All right, you're good to go. Seeing the presence of the quorum, I'm going to call this meeting of GOL to order. It is 1031 on July 14th. This meeting is being recorded. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, this meeting will be conducted by remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. And we can provide instructions for that if needed. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time by technological means. Just make sure everybody can be heard. And so I'm going to start with Mandy Jo. Present. And Sarah. Present. And Pat. Present. Okay. Darcy just emailed me earlier this morning. She's under the weather, so it'll just be the four of us today. And Emily, of course, is with us as always. Thank you, Emily. And I'm going to put the agenda up on the screen just so I can get practice. And yeah, I need practice. So let's see here. So I'm out of practice here. So let's put you in. So can everybody see that? I see a lot of files. All right, so that's not working. Okay. Let's see what my problem is this morning. I was thinking if I had my mind is on other things. I want this. Let's see if that, I've forgotten how to do this. She tells you. Don't you just click on one of them? Yeah, I'm sorry. It's me, Pat. Sorry. Okay, why is that doing that? So when you click share screen, you can share either the top or the... I'm sorry, it's share screen. And I want to share this. And then still a problem. Yeah, it looks like we're seeing your folder rather than the document that you want. All right, so... So open the document and then when you click share screen, you should be able to choose the document rather than the screen. Sorry about this, guys. Where do you tend to go now? Oh, the attendee is here. Open the document. Share screen. Yep, sorry. Got that step. Okay. So we're gonna continue discussion of the open process and hopefully be done with it today across your fingers. I want to spend a few minutes reviewing and talking about the work plan for something that's been set aside for a number of months now, unfortunately, which is referral of bylaws for future consideration. We have one set of minutes. I believe June 23, I've looked at those, but we need to approve those. And then we need to have a discussion about future agenda items. And of course, if the public is present, we will entertain public comment. So we're gonna go right to the open process. So I'm going to stop sharing here. I'm gonna close this. I'm gonna open this. So everyone should see on their screen the latest version of the open process that we're reviewing. What we agreed last time is that we would start with down here, I believe it was marked by Mandy. Where was it? You just passed it. It's right here. So we're starting with section seven, Statement of Interest. We're gonna work our way through the rest of the document and then we're gonna go back and review the entire document. And then we'll decide what we wanna do next. But we are now at section seven, Statement of Interest. In the green shows changes that Mandy has made. I made one, two small changes. Again, minor, just typographical things. And I highlighted a section, I've highlighted a couple of sections in yellow, but otherwise those are the only changes from what you had in your packet. And I highlighted the elements in yellow because we need to talk about them. And there are also maybe other things we wanna talk about. So I'm gonna just read this as we've been doing and as soon as people have a question or concern, please speak up. So after the recommending committee declares the pool sufficient and adopt selection guidance, the committee chair or their designee shall contact each individual in the applicant pool to solicit a statement of interest. The committee chair or designee shall include in their solicitation the deadline for submission, the submission guidelines outlined below, a copy of the committee handout, and the adopted selection guidance so far so good. Again, just speak up. I can see everybody can raise your hand or just speak up, no problem with that. Saying nothing, I'm going to the next paragraph. Applicant statements of interest shall be typed submitted as an MS Word document or PDF directly to the committee chair or the designee, and shall not exceed 700 words in length. So I shall describe why the applicant is interested in serving on the body and the relevant skills and experiences they will bring the body that align with the adopted selection guidance. Resumes and attachments will not be accepted. I had one small thought. Pat, did you have your hand up or is that? No, I did not. I was turning the page over. That's all right, that's all right. Looking at a hard copy. Yeah, is this, can I, I can blow this up a bit, if you. No, no, I can see it on the screen. Can I just like a hard copy? No, fine. Because it's selection guides, the one thing that I, when I get these SOIs, the one thing that I really want people to do is address the selection guides or I wanted to read it and address it. But I think this sentence really makes that clear. So I was thinking adding a sentence that a phrase which says the SOI shall, something like shall address the selection guidance, explain why. So why you're interested is fine. Relevant skills and experience is fine, but what I really want them to do is respond or at least say something about selection guidance. The final clause says that. So maybe that's fine. It feels fine to me. Good, good. I think it is, but I just, I was thinking, you know, putting in explicitly should address the selection guidance. It's already there. So I think it's fine. All right, that was my one, two cent there. Nothing I haven't seen anyone else hands raised. I'm going to go to the next paragraph. Again, the committee chair does initial establish a deadline for submission of SOIs from applicants that provide sufficient time for the SOIs to be posted as part of the interviews, special meeting packet, at least one week in advance. Any applicant who does not submit their SOI by the established deadline shall be considered withdrawn from the applicant pool. Now I've highlighted these two or three words because it does raise something we need to talk about. It's highlighted actually in the next paragraph as well. This OCA process assumes there's a special meeting that's designated just for interviews. That has not been a practice of finance. We could change our practice. And the fact that this is adopted, we would have to change our practice. I kind of like our practice. And I'm wondering if this is a bit of overkill. In other words, all that we need is an interview. And whether you schedule it as part of your regular meeting or whether you do it as a special meeting seems totally up to the committee, is my thought. So thoughts from my colleagues, I see Mandy's hand raised. Yeah, I actually have two thoughts. I would support removing the word special from that, but I would also suggest potentially changing it from interview meeting to deliberation meeting. Thinking about the DAB that GOL just did where we didn't actually have interviews. So I'm thinking ahead to potential things depending on what we're gonna do in sections eight and nine coming up. But if we're going to potentially leave interviews optional, what we need is the posting of the statement of interests prior, a week prior to when the committee will deliberate and make its recommendation. So that might be jumping ahead to what's going on. I understand that. It's an opinion. But initially I would support deleting the word special from all three of those references. Let's start with that. Any thoughts on that? I know we have Sarah here. What's your thought on this, Sarah? Would you prefer that every committee, which right now we're talking about two, follow the same interview process? Or do you agree with me and potentially Mandy that that seems a bit overkill? As long as there's an interview meeting, that's all that matters. Any thoughts on that? I think everybody knows my thoughts on it. I mean, I think that the OCA process was done this way because we were looking to make sure that everything was as level playing field as possible and that there was as much transparency as possible. So I'm always up for the overkill. So I don't agree with the changes, but I think people know that and why. Well, Sarah, good. I mean, so what you're saying, I mean, I'm open to this. We've done it this way on our committee because we don't have that large number usually of candidates, first of all. And secondly, it's just been convenient, but that's not necessarily really good reasons. So it's perfectly, I'm open to the idea of finance changing its policy. In other words, if this is adopted, then we would have to. And the idea would then be finance would have to establish a special meeting, which would just be for interviews. And even if it was only in the case that we had, I think just two people last time. So we were able to easily do everything in one meeting, which is a convenience to the committee members and potentially to the public, I guess, in the sense that it's one less meeting you have to attend. But so I'm open to this. I'm not dismissing it. I think, George, even in places where we've had larger groups, we've been able to do both. And I know that it's long. I know that I'm not going to win this argument. So I'm not going to over-argu it. But that's how I feel. I guess I was going to ask Sarah a question. You feel I'm seeking some clarification here where in some sense, I'm trying to separate the issue of how interviews are conducted from when interviews are conducted. And so I think what George is saying is, do they have to be at a special meeting that is designated a special meeting or can they be held and scheduled during a regular meeting of the committee? And CRC, we've always held special meetings and we've held it as a separate special meeting from the deliberation special meeting. They've always been two separate special meetings. We've done it to try and meet the meeting time of ZBA or planning board. So we've tried to hold the interview at the time on the off week that say planning board normally meets. Although that has been problematic to get CRC members available at a time they're not normally available. And sometimes and all. So I guess what I'm asking for, Sarah, is clarification as to whether you feel they need to be on their own at their own meeting at either a special time, I guess at a special time because a special meeting would require the addition of a separate meeting from the regular meeting even if you do it the off week at the same time, CRC normally meets or something, or could it be done during a regular meeting separating that out from how the interviews are conducted? I guess it doesn't make a huge difference. I think the only thing that I would say is that originally OCO tried to make sure that we, like CRC did, make sure that we have the meeting at the time of whenever board meets because it just then drove home the idea that if you're not, we've already sent out the handout, we've already said things, but if you can't make it on Monday night at eight to 10 when this body usually meets for an interview, then you're probably not gonna be able to make the meetings. So that would be a special meeting. And then I like to have the deliberations immediately after and that would have