Thank you. Thank you. And I just wanted to let you know closed captioning is working. If you want to turn that on, it's at the bottom of your screen. Oh, great. Okay. Yes, zoom has adopted closed. Michelle. This is here. All right. So I see the presence of a quorum. And so I'm going to call this meeting of governance organization and legislation to order. On December 2nd. According to my watch, it is actually what time is it? And 31. So at 1031. And I'm first going to make sure that everyone can be heard and can speak. So we'll go around the horn, Lynn. Yes. And Mandy. Yep. And Pat. Yep. And Andy. Yep. Thank you. And let me see, Alyssa. Present. Thank you. Matt, just so we can hear you. Good. Yes. Thank you, Matt. All right. So, and Michelle. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Michelle. So pursuant to governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. This meeting of governance organization legislation is being recorded. And I just want to make sure that everyone is aware of that. So we have a remote participation. We are being recorded. And I just been told that close captioning is functioning and working. So. I believe that's everything we need to do. From that perspective, just quickly to my colleagues on to L. As you may know, we have gotten a response from KP law. Related to facial recognition. And, and I also a little bit in an email memo. So both of those, I believe, are in the packet. They're certainly on SharePoint. And I believe they're in the packet. Actually, they're not, I take that back. Apologize. They're not in the packet and they're not on SharePoint. But my plan is to take that up. Well, we'll talk about this later actually, but they have come. It has come in. I don't know if the sponsors have any thoughts on that at all. But that's just for general knowledge. Okay. I'm going to pretty much follow the agenda as we have it in front of us. So the first item of business is to continue our review of the anti-racism resolution. And a copy of that is in your packet. And we have the sponsors present. We have Alyssa here. We have Michelle and we have Matt. And I'm going to begin by asking my colleagues. If they have any comments or concerns or questions about. The newly revised version of this resolution. So I'm looking for hands. I see Mandy. I see Pat. Let's start with Mandy. Okay. I have very few. So don't, don't freak out. Just one. So on page two. Yeah. I don't know which whereas it is. It's about halfway down the, in 2019 and Amherst, the median family income for white families. I feel like there needs to be an and. Before the third one. So the white families, comma 51% of the back black population was reported as being below the private property line comma compared with 30% for white comma and white residents in Amherst were four times more than a home than black residents. Because I think there's three groups. So I think we need an and before white residents. And then my only other comment. Relates to three whereas is below that. The one that starts the Amherst town council acknowledges the trauma inflicted on black residents. And the third line says conjures painful memories to our towns past, not only for those who lived through them, but also the generations that have followed. And in reading that, I wasn't sure what the them was modifying. So it made it a confusing sentence to me. You know, is it the memories? Is it. The ideology? I just wasn't sure what you were trying to understand. I was trying to understand what you were talking back to. And so some clarifying on that would be helpful to me, but otherwise those are the only things I had. Okay. So insertion of an and. And a question about that particular, a whereas clause, any response to. Whereas I assume the end is no problem. Any comments on the whereas clause. I don't know what you're trying to say. But I'm going to wait for a second, Andy. And see if the sponsors have any thoughts there. Did I just go ahead? Yeah, I'm sorry. I don't see your hand, but that's because I'm blonde. So go ahead, Matt. I think the intention here is for them to modify memories, but I understand that it's not entirely clear. It's almost like it's supposed to be modifying events, which is implied in memories. So I think that's where the lack of. I think that's where the lack of clarity comes from. So change we could make that we'd make it clear. Yeah, I think let's go on and we can take note of this yet. I think it's an easy fix. Okay. All right. Andy is your hand raised. So Andy. Yeah, go to the very bottom. The last substance of. Am I muted? I think everyone should be careful with their muting. I like to keep it open, but we do have some noise in the background. I'm not sure where it's coming from. So you are not muted, Andy. You're coming through loud and clear. Yeah. Okay. So. In the last. Very last clause, there's the term reparative. And so I decided. That I wanted to, after last night's meeting, began to think about the question of what is the definition. And so it's really starts as a question. For the sponsors. When I looked up the word in the dictionary. The first definition is the active process of making amends for a wrong. And then the second in subsequent ones. The next two definitions that are given in the dictionary I was looking at. Talk about money paid compensation, money paid compensation. And I was wondering if we just need to be. Clear amongst ourselves as to what is intended. By that term and whether. It's the. What we want to put forward. Well, is this an issue. This is an issue of clarity. I take an Andy. Or because it's, I don't think it's a matter of action ability. It is clarity. Okay. Just want some clarity. If you've got a term and you have different people interpreting. A word in different ways. And we have. And when you look at the dictionary. It is multiple. It's multiple means that can be given to the term. And that then creates a question of clarity. All right. So we have a question for the sponsors on the use of the term reparative in the very last. Be it for the result. Any thoughts or comments on that from the sponsors.  