to become the lords and masters of the material realm using all other beings and materials of nature for our purposes in this glorious enterprise of transcendence and domination like that was the story But today that story is dying because We don't resonate with it anymore, and it's not working It's the paradise that it was supposed to bring us has not come to fruition so we are in a crisis of meaning a crisis of our systems that are all built on the stories and nearing a point where we are Are ready for a new story


Hi, I'm Liz Rice from the Cillium project, which sets the standard for cloud-native networking and security. We've just released 1.15, which brings lots of new features such as gateway API support for routing traffic into your cluster, session authentication for BGP, lots of improvements to Hubble to help you debug network problems, a new provider for installing with Terraform or OpenTofu, and lots of scalability improvements. Cillium cluster mesh can now support over 500 clusters. Cillium Tetragon raises the bar for runtime security providing observability and enforcement at incredibly low overhead. So scan the QR code now to find out about all of the Cillium activities this week and to sign up for the brand new Cillium Certified Associate Exam. Have a wonderful KubeCon. Hello, everyone. My name is Clemens. I work for Microsoft and I'm on the CNCF cloud events project. On behalf of all of us in the cloud events project, I would like to extend our huge thank you to the entire CNCF community for supporting us in the graduation of the cloud events project. Our journey doesn't stop here, but unlike other projects, we're going to take a very measured pace. Because cloud events is a set of conventions for interoperability, and our job as a project is now to keep that foundation stable for everybody who builds on it, and while we're still adding extensions. We invite you to adopt cloud events in your project and we will promise you that we're going to keep that foundation stable and to be very conservative about substantial changes. There's an area where we are iterating very rapidly and that is ex-registry. After we were done with the core spec, we were thinking about how to register advanced things and event sources and out of that, we evolved a universal registry coming from the cloud event schema registry API that now can handle endpoints and message definitions and schemas and many more. Thank you for supporting us and we wish you a great conference. Hello Darren, this is Katarina from the Unvoy Proxy Project and today I'm going to present you updates from the Unvoy Proxy and its fellow projects, Unvoy Mobile and Unvoy Gateway. Let's start with the exciting updates for the Unvoy Proxy Project. We have added HTTP basic OAuth extension. We have switched to a new connect type for H2 Connections which greatly improves security. Apart from that, we have added a new protobuf hashing algorithm which reduces config parsing time on startup by 10 to 25%. It's now possible to draw a certain percentage of traffic from Unvoy in the new drop overloads API. And now let's go over to the exciting updates for the Unvoy Mobile Project. Unvoy Mobile binary size is now substantially smaller. We have added XDS support for Unvoy Mobile Unjoined and IES libraries. LPN selection, H3, happy eyeballs, explicit flow control and platform certificate validation are all getting production galleries of both Android and IES. And now let's go over to the exciting updates for the Unvoy Gateway Project. The projects now support Unvoy 9D Connect authentication, basic OAuth, H3 proxy protocol and the most exciting news the project is targeting V1.0 release in March 2024. Thank you and have a great CubeCon. Hi, I'm Mike Coleman from the Falco Project and I'm here with a very exciting update. We are now an officially graduated CNCF project and we could not be more excited. We want to take a moment and thank everybody who helped Falco to fly including our users, contributors, maintainers and of course the CNCF. We also want to pause and recognize the considerable contributions of Chris Nova. Nova's work on Falco was foundational and we would not be here today without her contributions and for that we are forever grateful. We know the project going forward will be different without her but we are committed to upholding the values and principles that she instilled. So what does the future hold for Falco? We're looking for deeper integrations across a wide variety of developer touchpoints. We want more detections, richer signals, deeper integrations with things like version control systems and cloud logging. If you'd like to help with that come and find us in the Project Pavilion where you can talk with Falco contributors and maintainers. Well, that's all. Have a great CubeCon and I hope to see you around. Hi, CubeCon. If your goal is to implement full observability but first you have to deal with