to be a special meeting, I'm assuming separate, it would have to be. So I'm fine with that. I'm fine with having it as a special meeting if it's when the body that we're trying to appoint someone or recommended appointments to meets and then the deliberation immediately following. So I'm fine with it. Can I ask a couple of other questions based on my experience? Number one, GOL interviews for finance. And right now finance and CRC meet at the same time on off weeks. And so that hopeful plan wouldn't actually potentially work at all given some overlap between the two committees and GOL. So if it's not possible, does it still need to be a special meeting? And then the second one is, what are your thoughts on interviews being a technically separate meeting from deliberations because I know you guys experienced it at least once and we actually did with ZBA. We had three or four people interviewing and they were done their seven questions in under 30 minutes, which just flabbergasted me number one. But that meant we sat around until the special deliberation meeting had been posted for instead of if we can post them as the same meeting. I guess we could post them as the same. I mean, we had the, I think the second time we did it, we had like a two hour wait because we thought it would take so much longer. And it was just like, well, okay, get a cup of tea and come back in two hours. So I'm okay with having it in the same meeting as long as it's obviously it's clearly posted. And I don't know if we just wanted to then just spell out the fact that the first goal is to have the interviews when the body that we're trying to recommend appointments for meets. So that's our ideal, right? Obviously your ideal doesn't always happen, right? I mean, we've lived through 2020 so we know your ideal often doesn't happen but I think that I would try to aim for that just because it reinforces everything that we're trying to drive home with appointments is like, you know, when the body meets you know the amount of time. So... Yeah. No, I think that's a decent idea that we could add into the interview section. I think that's nine. Ideally... Yeah, I just, I still remain concerned. Ideally interviews will be conducted at a time similar to when the body being interviewed for meets or something like that. I think we should leave that up to the committee. I mean, it's a good idea but they'll have to committee decide. I think right now what's important is that there be interviews, they are public, you know and there'll be certain guidelines for how they'd be conducted. We'll get that moment. Can I just say one thing though, George? Yeah. One of the things that I'm wondering about addressing is that, you know, the last time that we had interviews we, it just wasn't a big... Well, it wasn't a big deal. I mean, but we forgot to ask them do you know when this body meets and do you know the requirements? Because sometimes it just seems like a, oh, obviously you should but we've, we don't always know that, right? We run into problems later on. So I'm not gonna, you know, die on this hill but I'm just wondering how much we wanna just build into that, you know depending on how many issues we've had with people not knowing maybe what's involved. That's all. But I just something to think about and I... Right, right. Not married to it. No, okay. At the moment, the suggestion on the floor is to remove a special. And I am still supportive of that. I think Mandy is as well. And Pat at the moment is still pondering this, but... Well, I certainly feel... I do feel like the interviews and the deliberations can happen at the same meeting. So I'm, it's a curiosity to me why you have to post them as different meetings. And I could get, the thing that came up for me when I was thinking about, oh, we're gonna interview for finance when finance committee meets. And then I was sitting there thinking, does that mean everybody on the finance committee is gonna be watching is... And maybe they should, maybe they should no matter when we have the meeting, I don't know, but I don't want their input. I feel like I want the people who are making the decision and making the recommendations are separate from the body that's gonna receive the person. I mean, we solicit their information, we solicit what they see as important. Requisites and stuff. So I don't know, I feel, I don't know. So I guess I'm... You're ambivalent at the moment, you're not sure which way, yeah. Yeah. You know, I think also we need to take into consideration the committee. We're bending over backwards appropriately to make sure that the candidates understand what's involved, they get all the information they need. In a sense, maybe we almost buried them in information, but I think it's appropriate. They need to have all this information. But I think the idea of just making sure that you interview them exactly at the time when the committee meets, committees change their, I mean, the committees can change their meeting times. We have our own meeting time. So I think it really, my feeling is leave it up to the individual interviewing committee, whether it's CRC or GOL or some future subcommittee of the council to decide when they wanna have the interview, but the steps the basic elements of the interview we should spell out, but the actual time of it or whether it's a special meeting, dot, it seems to me like overkill. Unless somebody can give me an argument why it has to be a special meeting from some larger policy perspective, this just seems like in the weeds. Sure, it's nice to meet when planning or CPAs meeting, but come on, I mean, if that's not convenient and it could be for either for the committee itself or for the people being interviewed or God knows what, why should that be written in stone? Have the meeting when it makes the most sense to the committee to have it and the individuals being interviewed will certainly understand when the body meets that they're gonna survive. You don't have to actually have it during the actual time. So I guess as I talk about it or think about it, I really feel like this is getting a bit too prescriptive. And we should just say, SOIs posted as part of the interview or it should be really posted as part of the meeting in which the interviews are held is what I should say is my feeling. But I'm one voice here. If all of you feel like, no, we need to have a special meeting. It has to be separate from our regular meeting and it has to be at the time when the particular body meets, we could put that all in here. But I really feel like it just ties, basically sets it as policy and ties the hands of future interview, committees are doing interviews in a way that it seems just too much. So I would suggest and let you see what you think that SOIs be posted as part of the meeting packet at which the interviews will take place. That's what I would suggest. Thoughts on that. I like that language. I like to live with that language. Well, let me put it in and just for the moment. Let's have Sarah respond towards you. Right. Well, let me put it in for us to see. And then, yes, Sarah, please, as I'm trying to type, which can take me a while anyway. Why don't you, Sarah? So I think I talked over, Sarah. Sorry. Go ahead, Sarah. No, it's fine. Well, let me just put it in and see what it looks like. Can I suggest one thing? Go ahead. Shall be posted at least one week in advance as part of the move the clause at least one week in advance to post it. Right after posted. I think it just reads better. So let me take this. Cut. Okay, so it's fish and time for this. Otherwise, okay. So I'm not sure where to put the shell here. At least. Let me just answer. It's time for the SLIs to be posted at least one week in advance as part of the meeting packet at which the interviews will take place. So I repeat that again. So provides for services to be posted. At least one week in advance as part of the meeting packet. At which the interviews will take place. Let's try that. So it looks like. All right. Deadline for submission of SSO applicants that provides fish and time for the SOIs to be posted. I think I'd make it a separate sentence. Okay. From applicants that provides fish and time for SSOIs to be posted as part of the meeting packet at which interview shall take place. The SOIs shall be. That's the next paragraph in a weird sense. Yeah, I know. I wonder if it's even needed. I wonder if it's even needed. So let me take this out for a second. Well, I was actually wondering whether if you leave that in the next paragraphs first sentence can be deleted. What I would just put it in there. And just so. Submission time for SSOIs to be posted as part of the meeting packet at which the interviews will take place. Any applicant who does not submit, period. Now all applicants, SOIs shall be posted. At least now here's why I inserted. It could be posted on the town website at the same time, at least one week in advance of the relevant meeting. Well, that's it. Yeah, it's already there, isn't it? So applicants all of the SOIs shall be posted. I think you can delete the to the interview special meeting packet. It's just posted. Shall be posted on the town website at the same time, at least one week in advance of the meeting. I would say it can just repeat the language above of the meeting at which the interviews. Now maybe there's too much. There's also sometimes there may be, you mentioned earlier deliberation as being a factor. I still think interviews should be the. We were going to talk about that when we get down to interviews. We didn't do interviews for DAB. And so if we're not to mandate interviews, referencing interviews and statement of interests. Right, right. It's probably the wrong thing to reference. So what this says at the moment is that the SOIs are posted as part of the meeting packet at which the interviews will take place. And it says that these SOIs will be posted on the town website all at the same time, at least a week in advance of the meeting at which the interviews will take place. So can I ask a question about the last sentence? The committee chair designee shall notify the town council that the SOIs have been posted. Go ahead. We have a lot of things in here, I think about notifying council about or sending council various things and all sorts of things. I struggle with this. Yes, it's good. But it adds a whole bunch of work to the chair when they're all public meetings. I think it's just a courtesy, Mandy. Yeah. Just reminding your colleagues. It's a quick email. Yeah, it's just an email. I mean, it doesn't take long. Oh, I know it's a quick email. It's just what happens if the chair forgets to because the chair, having run two of these simultaneously this year, I'm not sure I actually did this on either of them because I was sending so many other emails out to so many people. I'm wondering what happens if the chair forgets. Chest placement. Yeah, I think right. You'll be publicly humiliated by one of your colleagues. One of your dear colleagues will, but I think it's most people will understand. And if that's happening, that's it. Yeah, I think it's just, and no one did. So, you know, we've done this not many times. And I think it's just a courtesy that we should expect all chairs to do. But it's a pain for you. I know because you've got a lot, you're juggling a lot of balls. For me, it's pretty simple. So