I'm looking for hands. I don't see any at the moment, but if you're raising your hand and I don't see it to speak up. So. Yeah. So, I would be free to leave it as it is. I mean, there's no. Yeah. I just, I mean, as a. Response to Andy's question, the intention in the use of the word was very simple and straightforward based on the first definition that he found in the dictionary. Okay. Okay. I would also add, sorry, I can't really see myself. The word process to me works with the word reparative in a way that does keep it in line with that first definition that Andy mentioned. Okay. Andy, would you repeat the first definition. Okay, I'll say it again, but I also want to just mention that I very appreciative of the comments and was tempted to leave it at that the first definition in the dictionary that I'm looking at is the actor process of making amends for or wrong, which is the way that I read it when we talked about it last time. I'm not comfortable with it with that definition. But I just wanted to make sure that we didn't have a misunderstanding. Which is what the clarity question is. Okay. Yeah, I think it's something that also could come out in the council discussion. But yes. Pat, go ahead. I wanted to go back to earlier section on page two, the whereas that begins with 2020. Yeah, it says, where is it. Following the national outcry following the murder of George that bothers me. And I think it should simply say, whereas in 2020. Following the murder of George Floyd. Yes, there was a national outcry but it what we're getting at is that Amherst so it's that following following bothers me. Okay, I agree that's a bit awkward. So you're suggesting that simply striking. Following the murder of George Floyd striking the words following the national outcry striking that. Yeah, who son. And again. So that's a sponsor suggestion but I don't know if the other sponsors any thoughts. I just remember that the reason that happened is that someone was concerned last time that without any specifics people in Amherst might wonder why we if they hadn't heard of George Floyd, why we cared and Amherst about it. But I'm just putting that out there as the reason why it ended up there. So I would say following the national outcry in response to, or I thought about that too, that would be okay with me. Yeah. So that's another option here. And then I have one more very minor. I want Mandy to know Joe to know I had her end, but I didn't have her second. But also on the first now therefore. Yeah. In accordance with the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence independence which asserts that all people. It does not assert that it serves that all men. So I think that the quote should start after people. I don't want it to say men only. It should be that all people quote are created equal. And that's probably silly but so I don't care if it happens or not. But I noticed it this morning. I like it patting good catch. And I are in competition in case you haven't figured it out. Good competition. And that way. That was it for me so if we, if, if it's acceptable, particularly to Matthew and Michelle the ones that we've made can we just look at the highlighted them and figure that out because then we would be ready to have the committee vote. That is my sense. Yes. No, no, that's fine. I got to move my laptop on the sun is, wait, let me just close the curtain. I'm not sure if this matters folks but was the font change okay to keep it limited to the three pages is that looking. I think I limited it to three pages. Okay, is that is that readable still and everything okay with that. I think it's fine. Okay, great. Appreciate putting it to three pages. Thank you. So the them. What any thoughts on what, if anything needs to be done here. Let me read it one more time just so people can hear it. The Emmerstown Council acknowledges the trauma inflicted on blacks by persistent white supremacist ideology results in psychological harm affecting educational economic health and social outcomes and conjures painful memories of our towns past, not only for those who live through them, but also the generation that have followed. Generations that have followed. Right. When I read that I don't have a problem. But that's open for discussion I see a list of hand Alyssa please. Would it help the people who are concerned to change it to these those experiences or these experiences. Yeah, these events are these experiences it just I guess Matthew had it exactly right when I was like it seems to harken back to memories but you don't really live through memories. Right, right, right. That's correct. I also believe there needs to now be a comma. Okay. So not only for those who lived through these events or experiences I think this good. Okay, who lived through these experiences, comma. That's a suggestion. It could be but also for the generations that have followed. I think four is better because. Yeah, great. Yes, yes, that would be parallel construction that would make sense. Okay, Alyssa your hand still up but that may be residual but if it isn't please go ahead. Okay, hand is down. So I think we have made all the changes. I have no further changes to recommend I think this was an excellent rewrite. I think it addressed everything that was raised at our last meeting. We made a number of minor changes which the sponsors seem to be perfectly comfortable with. The title was an issue are people okay with that. Whoops. I'm sorry. That's all right. I do that all the time. I'm good with the title. Okay, thank you. Resolution of coming to town of Amherst commitment to end structural racism and achieve racial equity for black residents. Okay. All right. All right. Well, I'm willing to entertain a motion that this committee will declare this resolution. Affirming the town of Amherst commitment to and structural racism and achieve racial equity for black residents to be clear, consistent and actionable. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Is there a second second. So Mandy seconds. I don't see any further discussions. I'm going to go immediately to a vote. I'm going to start this time with Lynn. Yes. And Mandy. Yes. And Pat. Yes. And Andy. Yes. And the chair is a yes. So that vote is five to zero unanimous. Declaring its resolution to be clear, consistent and actionable. Okay. Okay. Okay. Lynn, this will go to the council. When do you know. Dang. I'm sorry. It's on the agenda for Monday night. I found Monday night's agenda very good. Could I ask a clarifying question? Sure. This is of Michelle and Matthew. We have the history document. It is not going to be attached to the resolution, but I would love it if it were in the packet. For counselors to read. Is that possible? Absolutely. Right. If you would send that to mice to me today, I'll make sure if anything gets it. Okay. So Michelle, will you take care of that? You bet. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. All right. We're going to move on to our other business, but I'm going to thank the sponsors for their presence and for their hard work. And as Lynn said, this will be on the agenda at our council meeting next Monday. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks for all your work. Yes, indeed. So the next item is actually the patent citation, which is sponsored by. Dorothy Pam. Dorothy can't join us until noon. So I'm going to hold this for a moment. I did not see any problems with it at all. I thought it was well written and I think it should be. Easy for us to get through, but I think as a courtesy to her.  But I did have an email back and forth. And 12 noon was what worked for her. And so I'm going to wait until then. And if she hasn't joined us by then we'll come back to it. But I'm going to hold it off for just a moment. The next item. I have the agenda is to deal with the Fincom vacancy. And what I'd like us to do. We have reached the two week. We're a couple of hours short of the full two weeks, but this was posted two weeks ago. So we are able, I believe, to make a decision as to. The pool of sufficiency so we can declare the pool sufficient. I'd also like us to. I'll vote on the selection guidance. I'm hoping we can just use the selection guidance from last time. I have one minor suggestion or change. But I'd like to do that. And I'd also like us if it makes sense to you all to make a decision about the term length. But assuming we can do those three things, or at least most of them, I would then proceed to notify the candidates. And we go on from there. So the first question is sufficiency of the pool. And I think you have a document in the folder. That tells you that we had 10. Individuals in the pool. I believe eight of them were prior. People had already been in the pool before. And two were new. And I believe in that document, I tell you the status of all of the applicants. Again, a number of people had not responded. And they also didn't respond the first time. So, but we did get on a couple of no's. And we have three yeses. We have three individuals who have said that they would like to be considered for this position. So I guess the first question for you all is whether. That number and the three candidates that at the moment. Have expressed an interest in being considered. Is sufficient for us to proceed. And so I'm going to open that up to. Any thoughts people have. The chair will keep his thoughts to himself for a moment. Andy, where do you think stand on that? I. You know, we've advertised as best we can. We reached out to everybody. Who had expressed previous interest. I. Think that it's a group that merits consideration. So I, I'm comfortable with continuing. See what the rest of you think. I agree. I agree with Andy. I think it's a sufficient pool. The fact that you've made the effort to contact all of the others that would act and be considered in the pool. Some responses. I think we should go ahead and declare it's sufficient to move on. I agree. I agree. I agree. I agree. I agree. I agree. I agree with you. Andy, okay. Good. So I would like to then. Make the motion that we declare. The pool for. Then calm to be. A sufficient. Lynn. Lynn will second that. And so again, just quickly, it'll start this time with Mandy. Yes. And Pat. Yes. And Andy. Yes. And Lynn. pool to be sufficient. So we have three active candidates. And so the next question I have is whether we can also declare just vote on the selection guide. So I believe we're required by the process to vote on the guidance since we have the chair finance present. If there's any need for changes, we could make them but there should be, so this is the process document that lists all the various steps but there should also be in the folder a document, right that spells out what we used last time. And I have one very small proposed change but we need to look at it as a whole and people need to decide if they're satisfied with it. I have a hard copy in front of me but... There's one on the screen now. Thank you, thank you Lynn. I had one question. Sure. Which is the big middle paragraph. In addition, the chair shall solicit from the chair of the finance committee input as to