collection of logs, metrics and traces and profiling and you care about processing capabilities this announcement is for you. My name is Eduardo Silva the creator of FluentBit a high performance telemetry agent. With FluentBit you can solve data collection and processing by also integrating data from Prometheus open telemetry and EVPF tools. Today we're announcing FluentBit version 3 which comes with exciting new features like high performance, new support for HTTP version 2, GRPC, remote write, extended processor for logs, metrics and traces and new metrics collectors for macOS and Windows. Thanks to our community FluentBit has been deployed more than 13 billion times. A heartfelt thank you for your support and don't forget to visit the FluentBoot for a special gift your very own FluentBit t-shirt. See you there. Here's the Flux project update. The Flux team loves improving our GitOps tools for continuous and progressive delivery. Because Flux is used at scale by major clouds and enterprises security and performance are really important to us. Recently we completed our second security audit and the big news there is that there are no CVEs. Thanks to the CNCF the open source technology improvement fund and Trail of Bits for keeping Flux safe. Scan the QR code for the blog post and full report. In December we cut our first generally available release Flux 2.2.0. As of this recording we're at version 2.2.3. We have overhauled the Helm controller reconciliation model. It is more declarative, efficient and reliable and the benchmarks are looking really good. We've also improved the observability stack sharding across controller replicas and so much more. We're here in Paris so swing by the Flux booth, say hi and check out our QR code for our full list of talks and activities. Hi KubeCon, my name is Zulin Vasilev and I'm the Harbor Community Lead. In December we released Harbor 2.10 we started working on the S-Bomb integration. We also added a new interface for setting up robot accounts to allow them full access so you can implement all your infrastructure needs. We also added the GDPR compliant audit logs. In Harbor T11 we're gonna wrap up the S-Bomb integration so you can bundle up your generated S-Bomb with your OCI artifact. The major update here is the upcoming distribution release version 3. Just keep an eye on that. As every other open source project we need your help. If you want to contribute to Harbor, regardless if you individual contributor organization scan the QR code and join our upcoming community meetings. And don't forget to attend our maintainers track to learn more about the project and to hear about our roadmap. During QtCon you can find us in the afternoon at the project pavilion area. Just stop by and say hi. Thank you very much and have a great conference. Istio, the world's most popular service mesh is now even better with ambient mode which will be in beta in our upcoming release. Ambient uses a lightweight shared node proxy as a secure overlay to provide mutual TLS, metrics and layer four authorization policies and integrates with optional per workload layer seven proxies for traffic routing. By removing sidecars from the data plane we decouple the lifecycle of Istio from the deployment of your application. And what's more, memory overhead and CPU usage is reduced by over 90% in many cases. We remain committed to sidecard deployments and we've reduced the size of our sidecard image by 25% saving five megabytes of RAM per sidecard. Istio has 55 active maintainers across 15 different companies. In the past 12 months there were 10 companies making over 1,000 contributions with no single vendor exceeding 25%. To learn more about Istio, visit our QtCon kiosk, check out our contributors booths or go to istio.io to see how you can get started or get involved. Hi, I've been a nobody. Istio is certified and cannot maintain them. With KEDA, you can auto-scale applications or schedule Kubernetes jobs based on various metrics or external services. You can scale to zero and much more. Last couple of months, we spent improving our authentication story. So we have a solid support for all major cloud providers. We also extended our monitoring stack. Right now we expose permissions metrics, open telemetry, and newly cloud events. We are constantly working on improving core and performance of KEDA. We also work hard on KEDA internals and scanning mechanics. And for the future, we are considering various options, permitting auto-scaling, scanning out storage, or maybe different setup resources. If you have ideas, opinions, or input, please reach out. We have community meetups every two weeks. We have a Slack channel. So please join our community and enjoy QtCon. Hi, everybody. This is William Morgan, one of the creators of Linkerdee, the world's lightest, fastest, and most secure service mesh here today with your KubeCon 2024 Paris project update. Join by my