it's easy for me to say, but any thoughts about this section as it stands, people happy with, I mean, I don't like repeating the same language. On the other hand, I don't see how to make it any simpler because it's just make it readable. Unless one of the events of the, you could say of the interview meeting, that would make it a little less wordy. Other than that, I don't know. Any thoughts? Thank you. Again, interview meeting sounds like it's a special meeting and we're trying not to stay away from that. So maybe just at the meeting, in advance of the meeting at which the interviews would take place is fine. I think it's fine. Okay, thank you. All right. All right, this doesn't get an easier interview question. Okay. Prior to holding interviews, the recommending committee shall by majority vote, adopt a set of interview questions. Again, the highlighting is mine. I apologize, but just to remind me, the committee members will ask all applicants. The committee shall consider the adopted selection guidance and developing interview questions. The committee shall also solicit questions from the town council in advance and attempt to include them. Recommending committees may adopt a standard set of interview questions that can serve as a guide for interviews. All right. So I have a whole host of questions here but any thoughts from anyone? Mandy? I have the one comment in there. What does serve as a guide for interviews mean? I guess it was more of a wording thing of if we're adopting a standard set of interview questions, which frankly, over the course of the three years, the ZBA and planning board interviews are starting to get a little more standard. There's a little tweaks each time but they're getting less and less tweaks. But as a guide for interviews. Right, the language might could be either. But they just adopt a standard set of interview questions. Exactly. I'm not sure. I kind of like that that serve as a guide because we've adopted these interview questions but it's the responses that you're looking for responses to those questions to build additional questions. So that seems to be the debate, isn't it? Anybody asking an extra or additional question that hasn't been written down in advance and accepted by all the committee? And that's that always has bothered me by understanding why we did it. And that's apparently what we're doing for ZBA and planning. We do not do that with finance. I don't want to give that up. That's my own personal preference. I think there's something. I mean, one of the reasons that, yep. There is something to the JOL in this instance for finance coming together and sharing their questions in advance. Because I often sometimes see that there are overlaps of questions that, you know, I think we might have richer questions if we spend a little time beforehand sharing what we're thinking about or what's concerning us. So I don't necessarily like that everybody's coming with their own questions and I don't know what anybody's bringing. And I've noticed that in the last couple of interviews. I don't know. So I would like for me adopting a set of interview questions doesn't necessarily mean that well, maybe it has to never mind. I'm thinking about something. I was just going to ask for clarification because it sounds like Pat that you're on board with finance having a, that of JOL adopting interview questions that will be asked of all finance committee members, which is different than what JOL has been doing. Right, right. And I'm trying to figure out, I guess I'm being a Pisces and swimming in opposite directions at all times. It seems to me that there should be interview questions that are looked at and shared by the committee before they're given to anybody and getting a sense of what we're asking. And it does seem to me that the base of those questions should be the same, but people are different in any interview I've ever been in or any interview I've held for different things. I'm interested in what gets triggered in me that then makes me want to ask another question, a different kind of follow-up question. And I don't think that we have that. I feel like, Can I make a couple of suggestions? Oh wait. To maybe get us to something that might be a little less prescriptive here, but still serve most of the purposes. So what I'm hearing is knowing questions in advance for committee members and discussing them, what I'm hearing from Pat is that would be helpful. So going in and not knowing what other, the GOL method for finance of not knowing what other people will ask has been somewhat problematic in that, well, if you're doing questions or three questions that you prepared we're already asked, what do you do? And so being able to sort of potentially adopt interview questions for each interviewee a week before the interviews might actually be useful even in the GOL interviews for finance context so that everyone knows what's going to be asked. But maybe those questions are different for each applicant potentially, which goes to the serve as a guide for interviews, an applicant that is applying for reappointment might have a slightly different wording to a question than an applicant that has never served on that committee because you might be trying to get similar things but the question wording might serve its purpose slightly different. And so, and then beyond that, it sounds like Pat seeks the opportunity for follow-up questions. So the potential changes to this paragraph in interviews to accommodate all of that and I don't know whether I'm all for it but I'm just thinking about what this paragraph might look like would be the prior to holding interviews the recommending committee shall by majority vote adopt a set of interview questions the committee members will ask of applicants get rid of the word all because they might be different per applicant the committee shall consider the adopted selection guidance and developing questions the committee shall also solicit questions from Cal and Council in advance and attempt to incorporate them into the adopted questions or include them recommending committees may adopt a standard set of interview questions as a basis or may use a standard set of interview questions as a basis for beginning the conversation on adopting. Yeah, I don't, yeah. I'm wondering what the point of that sentence is at this point. I'm not sure we do that but then you could add two sentences one interview questions may vary between applicants depending on situation and SOIs at the committee's vote and agreement. And you could also add a sentence that these are not greatly worded right now but the other one each of a committee may choose to allow follow-up questions if agreed upon in advance, something like that. Yeah, just get so into the weeds. Right. What is it where we really want? We want, I hear Pat, I hear Sarah and I'm open to this which is having a set of questions in advance that A, the committee members know about is valuable and that we should talk about it and we haven't been doing that at GOL and I think that's a fair criticism and that this policy would say, no, no, no, you shouldn't do that. What I struggle with is then just by road giving these questions and that's I think why you get sometimes too many, it goes by very quickly because everybody just gives you sort of their road answer. So I guess two questions. One, committee knows in advance what the questions are going to be. Do we want the interviewers, interviewees to know in advance and maybe the answers yes for both. Yeah. I would say if we decide them in advance as a courtesy, you need to let the applicant pull no in advance because those, if you decide them in advance that means you've decided them in an open meeting. Yeah. So that means that to level the playing field and not you have to let the applicants know because otherwise only those applicants that read this closely and realize that and say, oh, that'll be in an open meeting and watch that meeting or get the transcript or whatever will have them in advance and others that might not be as sophisticated would not have them in advance. And that seems unfair. Let me give you for instance, okay, it troubles me. We will often have reappointments in front of us and the question for someone who's seeking a reappointment is going to be very different from a question for someone who's never served on the body. And so we say Smith is seeking a reappointment. I would want to ask one or more questions of Smith in terms of what he or she has learned, blah, blah, blah, about their experience. And I want to get clear a sense of what they've gotten out of their time on this body. I can't ask that question to someone who's never served on the body. So already the playing field is not level and it's absurd to try to make it level. There's just a different kind of question.  So yeah, what do you do with that? I don't have a problem with asking separate questions or different questions. I know that might be where Sarah and I disagree, but if you've decided the questions in advance and applicants A, B and C are going to get these five questions and applicants D and E are going to get four of those five and a fifth one that is slightly different than the fifth one of the first set, you just let them all know. But I think you should let them know what their questions are going to be if you've decided that in an open meeting because otherwise you're going to come into the interview meeting with some applicants who have known how town works, knowing what the questions are and having had that opportunity to prepare and some applicants having no clue and that doesn't seem fair. It's not whether the questions are the same or different. It's if we're deciding them and adopting them by a majority vote at a meeting, then- Are you suggesting that we'd have set of questions for Smith, the set of questions for Jones or are you simply saying that or would you divide it between newbies and anyone seeking reappointment? You know, I'm sitting here thinking about, we use Bob Hegner as an example, searched on finance was seeking reappointment. So what have you learned from being on the finance committee in the last two years or whatever? What's the difference really between that and saying, yes, they've experienced on the finance committee but if I'm asking someone, so what have you learned from your experience at Dow Jones that you feel like you has been valuable to me? Because what is it that I'm trying to find out? I'm trying to find out about this person. I'm trying to get a sense of how they think whether they value collaboration. I'm trying to understand something and those questions don't feel very different to me. They're just giving a nod to, I'm going to phrase it slightly different because Bob's been on the committee. I'm going to say what is your experience on the finance committee taught you or what are you struggling with? And that question can be asked of somebody from their own work experience, I think. Yeah, let me give you an example of one way we worded a question for ZBA. Planning board was very similar that was the same wording but answers based on experience from those that were seeking reappointment and answers based on other experience not serving on the committee. And it was what do you feel you bring to the ZBA that can make it successful? And we didn't just ask the question, we then had a statement afterward that said, please include any experience you have appearing before the planning board or ZBA or watching one of their meetings. Now we didn't include or serving on but for those that had served and were seeking reappointment, they said, here's what I've learned, here's what I bring, here's what I've experienced and all of that for those that had not yet served and potentially had appeared in front of, they talked about their appearances in front of other planning boards or ZBAs throughout the state potentially. Others said, you know, I've attended these meetings and here's what I think I can bring based on what I've seen. And so that's a way you can word a question that is the same question for everyone. But essentially by adding that one statement gets to what you're seeking out of it. We have a stated preference in our document that I think is probably going to be adopted but we'll see the stated preference for reappointment. It's not conclusive, it's not right.  