whether there are any preferred knowledge or expertise. I know we have the chair of the finance committee on this committee. I don't know whether you've solicited that input and Andy didn't add any or whether it hasn't been solicited but I'd be hesitant to vote on the guidance until we have the input from Andy as chair of finance into this document. Right. And I don't remember whether we had that input last time or what it was. I think it was pretty informal. That may not be satisfactory to you but and I was going to simply turn to the chair of finance since he's a member of this committee and ask him if he is willing or comfortable to speak on this now. If he's not, we can delay but is there any, I was just going to ask him directly actually right here in real time is there any preferred knowledge or expertise that the committee requires to better assist in its work? This is a really peculiar circumstance that we're in and I'm going to actually just recognize that we also have a quorum of the finance committee that is sitting here right now too. And so that, because under other circumstances what I might say is I'm comfortable but I'd like to put it on the agenda for next week's finance committee meeting to see if I have other suggestions from members of the finance committee and then bring it back for our next meeting. But I mean, I feel like I'm in this weird space right now. Well, there is some time concern given the budget process and but that's just one concern. It's not necessarily the only one. There's also a process concern. Weighing those is difficult. I think I guess a question that would be fair to ask you and others can weigh in is how important is the timeliness of this? We have moved, I think fairly quickly to declare the pool sufficient. I think in large part because of desire to fill this position quickly given the budget process. If we delay further, we would be looking at our next meeting is December 16. And what we're required to do is have at least one week before the actual interviews and vote that the materials be posted publicly. So we can meet that schedule if we proceed today. If we don't proceed today and have to wait and that's fine, but if we do then I think we're talking January before we would actually get around to sending this to the council. We do have a set of selection criteria that worked I thought perfectly well and are very clear. And I don't see any reason to change them. We do have the chair present along with two other members of his committee. And if there was any particular concern he could simply say, I wanna take this to my committee and that would be the end of it and we would just have to wait and that's fine by me. But there I think is a sense that the sooner we can get someone on this body given the budget process, the better. So that's the only, my thought is if we do send it to, if we wait and have finance weigh in formally which is fine, we would probably not be able to act on this. The council would not be able to act on this until January. Right. I feel like I agree with George that the criteria worked last time and that we should move forward with it. So we're not delaying. And then if the finance committee members have input that can go for the next round because that's not, that's gonna be coming up fairly soon anyway. It can also be in the questions that we ask to explore whether candidates have a certain experience but I'm inclined to go ahead and the reason I'm inclined to go ahead is because as I look at the two existing non-voting residents of the finance committee we have somebody who is really, really steeped in public finance. And we have another person who has now been on the finance committee for a year and a half and has really come into their own as a person who has taken a lot of time to understand the town's finances. So I'm not feeling as vulnerable with regard to people who understand the town finances and that would be the major outstanding criteria in my mind. I just want, I asked the question because it's in our own process for seeking out the chair. I'm comfortable with Andy saying as chair I'm good with the selection guidance. You know, I know from my chairmanship of CRC that various chairs of other committees that have similar requirements on processes for appointing, for recommending appointments the various chairs of those committees don't always actually ask the rest of the committee. That doesn't mean it's a good or a bad process but it's not out of the ordinary for it to be just the chair. So I don't necessarily feel like by adopting a process today as long as Andy as chair has said this looks good for me for now, that we're going outside of a norm for the council as a whole. And I do get concerned that if we do take the time that we can't do interviews till January and it can't be acted on the council until mid January whereas now, if we can get those interviews in in December 16th, the council can approve and appoint a new member at this very first January meeting. And two weeks doesn't always sound like a lot but given where we are in the budget process that could be a lot. So actually our second meeting in January is not until the 25th of January. Yeah, I'm okay with going forward in response to what you just said, Andy. Yeah, we're in the middle of the budget process but the budget process has this funny thing where we go through the stage we're in right now where we develop budget guidelines and it's too late for that, that's gonna be done. And then the budget process kind of gets into a slower space and because it's really Paul who's working on a budget to propose to us. So it's not like I think that there'd be a tremendous loss but I sort of flip it around and say that I don't think there'd be a