friend, Linky. Hi, Linky. All right, two exciting announcements for you from the world of Linkerdee. The first is a release of Linkerdee 2.15, which adds mesh expansion, that's the ability for Linkerdee to take your off-cluster applications, running on legacy VMs or elsewhere, and connect them into the mesh, establishing communication that is secure, reliable, and observable, and totally transparent to the pods within your Kubernetes cluster. That's a really big step for Linkerdee. The second announcement is the upcoming Linkerdee 2.16 release. Are we going to be using Linkerdee's rust-based micro-proxy technology to build ingress, to build egress control, or to build something else entirely? You're going to have to find out by coming to talk to us at the Linkerdee Project Pavilion. We'd love to say hi and tell you all about it. Thanks, that's it for Team Linkerdee. Enjoy the conference, and remember, Linkerdee forever. Open Policy Agent is the general-purpose policy engine that unifies policy enforcement across the stack. This year, we plan to release OPAv1, which notably includes some changes to the Rego syntax. The new syntax is available in pre-v1 releases of OPA today, and you can use the OPA format command with the new Rego v1 flag to update your existing policy files to be v1 ready. Also use the OPA check command with the same flag in your build pipelines to make sure the policy files remain v1 ready in the run-up to the release. Read more about OPAv1 today on the OPA website. This is Alex, and I'm excited to tell you what I've been working on. First, we continue to make improvements to the validation and mission policy support. We've also made a number of usability enhancements to the Gator CLI, external data provider cache, and expansion templates features. We've also addressed some corner cases, such as namespace exclusion for the audit from cache feature, and we've introduced a new API that will help with replicating data for referential policies. Finally, we've migrated our observability SDK to open telemetry from open census. Come enjoy the community when GitHub and Slack. Hi, I'm Travis Nielsen, Rook maintainer with IBM. Rook provides storage for Kubernetes. It does this with a three-in-one solution where you get block, shared file system, and object on a single cluster. This means you could have a read-write once or read-write many volume, as well as an S3 endpoint, all on the same solution. Rook is an operator that manages the data layer, whereas Seth provides that enterprise storage solution that's been running in production for many years. Rook is a graduated project. It's all open source, and we've always tried to do the right thing for the community. So since the last KubeCon, we've had a number of updates, including multis networking improvements, DR solutions for its FRBD and its FFS, as well as new features for our KubeCuddle plugin, and a number of other engineering improvements. Rook 1.14 will be coming out soon. Hope you'll try it out. Check out our website at rook.io, or come see us in the project pavilion in the Rook booth, as well as come to the Rook maintainer's talk. Hope to see you there, thanks. Hello, everyone. VTest is a cloud-native, distributed, and horizontally scalable database. It is built around MySQL and has been adopted by many in production, like Slack, GitHub, or Vinted. Since the last KubeCon, the VTest team has dedicated significant efforts to integrate foreign key support. Now, VTest supports foreign key managed mode for unshotted key spaces, enabling users to leverage foreign keys alongside other VTest features such as V-replication. Additionally, we have now introduced native support for point-in-time recovery and made comprehensive improvements to both query compatibility and automated recovery. Thank you for listening. We hope to see you and chat with you in the hallway. In the meantime, you can always learn more about VTest by coming to our maintainer talk. And if you want to join your community, you can scan the query code. Thank you and have a great KubeCon. Hello, this is Shing from SIG storage. Let me tell you about our SIG. Saad and myself are co-chairs, Michelle and Yang are tech leads. SIG storage ensures that persistent volumes or F-more volumes are available for your applications running in the Kubernetes cluster. We have some exciting updates for you. Rewrite one's pod PV access mode is now GA. This ensures that only one pod can write to the bottom at a time. It can be very useful for stable workloads that require single writer access to storage. No-to-span secret is now GA. This enables warning expansion on the node where the underlying storage system requires the credentials to be passed in. We have a brand new feature warning attributes class. In addition to resize, now you can also modify other attributes such as eye ops throughput after the warning is provisioned. Come to our KubeCon session to learn more. Thank you.