And if someone's seeking reappointment is it falls within that six year timeframe. I'm really trying to get at somehow, you know why should we continue to keep this person on this body? What have they been doing? What have they learned? What are some of the issues that they feel? I mean, that's what I'm really trying to understand. If I find somebody who really is clueless or doesn't seem to be paying or is bringing up issues that seem totally irrelevant that's going to factor into my decision of whether I'm going to grant them the preference. The preference is not automatic. It's not just because well, you're here and you served for two years or four years so you're in, it's yes there's a preference. I do take it seriously but I need to ask questions or get some kind of response to give me some sense of how I want to decide on that. And so maybe these questions that maybe that's the issue that the committee will have to hassle out in advance. And then it's my chance to put my question out there that we'll try to get at that and others can put their questions out so fine. And then there's a follow-up. I guess if we allow a follow-up question you are going to get questions that are going to surprise members of the committee. I don't think it's a problem but they may not like it or whatever but I think there has to be some ability to ask something spontaneous as opposed to just listening to people read statements. That's what they do. They just read a statement to you. And it's just, I can just give me a piece of paper. I can read it. I don't need to see you read it to me. So. Mandy Scudder-Handa. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm bad. Can I suggest wording? Let's try some wording and see what we can do. Changing the first sentence. I haven't heard from Sarah yet. Sarah, I mean, is this, this is closer to what you want in the sense, it seems that there are specific questions, the committee adopts in advance that will be asked of, and this is not what GOL has been doing. And so this could be a change for GOL, which is fine. And I'm just trying to think it through. So maybe you're silent because this is exactly what you agree with. So you're not hearing anything you disagree with. Is there anything at this point that you would add to this as Mandy's going to make some wording changes here? So maybe we should do that first, but I would like to hear from you at some point based on what's coming up here so far. Okay. All right. So Mandy, where's the wording change you want to make? So prior to holding interviews, prior to holding interviews, the recommending committee shall by majority vote, adopt interview questions. Period. Adopt. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Period. The questions may be the same or different for each applicant, period. I'm not comfortable with that. Let's just put it up here for the moment. I'm just suggesting something so we can just talk about it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. For each applicant, go ahead. The recommending committee may, by majority vote, agree to the allowance of follow-up questions by committee members. Recommended committee may by majority vote, agree to follow-up questions. Sorry, go ahead. I think you had something there. I'm trying to figure out what I had there. The recommending committee may by majority vote, agree to follow-up questions. Agree, well, agree to allow, allow follow-up questions by committee members. No, that's, that's fine. Follow-up questions. Yeah, go ahead. By committee members during the interviews. The next two sentences remain the same and then delete the last sentence. Okay, so we got a phrase here that needs to come out. It seems committee members will ask, will ask. Here's also the, so, okay, this is a new sentence. The committee members will ask all the applicants. No, I was going to delete that completely. That just gets deleted. Committee shall consider the adoption of guns in developing and re-questions. Committee shall also solicit questions. Now I would say may, but do you, I mean, because I didn't and, but that's another job now for speaking of jobs for the chair or does it mean, now you've got to also, I did not send a message. I mean, I notified everybody of the SOIs. I notified everybody of the, right. And you got to do it in advance of the meeting. You're actually adopting the interview questions at. It's a lot of extra emails for the chairs. I agree. Right. But again, my committee members need to weigh in.  Or do you want to delete it? Do we even need it? So I'd be fine with deleting it. Many of the times, so I'd be fine with deleting it. I'd be fine with changing it to May. I've torn on this. The questions that come in from non-committee members generally mimic a lot of the questions that were asked the last meeting that we, the last round, which is the base for starting a discussion on what questions to ask. And so most of the time, the questions that come in aren't anything that isn't already being considered by the committee at the same time. Sometimes the wording of the question, even if the subject matter isn't anything different than what's being considered, the wording is wording that has been better than the committee has come up with. And so has been able to adopt. That's where we got the statement I just read, the please include in your answer your experience with X, Y, and Z, because that came in from someone we asked, even though the question itself, the actual question didn't change. So I think it's been valuable. It's the lad's work though. All right, let's leave it. I would say let's leave it in as work. If the committee chair forgets or is lazy, then they can be chastised, but I think your points well taken. It does engage council members in general, which is good, it does. And so it just means that prior to the meeting where we're gonna discuss interview questions for X, Y, and Z, the chair should send out an email in advance, hopefully a few days, maybe a week ideally in advance to the committee council members saying, we're gonna be doing interview questions for this body. If you have any suggestions or questions, please send them to me. So I think we should leave it in. Not seeing any disagreement, I'm gonna leave it that way. Oh, and I recommend getting rid of the last sentence. Recommending committees may adopt a standard set of interview questions that can serve as a guide for interviews. Well, I guess the reason it was in here, let's just for them to think about it for a second, was that eventually, as you just said, these questions begin to form a certain pattern. It's not like we're gonna suddenly discover, in most cases, a set of questions that no one ever thought of. There may be specific things going on, where people wanna raise a question about a specific issue that's arisen, but generally speaking, this sort of, so this just says the committee may create, and then I assume it just gets put into the committee's file as for future committees, members, right? I guess I look at that and say, if every time you do interviews, you have to adopt interview questions separately, and you have to solicit questions from others and use the new selection guidance that is readopted every time. What's the point, everyone? How in the heck can you actually adopt a standard set of interview questions then? I mean, you can reuse one, but that's sort of just by point. I don't see how you can adopt something given the rest of the stuff. That's from anyone else. The suggestion is to delete the last sentence. Go for it. All right, time to leave it. Pat, you didn't like one of the sentences I proposed. Let's go back. We'll read it. Let's read it one more time for everyone's sake. Prior to holding interviews, the recommending committee shall by majority vote, adopt interview questions. The questions may be same or different for each applicant. The recommending committee may, by majority vote, agree to allow follow-up questions by committee members during the interviews. Then the committee shall consider the adoption selection guidance, developing interview questions. The committee shall also solicit questions from the town council in advance and attempt to include them. I guess I'm stuck with the questions may be the same or different for each applicant. What does that mean? Because if they're getting the questions in advance, does Mandy get her set of questions and I get my set of questions or are we getting, are there basic questions that everyone is going to be asked? And then are there questions that are more open-ended, which feel important to me? I know. So that could be the follow-up, but I think certainly this has been, I think the driving spirit behind OCA is that everyone should be asked the same, broadly speaking, the same general questions. Now we do have the problem of reappointments versus. Yeah, but this may be the same or different for each applicant. Exactly. I don't, I wonder why this is here. You can delete it. Well, I just made it. I'm open to an argument for it, but I'm wondering. I was trying to explicitly say, if there's, you know, to sort of respond to this conversation of reappointment applicants versus non-reappointment applicants, maybe the question needs to be different. And this would explicitly say, hey, those questions can be different, but. Well, I think the, I doubt the interview questions leads a wide open. And I think it's up to the committee to decide how they want to play it. But what it doesn't say, and maybe should say, I don't know is, and maybe it shouldn't, is that these, all questions should be asked. Right. That really is not going to be the case now. And that's where it gets tricky because does that mean Smith has one set of questions. Jones has another set and the poor committee has to agree with for each one. So imagine you have seven, you sometimes have seven candidates for like ZBA, you're going to have seven different sets of interview questions. Surely not. Not necessarily. This leaves it open for the committee to decide. Prior to holding interviews, the recommending committee, blah, blah, blah, vote to adopt interview questions. And then just delete this. Yeah. That's deleted. The question is I, I deleted in this wording, I deleted the phrase. After the word adopt interview questions, I deleted the phrase, the committee. We'll ask all applicants because