tremendous gain by postponing it either and it's good for the candidates who've now responded that they show an interest that we move with some speed. Right, and I think again, this is in response to a recognition. So this is an unusual circumstance. I think in the normal course of things when a term is up, we start this all much earlier and there's, but here we're trying to fill the vacancy. So there is a certain sense of haste. So what I'm hearing Andy is that you're comfortable with these guidelines as written and do not feel it necessary or absolutely necessary to consult your committee on it and you're willing to go ahead. I, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I might also have just a small question about the document in the very last paragraph under our favorite topic term limits. The word second term, maybe I'm just not understanding it but it says generally if a person is serving a first term they're given preference for a second. Conversely, if a person is completing a second term shouldn't that be a third term because actually these are two year appointments and the usual length is six years. And so I'm just wondering maybe I'm misunderstanding it but if a person is completing a third term and there are other qualified applicants, preference would be given all things considered to a newcomer. We would not normally give preference not saying we couldn't do it but we normally wouldn't give preference to a newcomer if someone is applying for a second term, correct? It would be the third term, right? Completing a third term. I think this is legacy from when this document said normally limited to two terms of three years in length. So that shouldn't this be a third term? So I think the first sentence should be if a person is serving a first or second term they're given a preference for another term. And then conversely if a person is completing a third term. Right. And there are other qualified applicants, yes. Well, I'm going to suggest we make that change and so what we would read as Manny just said if a person is serving a first or second so insert or second term and I can make these, I'm making these changes. I don't have the word document. That's all right, I can, they are given preference for a third. I think you can just say for another term. Okay, for another term. Okay. So we'd read if a person is serving a first or second term they are given preference for another term. Conversely, if a person is completing a third term and then the rest would go on as stated. So that's what I'm suggesting as a change. Any thoughts on that? I think that's good change. Okay, so we're going to amend this document with that new wording and I will make the changes in my copy and then have it inserted into the record. And when we vote on that can we make sure we amend the actual, whatever we describe the policy as too since that wording came directly out of our process whatever that document's called process. In the process document, something needs, I'm sorry, something needs to be amended there, yeah. Well, this limit section I assume was directly copied from the process document. So it would make sense to modify the process document at the same time. All right, we'll do. If you want, I can bring the process document up. That's okay, Lynn, I hear Mandy's point. I will also review the process document and make any changes necessary because this is really housekeeping I think as long as we'll vote in a moment on this change when we approve or when we vote on the selection guidance, but excuse me. Is it playing hail to the chief? No, it's not. Ah, Dorothy, you're here. Welcome. We're gonna get to you in a second. It sounds like you're, that's fine but we're working our way through something. It'll take us just a few moments and then we'll turn if you don't mind to you right after that. So we have a amended version here of selection guidance and we need to vote on selection to approve the guidance, selection guidance as amended. And so that's the motion. Yeah, so Mandy's going to move that we approve the selection guidance document as amended on this date. Is there a second? Yes, second. So Lynn has seconded. We're gonna go right to a vote. This time I'm gonna start with Andy. Yes. And Pat. Yes. And Mandy. Yes. And Lynn. Yes. And the chair is a yes. So again, five, zero, unanimous. We're approving the selection guidance. We have also declared the pool to be sufficient. And all right, I will make those changes both to the guidance document and also to the process document. Do we wanna talk briefly about the term?  Okay, Mandy, please. I was actually not gonna mention the term. I was gonna say, should we decide when the interviews are and then let George determine the dates for the due dates for the statements of interest and all of that? I was gonna suggest we do the interviews at our next meeting, but this is just a suggestion and that I notify candidates later today that the three candidates that they have one week, they have until Tuesday of next week to submit an SOI and that they would be interviewed on Wednesday sometime between 1030 and 1230. We'll set that in a moment. Now, obviously if there's a problem with that timing, that could create a challenge for us, but for the moment my suggestion was to interview on the 16th and then have a vote on the 16th. And the only possible problem I can imagine is that someone simply can't make that Tuesday time. I'm hoping that won't be the case. If it is, we may have to do some well, I don't know what we'll do. I mean, one option is to just make a special time and hopefully everybody can be there. Oh, it's Wednesday, December 16th. Yeah, not Tuesday. Right. Yeah, Wednesday the 16th is the meeting, but I'm gonna make the SOIs due on Tuesday of this coming week. So they have to be, the SOIs have to be posted one week in advance of the interviews. So I would tell them you've got a week to get the SOIs in and they have to be up by basically Wednesday morning of next week for a week. And then we could proceed with interviews. That's what I'm suggesting. Now, if we don't do it that way, then we either gonna have to have a meeting in late December or we'll have to wait till January. That timeline works for me. Works for me. Yeah. If you do run into a candidate that for some reason... Cannot make the 10-30. And I think we do need to reconsider just because of the fast turnaround, but if it can work for them, I think we should go ahead. Okay. So I will reach out to them later today and confirm the interview and the SOI. Question of just, I'm gonna suggest one of the candidates has already submitted an SOI. One of the candidates has already been interviewed by this committee. So that raises the question of A, may I give the candidate the option of they may submit another SOI, but they're perfectly free to simply have us use the one they just gave us. That's Jane Scheffler, isn't it? That is correct. So Scheffler has submitted an SOI. And I think Mandy in comment to me, it's suggested that you can say to her, she's perfectly free to just leave that one in or she could write a new one if she wants, but it has to be in. If she's gonna do that, it has to be in by next Tuesday. I feel she should be given the opportunity that seems reasonable change. The other question is whether we should interview her again. Can we, are we satisfied?  I'd like to interview her again because we are looking at other candidates as well. All right. I agree. I think she needs to give the opportunity. We do have to remember that it's not required for any of these candidates to attend the interview under our selection guidance. I believe we made the interviews optional for any candidate, but certainly we should definitely offer all the candidates the equal opportunity to do the interview. Good. I agree. That makes sense to me as well. Does that also give us an out if a candidate cannot make the interview time if someone says, look, I just can't make that time? No. And one of the things I was just going to suggest if I can continue and I've got anyway, so. I think we should have an alternative evening possibly on the 16th, Wednesday, the 16th, just as a backup to go for the first one, but it could be two candidates who for whatever reason, because 1030 to 1230 is during a normal work day and many people are working. Right, right. So that is a good suggestion, Pat. I'll see what the rest of you think that we could tentatively pencil in a, like we'd need more than a half an hour. These interviews are basically 10 minutes, 15 minutes max. So if we could agree on that Wednesday, the 16th, people have their calendars otherwise, but I do have an event, but it's not, I can get out of it. So, seven o'clock, is that reasonable? Or, I mean, what do people? That works for me. That works for me. Okay, seven o'clock. Lynn? Hopefully we won't need to do it. It's free to do it for me. Though I do have a question, but it is reasonable for me. And the question is, if we do, that is the point of final interview is that the intention of the committee to continue meeting as we did last time to make a decision? Yeah, yeah. So you're really talking about a longer period of time. That's correct, Andy. Yes, you're right. That's gonna be more than half an hour if we have to do that. It works for me. And that would have to be, it has to be posted within 48 hours. So I have more than enough time to do that, but it would have to be posted. There's no question. So, if one or more of the candidates says I cannot make the daytime interview, then we would offer them the evening interview. If they can't make that, I don't think it's gonna be a problem, but at that point I'm really wondering whether we're really under obligation to move heaven and earth. But so tentatively good. When it's the interview, 10, 30, 12, 30, offer an alternative at seven. If we do have to do that, we will also go a little bit later because we will do the vote then. I didn't know the council had the power to move heaven and earth. No, but this committee does. No, this committee can move hell only. Thank you very much, Pat. So can we talk about term and then I wanna go to Dorothy. So I think we've settled everything that I need to settle, except the length of the appointment. And I'd like us to talk about that and make a decision if we can. I'm gonna make a suggestion, but you're perfectly free to reject it. I'm not particularly excited about a six-month appointment, but that is an option. So that's just me speaking personally, but I don't think we can offer a two-year term straight up because that, right? In other words, it has to be, if we offer a two-year term, it kind of creates, well, it ends in the middle of a right budget season. So that's no good. And so I was gonna suggest a year and a half. In other words, complete this term and then it would end in 20, what would it be? June 30, 2022. So the year and a half, year and a half. That would coincide with burning. But not the other one. Right, right. That would be my double check that, but that would be, so I guess the options are two as I understand it. One is just six months and then they're up for renewal. And the other is a year and a half and then they're up for renewal. You feel like there's anything in the charge that prevents us from doing this? I think it just can't be more than two years, right? I mean, we cannot appoint somebody for a term longer than the two-year limit, but we're certainly free, I think, to appoint somebody to a one-year or