when that's in there, you can't have different questions. I think that should be. Conversations. Yeah. I think it should be in there. But that follow up questions need to be asked is particularly if all the questions are the same. And they have them in advance. You're going to. I guess I'm just more spontaneous than any of you. About all of this. Because to me, I'm trying to find out who the person is. And anyway. I'll, I'll bow to whatever. Well, this is gets it a difficult. I think the questions may be the same or different for each applicant. I don't know. I'm not being very helpful today. I apologize. I wonder if we're just overthinking it. Yeah, I think we are. Well, it was. Key to the process that Oka created. That whatever interview questions you adopted. Would be asked of all candidates for the purpose of creating a level playing field. So you wouldn't know. Well, I agree with that as a basic as the start of an interview that the questions be the same. Modified by if you've already served, you know. But it seems to me that in a good interview. Things come up that you want to find out more about. And that's what it feels to me like that's what I want to make more of. I want to make sure that I have the ability or committee has the ability to do is to follow something. Because I am going to get. A canned answer. To the same questions because people have them in advance, but I really would like to reserve the right to ask. Follow up questions that are more spontaneous or come from my colleagues. So in my practice. I'm sorry, what? That's the well, second or third, depending on how we're counting it right now. Where if the, if, if say. GOL says yes, we want to allow follow up questions. Then you've got that opportunity to do so by, as long as GOL as a whole agrees to allowing that. Then. You know, that, that's sort of the point of that recommending committee. May by majority vote agree to allow the follow up questions to potentially. Allow each committee to make that decision on their own based on. What you're interviewing for how many applicants there are. I mean, if you've got 20 some applicants, maybe you don't want to allow follow up questions, even if you normally do. Yeah. I think that's the point of that sentence. Well, then I, then, I think we should get rid of the questions. Maybe the same or different for each applicant. I just. Do we insert the phrase, which is. Was crucial once upon a time and still is crucial to Pat. And I think Sarah and maybe to all of us is. Adopt interview questions, which will be asked of all candidates. That's a really important position. So what's, what are we deciding? It's been taken out. But. I'm going to put it in for the moment, which will be asked. All. Applicants, not candidates. I'm sorry. Thank you. And if you take out questions, maybe seven, then you take out the next sentence. And then the next sentence would say, you may agree by majority vote to allow follow up questions. And then the next sentence would be, which is the plural. My practice has been to grant a second, just a second question. To any committee members. So it's not really technically necessarily a follow up. It's just a second question, which is not one that we have agreed upon advanced. So there's the idea of there's a set of questions agreed upon by the committee will be asked of all applicants. And then there's the idea of allowing some. A possibility for spontaneity, a follow up question. Either based on something that just heard, or it could be something that just want to. Hold on. Hold on. I don't understand why it can't just say, allow follow up questions. Because what if there's something I'm really trying to look at. As a committee member. And I have more than one. I get a response and I want to engage in some dialogue. With the person is that. And Sarah, I really would, if you have. If you have a question that you want to, I wouldn't mind your comment on this. Is that kind of dialogue appropriate? I feel like I've talked about this and this is my third committee. And I, I, I'm definitely in the minority. So while I really appreciate people trying to find a middle ground with me, I don't feel like some of the things that I have to say are appropriate. And especially since I'm not running for reelection and I'm assuming that three of you are. I think that you've been, you know, really working with this. And I would defer to, you know, what you think as you've all worked through this, that you find is, is the best for you. Okay. So I was going to say, Pat, I think the way this is worded. Allows for the committee. To figure out what follow up questions look like. What that means. I think it's, it's, it's, it's, it's important to talk about what you were potentially thinking or might someone else be thinking, whether it's one per committee member per person, whether it's a potential dialogue, whether it's. I think it just. Has enough leeway in there. Because again, my, my concern is that if we're asking. You know, we've adapted to set of any good questions. We have clearly a preference stated for reappointment. Somehow many of you offer an example where you think it, it worked out okay. But in the universe that I mentioned, it would seem that you would ask a very different question. Of someone who's been serving on a body. That would be not the same question by any stretch. Of someone who has not ever served on that body. Because as I've said earlier already, you're trying to get at the question of preference and whether you want to grant them that preference. And that just seems to be built into this very process. And so now we have an interview question. Procedure process that. It seems to make that a little bit more challenging, maybe not impossible, but. It's just frustrating to me that we don't acknowledge that we have this preference and it does matter. But it doesn't. It matters in a couple of ways, George. If it happens to be somebody I like. I'm going to want them to, you know, yay.  And, and I, I. It's that creeping in of my personal preferences about the person. That I'm uncomfortable with. But I'd like to think that you and I. Can, even with someone that we don't particularly, you know, get along with or agree with on some of their decisions. Can ask them a question where we think, okay, I don't agree with this person on a lot of things, but clearly they have been, you know, a lot of people paying attention that, you know, that's not what's happened in, in many instances. Anyway, because everybody on the council is even being and we all want what we want when we want it. No shame or blame, I guess we're capitalists. I'm not sure I share that, but yeah, that's. Okay, so. That's my concern, but I'm not sure everyone else shares it. If we agree to get rid of the sentence, the questions may be the same or different for each applicant. I think definitely that has to come out. Yeah, I think we agree. That just doesn't really. Sorry. And this may certainly will perhaps raise discussion depending on how closely people read this when it finally gets to the council. This may come up for further discussion. So I'm going to capture my report. In terms of what we've been discussing pro and con. So people. Yeah, you want to go ahead. All right, nine in advance of interviews, the committee shall distribute to the town council and to all applicants. The adopted selection guidance. The interview questions. I would put the interview questions. Oops. Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That could be the adopted interview question. The interview questions. And committee handout as soon as they are available. Now. As soon as they are available. Okay. And just say in advance of interviews. Or if we don't want in advance, if we want to put a. At least one week before interviews, like if it advances to. In advance of interviews, the committee chair shall distribute to the town council and to all applicants who adopt special guidance and interview questions. And the committee. And they hand out. And just leave it at that. Do you want one week in advance? I mean, I think it's just a one week in advance of interviews, the committee chair shelf. What do you think? I mean, again, I can change this again. It's when. Frankly, the selection guidance has already been distributed to them though. So I don't know whether we need to re, re send that to them. It was distributed to them before statement of interest. Yeah. So if we don't want to have to keep sending it to them, I would just say the interview questions. And why. Just remind me why we're even sending this to them. They've already been asked to submit their questions if they have any. The meeting is sending these to the applicants. It says to the town council and to all the applicants. So. So I would say just to the applicants forget the town council on the interview questions. Yeah, I don't. Right. One week in advance of interviews, the committee chair show the street to all applicants, the adoption guidance, the interview questions and. Committee handout. And it just be the interview questions. Yeah. Because they've already been distributed the selection guidance on the handout. So it's just up. Okay. Because that was sent to them. I think this is a legacy of when we didn't have statements of interest. Yeah. Maybe. So what we're saying here. Okay. Now. Right. Okay. Now I'm just thinking practically. Right. Okay. Okay. You've done this mandate. So I'm sure. I can figure it out. Good. What about taking the town council out of this? So people have said about that. Do you think the town council will be upset that they're not getting the interview questions in advance? Because we could add that back in. We could send, you know, it's just a matter of a couple of key strokes. I don't think they need it. I don't think it's necessary. And why? They'll hear them if they attend the interviews. Well. Why are we not sending it to them? I mean, again, it's a courtesy. It's not a big deal. You know, we just, in addition to the applicants, you also just say, you know, all council members, right? It's one address. And they get it. And if they want to look at it, they can't, they don't, they don't. I don't think they need it. I don't think it's necessary. And why. If they want to look at it, they can't, if they don't, they don't. What, why would we not? Just, is it just too much of a headache? Yeah. I'm going with the Paul Backelman thing. The more you ask me to do the more I can forget to do it. And the more I get yelled at for forgetting to do it. Yeah, but he gets paid. He gets paid. Excalibur. Don't as committee chair. Don't we get, I thought we got a committee chair stipend. Didn't you get yours, Mandy? I got, I got my man. I've got three of them. Right. Right. Right. And you're not even a committee. Vice chair. I'm a vice chair and I was chair of audit committee and I got 10,000 for that. All right. There you go. There you go. So it sounds like what I'm hearing. If the moment is leave the council out of it. And if they, if they read this and they're upset, they can, they can speak up. Okay. Committee chair shall schedule and post. The meeting. Regular or special committee meeting at a time, most convenient to all applicants provided these 14 days notice of such a meeting to all applicants. What's the point of this? Just, you know, I have to, the chair has to schedule. The interview. The meeting, the meeting at which the interview will take place. And is it a time most convenient to all applicants? No, actually it's not.  The committee chair shall provide. I'm not even sure the 14 days with the next sentence of new applicants can be added up until one week before the meeting. Yeah, I don't even know. Yeah, we have to start this. This is, yeah. So, so maybe, maybe what we need to do if we haven't addressed this is the committee chair shall. Or the, the recommending committee shall schedule. Or shall endeavor to schedule the meeting. Or shall work with the applicants to schedule a meeting that all can, all known applicants can attend. Yeah, I think. This is trying to go at that you try and work with everyone so that. Everyone can actually make it like. Well, I think we try, but on the other hand, the bottom line is our committee meets on a certain day at a certain time.  So I don't know. This is a policy statement. So we've already stated that the applicant pool closed. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What is that? It closes once the SOI deadline is. Yeah. And at that point, we don't take anybody else. So I don't understand what this new applicants can be added to the pool up until one week before the schedule meeting. That would mean that. So this, this was the conflict between the two. So, so section seven says the applicant pool closes at the deadline for submission to the SOI and section nine says the applicant pool closes at the posting of the applicant names. And there's, there's a two day or one day window between those two. And I will say recently I had an issue with that conflict and I went with the, I hadn't posted the names yet. And so since I had the SOI, even after a deadline for getting them to me, I didn't know what to do with that. So I didn't know where I'd actually posted any of them. I deemed it on time based on section nine. So there is a conflict there. Right. So I can't completely remember, but I think this came about because there was someone who accidentally, this is way in the beginning when we were first starting all of this, just accidentally did not get. Their name did not get added. So I think it's just a layover from. Oka's experience the first time that we did this. And then I think that a lot of the wording has to do with the fact that we had the discussion. About whether or not we did all of the interviews altogether.  And then some people argued, I think George argued that there's stuff that, that happens and that you should be able to take someone. Even if they can't make the scheduled. Interview that somehow we would be able to, you know, do that. And so as we've had. More experience. If people think that we really don't need it, then, you know, if you can go with that, that maybe that was our first experience, but now that we've gotten better, we don't need it. I think that would be. Where we're coming from with this. So there are two issues here. Yeah. I would support an applicant pool that closes at the time the chair. Asks the. Council clerk to post the names on the agenda. We established a deadline for submitting an SOI if they miss it. And the chair hasn't actually posted yet and it comes in a little late or you get an applicant that files a. Yeah. Yeah. After that deadline, but before you've posted and actually then emails you an SOI before you've posted. Great. But once those names are public, I think that's when you need to close the applicant pool. That would require. Changing the wording up in section seven, but. So. Yeah. Okay. So in section seven says any applicant who does not submit their SOI right now it says by the established deadline shall be considered withdrawn. You could just change the wording by the established deadline too. By. By the time by. In advance of the chair submission of applicant names. Or addition of applicant names to the agenda. Something like that. I mean, this is a long involved process. And yes, it's true that we do sometime. Well, maybe not just sometimes struggle to get. You know, applicants for some of these bodies. And it can be extremely frustrating to have somebody at the last minute. Step forward and they're going to get. Tossed out. Because. They didn't get their SOI in on time. They didn't get their SOI in on time. I mean, I don't know what your argument is, but, but I still haven't posted the names publicly. So in that circumstance. I can highest chair can still. Accept them as an applicant. As long as they get their SOI to me. Before I post them. I mean, so now it's up to the chair.  It's all about the seven and nine conflict between the SOI. You generally set a deadline so that you can as a chair, gather everything, get it ready, send it to the clerk, give the clerk the time. You know, and so I normally set a deadline two and a half days before the week before or so. And I don't send it to Athena on Sunday night. Sometimes I send it on Tuesday. It depends on how busy I am. And so if I get something between Sunday night and when I've gotten around to actually putting the stuff up. Hmm. Why can't they be an applicant? And that also then applies to somebody. Number nine says they can be. Right. I'd like to change nine. You'd like to change seven. But I do think we need them to agree. Yeah, they do need to agree. That's for sure. And the question is, do people want to go with seven and they want to go with nine. It's. I kind of like the idea that, you know, there's a deadline for the SOI and if you miss it, that's that, that's that. And when I finally get around to getting it all off to Athena or wherever, it's my problem.  I'm not going to get it all off to Athena. I'm not going to get it all off to Athena. And that's what applies to people who are in the pool, submitted CAFs, but just, you know, just don't get around to saying the SOI. And then they finally send it, you know what, 24 hours or 12 hours before I, you know, I don't know thoughts people. You want to, you want to keep seven or you want to keep nine. We have to decide. Maybe it's not such a big deal, but we just need to decide one or the other. If we change seven, Mandy, the language would be what that. It would, it would, in some sense, nine needs a little adjustment, but it would be any applicant who does not submit their SOI. Prior to the chair, adding the names to the public meeting. So then what's the point of an established deadline? Right. I mean, it's just the deadline is right. Why do we even have a deadline? If we, if we aim to agree to them, then we need. If we have a deadline, then the chair really has to think closely about how late they can accept them and still meet the one week deadline. Of posting. Allows you a little leeway. This in some sense allows me a little leeway to say, Hey, I'd love to be able to. Get everything and know I've got my pool on Sunday. Right. Because I have to post on Wednesday. I say.  What do I do? Because that happened to me this year too. Like. What if we write, what if we say, right? Like, what if we say may any applicant who does not submit their SOI by the established deadline, maybe withdrawn from the applicant pool. And then down here in nine, the actual final deadline would be what you have. Could we do that? That might be a solution. So it doesn't mean, you know, so you could still submit it late.  There should be a drop dead date. So maybe change this to maybe withdrawn. That would work for me. Let's try that. Maybe. Whoops. I'm sorry. My computer does this maybe. From the applicant pool. Then we go back to nine. And then let's get the wording right here. So the actual drop dead deadline. So it wouldn't be new applicants. It would be the applicant pool. Is closed. One week before the schedule meeting at which time the applicant names and SOIs are added or is closed. At the time the applicant names and SOIs are added to the public meeting posting something like that. So one week before the meeting. I think it's just the applicant pool is closed. One week before the scheduled meeting at which time the applicant names and SOIs are added to the public meeting posting. So let me try this. The applicant. I'm sorry. Give me the rest of the pool is closed. And then it's just the start. It goes to the one week before. I think I just deleted that today. Okay. So it could just be the applicant pool is closed at the time the applicant names and SOIs are added to the public meeting posted. Yeah. Thank you. The applicant names and SOIs are. Added to the public meeting posting. So the committee chairs shall schedule and post. Now we have the problem with the, the first sentence. I don't know whether the first sentence is necessary. But I think we just need to move on. I mean, whatever the, how you posted. So one week in advance when we use the committee, so distribute all up and feed up and re-questions. How important is it? 14 day notice to all because I mean, we do want some kind of, you know, you just don't want, I mean, I think I gave people, in one case it was a week for DAB. No, it was two weeks for, or more of a DAB. But finance actually was a week. committee members and, and then, and then when, when ZBA got moved, it was less than two weeks, I think because. But it is, there should be some idea that they're given at least a week or two, two weeks is not the week is the meetings posted at least a week in advance. We've already established that. Right. Right. The committee chair shall provide, I think that this can come out, but how about the committee chair shall provide at least X amount of days, notice of the meeting to all applicants. Is that something seven days or one week's notice? I think it has to be two weeks because 14 days, because people sometimes have to really, they really want to do it. And they have to rearrange their schedule on the more notice they have, the better, I don't know. Okay. At least it means it could happen in seven days. Oh, no, at least it could be. Yeah. So the problem is like, so there's a couple of problems. George pointed the one out, DAB, there weren't interviews for DAB, but, but ZBA, we had something set and then we didn't have enough applicants. So we canceled that one and then I had to reschedule. I don't know whether my reschedule was 14 days later or not. I think it might have been 13 days later for a variety of reasons. I would like to take shall provide 10 days. Well, so, so a week is minimum because that's when things are posted. So that's why it's it's at least. All right, that's fine. OK, so I'm going to suggest shall provide at least and I'm going to say seven days because I'm going to include weekends and everything else. I'm not going to be seven business days. It's just a committee chair shall provide at least seven days notice. So is that needed? OK, maybe it is. My grammar is terrible of such a meeting to all applicants. I'm not sure it's needed. I don't know. I don't I think I don't like it. It looks wrong. The committee chair shall provide at least seven days notice of such a meeting now. What's such a form of the meeting at which interviews take place? Yeah. Well, applicants, the applicant pool is closed at the time. The applicant names and otherwise are added to the public meeting posting. And I'm wondering if this all can't just be one big ugly paragraph because it's three very different things. So one week in advance, committee chair, lets the applicants, distributes the applicants, the adopting the questions. So at this end, so I'm already sending them a week in advance, the questions. So surely they already know when the day they get the end and you know, you're notifying them when you send them the questions, right? Right. So in advance, the music should be up and so is this is it redundant then? I don't know. I mean, what's important, what we're saying is important, is that they should given and that's where 14 days comes in because, you know, but otherwise it's just yeah, when you get your interview questions, you're also getting the interview day. I usually try to tell people long before then what because it's it's at a scheduled meeting. So I have a pretty good idea of what meeting that's going to be. And I try to give them a heads up and I say, that's a problem. Let me know because we would try to make some accommodation if possible. Well, there is. So it does seem to me they're two separate things. Accommodation, you know, enough time for there to be a combination to close the pool, but also that. No, no, I don't know. I don't know. I think we either.  