are we? I mean, that's, I just assumed that, but that may not be right. Any thoughts on that, Mandy, in terms of process? I'm trying to find the finance charge. Right, yeah. I'll see if I can find mine too. I've got mine here. I mean, I think it reads like most charges. It doesn't talk about fractions of terms, but it doesn't not talk about it either. So finance charge, I've got it here too. So I've got that it's two years for non-voting members and then three non-voting members. It doesn't say anything, it doesn't say years. I mean, when you have somebody resign and you decide to fill that position, are you simply restricted to filling the existing term? Is that just the rule for this sort of thing? Or can you? In most instances you are. I mean, for example, we had a school committee person like we did, we could only appoint for the remainder of that term. That's my only hesitation. Sure, that's because there's an election that's built into the charter that you don't wanna have the citizens have to vote separately. Right. This is something that's totally a council matter and I don't think that it's the same. I mean, I think we could propose that to the council and the council gets to decide whether or not it's a valid term. Do we propose that before or after? Well, I think the motion would be to appoint so-and-so to a term that ends X and then it would be up to some clever councillor to notice that it's not a two-year, right? And then raise an objection. But if not six months. So, you know, if nobody says anything, then fine. If somebody raises the objection, then I guess we can have a debate about it. I can't imagine why anyone would care, but maybe somebody does. The other one is just to do six months. I like the year and a half with a report that explains why we're proposing a year and a half instead of six months. Why are we? I mean, I recommended it, but why? I think six months might be too short and a year and a half make more sense and it still doesn't put if Sharon's old term was the only one up in, you know, this June and six, seven months, then maybe a year and a half would be problematic because then we'd have all three up at the same time in a year and a half, but we don't. So given that, it still keeps that sort of staggering goal of experience while also recognizing that the issue about some length of time for commitment purposes. And we also didn't violate the two-year term issue here. Right, right. And it keeps it in June when we want these, June to July, when we want these. We definitely want it in June. That's no question, June 30. So what I'm hearing is that people at the moment are people are comfortable with the year and a half. So this would end June 30, 2022. And in the report, the chair would simply point out that we're doing this in part because we're trying to stagger positions and also because we felt that six months really was not given the nature of the commitment. Someone asking someone to serve on the finance committee is a very serious commitment that we're just doing it to reflect the nature of that commitment. Okay, so it sounds like people are okay with June 30, 2022. I assume I can tell, well, yes. I mean, I guess I can tell the applicants that we're going to propose. I mean, we don't decide, but we're going to propose to the council a term that lasts until June 30, 2022. Do we want to vote that now or do we want to vote it when we get the term? I think we can vote that when we actually come to the, I just wanted to get a sense of you all what you thought. I think we could just vote when we do the final motion recommendation, we'll put the term in as a year and a half. And I'll mention that in the report. One last very quick thing, and then we're going to Dorothy. I wanted to send an email message to Sharon Povinelli thanking her for her service on the finance committee. And I wanted, initially I was going to send it myself and I thought, well, I could send it on behalf of the GOL committee since we're the ones who do the vetting and all the rest of it. So I just wanted to get an okay from you all that if I send her, it's a very brief message, but just thanking her for her service and expressing our appreciation. I would sign it with all five of our names. Is that okay? I think it's something that we should try to do going forward at least with our appointments. We always try to reach out to people in some way and say thank you. And I think for council appointments, like the ones we're doing, that can easily come from GOL because that's where the one who's doing this. Okay. And he may decide he wants to bring that same idea to the finance committee. Well, yeah, actually, Kirsten Wim and I both send emails separately. Exactly. I'm sure people do that. So I just want to make sure that if I did do this, I could do it myself, which I'm perfectly comfortable doing as chair, but I was going to add your names. And if that's okay, I will do that. If you'd rather, I can just do it as chair. Yeah, please do. All right. All right, Dorothy, thank you for your patience. We have before us a, our first citation, which I think is actually, I think is great. I think I like the thought that we occasionally recognize or acknowledge people in our community who do extraordinary things. And the council says just, you know, thank you or just recognizing it. So we have a citation in front of us for Dorothy Patton. The sponsor is... Joyce Patton. Joyce. Joyce Patton. Joyce V. Patton. Joyce V. Patton. Marilyn. Thank you. J.V. Patton. Marilyn, Marilyn. Marilyn. Hi. Hi. Marilyn on the title. Right, totally. I wrote that down on my notes a minute ago. Yeah, it's Marilyn V. Patton. Marilyn V. Patton, thank you so much. That synod, that group of names, by the way, all the same