I mean, we could take it out because it's kind of redundant with this, but it basically says, I guess, if you're reading this, hey, chairs, let your applicants know when the interview date is. At the same time, you're sending them a week in advance. The question. So so maybe maybe we could say instead of seven days. Notice maybe we could say the chair shall. Notify the applicant pool of the date of the interview meeting or whatever that wording is at the time. The S O I solicitation is sent or something like that. That's a very wordy thing, but maybe maybe we tie it to to asking for the S O I's. I mean, obviously, when I asked for the S O I's, I don't know if you were able to do this, maybe I tried to give them some sense of when the interview would be taking what the date is imagined to be. Yeah, understanding it could change, but here we're putting it into a policy statement and binding in theory, all future committee chairs or their designees. And I just I do want to bind them to the one week in advance interview questions I do. We obviously want them to notify people at some reasonable time in advance of when the meeting is going to take place. And we want them to know when the pool is closed, we want everyone to know that the pool being closed is a separate thing. Exactly. Take it out and move it down one and just make it because that happens no matter what we decide on the thing about. Right. Right. So and the question here is whether these two I mean, this probably should come if you're going to have something like this should come first, then this comes, then this comes. But the question is, do we? Yeah. I'm just thinking if you're writing this as a how to because a lot of this is actually really, I mean, it's, it's, it's also a how to for chairs who have never done it before. So maybe make it clearer when we think about making it a how to for a chair who has no idea how to. All right. Sarah, I was actually thinking as we go through this, one of the things I did for planning board at the VA was creating list of dates. It was like a sort of to do checklist for me because I had too much going on. It was like, okay, now I know when the interviews are, I'm backing up. When do I have to send this? When do I have to send this? Which meeting do we have to vote this? Which meeting do we have to do this? And that, that was based on a date, but making that generic of. Determined interview date, you know, and then seven days before 14 days before. Two weeks before six months before, whatever it is. I think I determined to get it all done. You pretty much have to start three months in advance of when you want to make that recommendation. Yeah. Sort of. Yeah. So I mean, remember that when Oka did this, we had no idea, right? We had no idea. And so I think that we have to look at when we're writing this document in two different ways. We have to write it to accommodate chairs, who have already tried to do this, right? And so you have inside knowledge of what you feel like works and doesn't work or is too much work. And then you have to think about the person who comes in and just has no clue. And this is their how to manual. Yeah. Having no planning as chair of CRC to create that generic to do list for the next chair. Yeah. Like here's when you really need to start those interviews. And here's what I recommend. And here is a fake to do list of. Plug in your date. Some of that is in what Evan created. Right. Yeah. But now it's just what Evan did for. Yeah. Let's just get this thing. Settle settled. Okay. So. Interviews. I think we can live with this the way it is. Shall provide at least seven days notice next. Seven days in advance or one week in advance. You must. Send them the interview questions and the cool is closed. Then. Re-order them when we do the final draft. I think he just did. I did reorder it. I did reorder it. At least if you. So I have here first. Seven days notice when the interviews would take place. Next. Okay. Got you. Right. Okay. So. Next paragraph. All town council is invited to attend the interview meeting. I'd say just attend the interview. Okay. Or the meeting at which. Because again, we're not having an interview meeting. Necessarily. To attend the interviews. Ten. The interview. Yeah, just the interviews as members of the public. Members of the public. The interviews. Okay. Yep. Correct. Thank you. As members of the public, any applicant unable to attend the interview shall not be considered for appointment. The committee chair or doesn't need to preside over the meeting. So we will make every effort to accommodate people, but if we cannot. Then that's that. Is that pretty much what we're saying? I mean, certainly with your experience, Mandy. Did you ever have a situation where someone, I guess you did. Yeah. Was it current winter? Couldn't make. And the committee voted to waive the policy. Okay. Because it was a committee policy could be done. Right. But now it's a cultural policy. Now it's a culture policy. Right. But if it'll be council policy, I mean, that won't be able to be done except at the council level. So the committee would be able to make a recommendation that the council. The policy and a point. Maybe post facto. I don't know, but because it was a committee policy, the committee could make that waiver. I would leave it in. I think if we're going to say interviews, you need to be there and. You know, with what was done with ZBA, the council has the ability. To waive that. It does take away some of the authority. Of the committee or some of the power of the committee, but in this case. The argument is that's, that's okay. Okay. I think the rest of this will know actually. Meetings shall be videotaped. Consistent with regular council meetings. Committee members will ask the adopted interview questions of each applicant. And each applicant will have an opportunity to answer each question. What is the point of that sense? Well, I was going to ask the question. And. Help me hear somebody. Why is this sentence here? Sarah, you know. I think it might be a replica or a residue of. Yeah, I'm not sure what it is. Can we just delete it? Well, let's make sure we see what we're deleting before we do it. There may, there was a reason it was here. For sure. And now it's escaping me. Committee members will ask the adopted interview questions of each applicant. I guess what it's trying, what it's saying, or supposed to be saying is that every applicant gets asked the same questions. But we already said that. We already said. Right. With a little wiggle. And each applicant will have an opportunity to answer each question. I mean, that's like. Help. I don't think this. I think that this document has been. Changed some. So then some stuff is like, huh, like why. But I think that when we were originally doing this, I think some of the wording may, and I don't remember may have been changed. But I think that what. I think it was trying to be a step by step. And, you know, originally when this was written, we didn't give people the opportunity to. Ask follow-up questions because originally. Did George. Things changed. George was even on the side of we shouldn't ask. Follow-ups because follow-ups lead to. You know, bias questions. So it may be that this seems odd because we've, we've changed this document so many times. Yeah. I mean, I don't know if it's just in there because it, you know, if you're doing a step by step, even though this seems like duh, it's just sort of going step by step. And, and maybe it's something to. I don't know. I mean, then there's the, the, the big statement, which is, then you get an opportunity to ask at least one follow-up question. So maybe it's, that's what it's saying. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't want to ask at least one follow-up question. So maybe it's, that's what it's hinging on is to getting to the follow-up question because you're then you're. So it's, it's reinforcing whether or not you said that the questions that each applicant were given would be given in advance or not. And if they're the same set of questions or not. And then the bombshell of whether or not you. Got to ask a follow-up. That whatever we said before, you know, about which questions are asked and which aren't. Yeah. So, I mean, this gets to all the things that I think have been questions. I mean, videotaping, remember in the beginning committee meetings weren't videotaped. There was a time when our committee meetings weren't videotaped. So that's a holdover from whether or not we actually videotaped something, right? And then regular council meetings as was it special or was it regular? And then who asks? So originally it was only the chair, the chair's designee that would ask the adopted interview questions. Then it got changed to each committee member. So these I think are, this is a holdover from the. Each step you take and then how we changed each step. Yeah. I think it is a holdover. The question is. Do we want to be that specific at this point? I think since now we've changed everything, since we've changed everything. We've changed everything. Maybe we don't need to, maybe we don't need to, because this was to hold the line on. On stuff that, that, you know, different committees have decided they don't want to hold the line on. So. Except this is reestablishing a line. This is saying every committee is going to follow this process. Yeah. Just to remind us that. I read this one is. You have to rotate who asked the question. Versus one person asking all the questions. Do we care. How it's done is the question. And if we do, it should be in here. And if we don't, we should just delete it. I don't care. As long as the questions are asked to all the, all the people being interviewed. Yeah. Okay. And. Do we need the videotape as well. At this point. I would leave that one in. Just sort of. We've started doing the videotaping. And it's becoming standard, right? But. Okay. Since the committee chairs have to run it themselves. Or we might be going into a different mode. But we're going to do it. We're going to do it. We're going to do it. We're going to have in there. So if we take out, I'm not going to do it yet. We could take out the second sentence. The third sentence seems to be already. It's up in section eight. Right. And. It depends on what the committee decides. So I'm wondering if it even belongs here. And if a committee may decide there'll be no follow up questions. So. Since it's already been stated, I don't see the point of putting it here. Because it seems to suggest that, that, you know, You will be given the option. To ask a follow up question when in fact that may not be the case. So I would strive the next, these two sentences. Time limits for answering the questions may be set prior to the interviews. Again, I guess we could put it in. But right. I wonder if that belongs better in section eight. With interview questions. Yeah, that could go as the very last sentence. So they're recommending committee may adopt a set of standard questions. And then. The sentence about. Time limits for answering questions. Maybe set prior to the interviews and. And applicants. Or. In that pair. All right. I'm sorry. So you want to move this to section eight. Yep. The end of section eight. So let me just try that for a moment. So let me just take this. Okay. And you want to insert it. The end here. Yeah. Yeah. Cause it's probably better at the establishing of the questions then. Found in the interview section itself. Right. Cause here we're talking about, right? Okay. Keep going. Cause I got a hard stuff. Where I got. Now. All right. Well, I don't think we're going to be able to complete this today. Unfortunately. One more section left. Yeah. I know, I know, unfortunately, but I need, we need to go back through everything again. I'm afraid, especially the first. Cause there were a whole host of things we have to go through. So. Yeah, but we could get through 10. And then go back next meeting. Yes, yes, yes. Absolutely. So that's finished 10. In fact, I don't think there's anything to say about that. It's fine. No, this is, this is now you're right. You're right. At the next regular special meeting after. So this is the one that required that it be two separate meetings. Right. We actually do have to change the first sentence. Yeah. It's really what we're doing at the moment. We're living in a community to decide whether they want to do it. No, but it has to be called as a separate meeting from the interview meetings. The way this is working at the end of the interviews. Or at the next regular or special meeting after. So this is the one that required that it be two separate meetings. Right. We actually do have to change the first sentence. Yeah. I think that works. Because then a committee can decide if, you know, Instead of at the end, maybe after the interviews. After the interviews. Or at the next regular special meeting. Follow the conclusion of the interview. Follow the conclusion of the interviews. The committee shall discuss the applicants. And the committee. After the interviews means after the conclusion of the interviews. So. So the committee shall simply can go to shell discuss the applicants. After the interviews or at the next regular special meeting of the recommended committee. The committee shall discuss the applicants and the committee. And make. And the committee. Recommendation to the council. And make its recommendation to the council or. Yeah. And make. Yeah. Discuss the applicants and make its recommendation to the council. I think that's. Perhaps this is for the best. I have a whole host of questions related to. What we did previously. And we're not going to get through that today. So my thought is we're going to. Obviously save this and we will have to come back one more time. Hopefully with Darcy. Can I make a suggestion that you and any of us who have questions. And relay this to Darcy, because she seems to have a lot. Should write those questions up. So the committee, this committee has them in advance to look at. Well. I'm looking at my set. And a lot of, I'm not sure. Okay. All right. I mean, it's a good thought, Pat. I mean, I could do some of them. But for instance, my question number two is, are we satisfied with the preamble? Which means we have to read the preamble and make sure it actually now reflects what we've created. And that's the same with the title. Is are we satisfied with the title? I'd be interested to be easy, but. You know, And so, yeah, that's not, yeah. I think we're just going to, people should. Ideally, I would really ask everyone to go through this. Read it through carefully. And note down for themselves. In advance of our next meeting where they have any further questions, concerns or problems. And then we will go through the entire document together. People have their questions with them. If they have any. I have some. And then hopefully we can vote on this. And then I would write up a report. That would capture at least most of the, hopefully some of the main arguments. And instead of being August 2nd. It looks like it would be August 23rd. When council would get this. So. Can I ask a question? Please. We've now made it through all the sections, but there's a huge appendix still in this. Yes. Determination as to what parts of the appendix we might be keeping or not, because these appendix based on all the changes and all. Would massively need changed, especially the guidance for the chairs. And so my recommendation is to maybe keep the. Guidance for the public in this policy. But delete the guidance for the chairs and. Ensure that the chairs during, because I think we're going to be creating transfer memos at some point. Right. That. Guidance be rewritten by the chairs themselves right now for transfers there, but it not be included in the policy. Yeah, I think definitely that gets into the weeds in a way that is more internal. But I believe this guidance for the public. Would be valuable as part of the policy might even be. Set out. Website as a separate FAQ. But it should be part of the policy. So that means we should look at the guidance for the public. And I have done that. And you can see I've done it in the sense that I have highlighted places where I think in many cases to be very simple changes from three to two, but there are other places where there's a difference between the stated. Guidance and what we've been deciding. So I've highlighted a few places, but I'm not. So yeah, we should. People should look at this. Mandy has put it in the document. It's unlike the previous documents where all of them are there. It's just this one document, this one appendix. And so let's add that to the to-do list for everyone. And what you're seeing. It just highlights in places where I have some questions or where we may need to make some changes. If you have other places. Jot that down. Okay. Yeah. All right. What are we doing? Not too well. 1219. I took a look at our, and I can put it up on the screen for a moment, but I'm not sure at this point at this time it's worth it. We have what I take to be the most recent. Version. Of. The. Oh, excuse me for a second. I don't want to be. Okay. Yeah. All right. Okay. Excuse me for a second. I don't want to be careful here. I want to save that. I'm. The table of bylaws. When I went back to it, I almost felt like it was like from 500 years ago. I need some advice from all of you is how we're going to proceed with this. What I have is. I can put it in the next packet. Okay. So let's just look at it very quickly. We're not going to discuss it, but I want you to see it. This is the document that's in your packet. Yep. That we have been working with. And. So this has been, you know, I just have not followed up with Paul and some of this.  And I'm sure it's buried under some. You know, file, which is buried under another file. Mandy has made some significant progress with her stuff. We actually voted on some of these. Yes, we did. Others are sitting in concom and stuff. Right. So maybe part of what I have to do is chair is find out what our committee is going to do. And then I'm going to send you with a document that tells you more that this certainly does not help you. So I need to do that for our next meeting. I do know that on like my open burning one, I've got a, I think I can sort that out a little bit more and rewrite. Sections. On that and present that next time. Let me check down the votes, which I don't recall at all, but I'm sure Mandy's correct. We did do some things. But I'm not sure that we're going to be able to do that. And if anyone has any time to look through this document. At their particular assignments. That would be helpful. But this will be an item for next time. Item four is adoption of June 23 minutes. I have looked at them. I'm going to make a motion to adopt the June 23 minutes as presented. Is there a second. I'll second. It's not a second. If you have any questions, any seconds, any discussion if people have concerns, if you haven't had a chance to look at it, they want to look at it, please speak up. Otherwise we have a motion and a second. Not hearing any desire for discussion. I'm going to go immediately to a vote on this motion. Mandy. Yay. Hi. Sarah. Hi. And the chairs and I, so the vote is four zero to adopt these one absent. There are no items not anticipated in advance. Did somebody look? Let me stop sharing the screen. And let's see if we have any public present. I don't know that we do. We do not. Okay. So there is no public comment. Discuss the future agenda items. We have the ECAC charge. It has to be back to the council. At least they want it back by August 23. We only have two meetings between now and then. And at August 11, I need to hear from people's schedules. I'm available for all these meetings, July 28, August 11. Mandy's already notified me she will not be here for August 11. Does anyone else know at this point that they will not be available for either of those meetings? No, I'm okay. Okay. Sarah, as far as you know. Yeah, I'm okay. All right. So we have two meetings to get through the ECAC charge. Mandy will not be at the August 11th one. I would like to put the ECAC charge on the next agenda along with our continued review and hopefully final review of the OCA process. I have to reach out to Lynn and start talking to her about the town manager evaluation and goal set. I've lost track of that as well. So I will do that and I will get her take on that. But that's something that we need to start paying attention to. Bylaw's future consideration, I've always said we'll be on the next agenda and we will pick that up. Surveillance technology bylaw is still with the lawyers. Depending on the sponsor's desire for haste, I can send another email to Paul. If you wish, just ask him where it is. But at the moment, I have not heard anything. It's been sent to them as soon as I got it. And Paul, I assume, sent it on to the KP law. They may be busy with other stuff related to town affairs. But do the sponsors wish me to just nudge Paul? Yeah, nudge him. Nudge him. I think my initial thoughts are by August 23 at the latest. Okay. It's because you will not be here. I won't be here on the 10th, but you won't be here for the 11th. That's all right. So ideally July 28. Okay. Yeah, it's not then no later than the August 23rd meeting. Like that'll have been what, two months or so. Yeah, okay. All right. I'll nudge. Okay. Are we done? I'm sorry. I'm cranky. I really need to eat. We are done. That is everything. Thank you. Thank you, Pat. Thank you. Thank you, man. Thank you, Emily. I call this meeting adjourned.