year. There's no little Marylands now. There's no little Joyce's and there's no little Dorothy's now. Cause that's an era. That's a name era, right? Right, right. I got it. Yeah, well, one of the, one of the cute jokes, which is not in here, but which is that when I watched the biographic living history video was, they used to call her the general at various times because you'd be putting on these big shows and big dance productions. All right. Yeah. So I mean, this came to us be from the man who sponsored it, but it's partly because she has been, even since her retirement, a focus of alumni from the program and that they have gotten together, they've kept up ties, which is very useful professionally, but they've also raised money for dancers in the process. So it's not just for her years of, it's not written in here, but of her work at the university, but it's also for the continuing role. And so her big 85th birthday gala is in fact also a fundraiser for dancers. Okay. Well, I cast my very keen eye over this document and I think Dorothy did an excellent job going through and putting it together. I did not see anything, but that doesn't mean much. Any of you have any comments, concerns, questions about this document changes you'd like to make? Mandy Jo and Andy have their hand up. So let's start with Andy. Yeah, I actually, it's just a couple of places and I'll point them out and instead of, and I'll give the, go to the fifth whereas clause, whereas in 1970, she founded every eight place else except two, we use her name. So do we want to say whereas in 1970, Ms. Patton founded the university dancers and then in the last whereas clause, UMass dancers having it, it says her again, Ms. Patton. So that's the only question I had is whether we want to use those generic terms she and her or whether we want to place her name in everywhere as clause. Okay, fair point, Andy. We have Marilyn V Patton. We have Marilyn Patton and Ms. Patton. So perhaps we want to go through and just be consistent. Right, could I ask a question here? As you know, this was built upon a very good armature that Mandy Jo wrote and she will recognize that much of it that she wrote is unchanged. You have strong feelings on these things. My feeling is I don't like Ms. but I'm sure there's like rules and traditions on this. What are the names, because this is a good point Andy brought up, what are the name traditions? Do you keep repeating the name or do you use variations? The citations I've seen from the Massachusetts legislature keep repeating the name. Okay. I think I'd repeat the name and that probably means adding the V in anywhere we do it to. Because they seem to use the V, not everyone uses their middle initials. She seems to. Seems to, yes, yes. So... Yep, when you go on the internet, you will find there are other Marilyn V Pattons even. So I think the middle initial is important because there are other people with, certainly there are other Marilyn Pattons and there wasn't that one other Marilyn V. Patton. You're thorough, Dorothy. So then if we do that then, again, this is Mandy doing the editing, I believe. No, Lynn's doing it. There's one more whereas where the her has to be. Yeah, yeah. So let's... So it's just good to learn the formal kind of traditions of this kind of thing. Yeah. That's it. I think that's it. Right here, to put it, that would be too redundant. Right, absolutely. I think that's a good thing. So when you're using right after and joins Marilyn and saying... So I think in that one, it's fine, those three, because it's all the same sentence. Yeah. Yep, yep, I agree. So if I were to make a grammar rule, I would say use the whole name, except when it's ridiculously redundant. Sounds good. Now, how about the very last now therefore? That's what we were just referencing. And we decided that this would, to say her name again, would be really redundant. And here it's really getting to... Join her, right? Yeah. Right, just joins her in saying. Right. Okay, thank you. All right. So I have a few more.  In the first whereas, I wanted to add the word because right after whereas, otherwise it seems to be a weird fragment. Here? First whereas. First whereas, the very first whereas. Because the town of Amherst recognizes... Oh. The opportunity. Yeah. Or you could put an and between the humanity and we, but I think the because works better. I think you agree. Yeah, it's because it's excellent. So whereas, because the town in that whereas should probably be a capital T. It's the third line at the end. Yeah. I have taken to doing that. Community, country and world. In the fourth whereas, this, this is my ignorance of UMass buildings. Does nope stand for something? I didn't know I did. It does. Cause it just seems really weird in there. It does. I think physical education is the PE. I had wondered about keeping that in there too. I think we could just take it out. But that is the name of the building, but I think it's esoteric. Yes. I think it could be stricken. I agree. Okay. Two whereas is later. Yep. The one that begins Marilyn Patton's true legacy after administrators, directors put an and before the word leaders. Right. Good. Good. And then I didn't like the comma among others. So I put an and before Boston University and recommend deleting the among others plus the comma after BU. I mean, cause the including seems to imply. Right. Right. That's not only those. Right. Yeah. That sounds refined. Oh, I had one more comma. The whereas that begins in 1970. Yep. After universities walls. I think there should be a comma. Mm hmm. On the university's walls. Comma performing annually. Throughout the state of Massachusetts. Yes, I think that's a good one. Tehran, Iran and Patras, Greece. Okay. That's all I had. Okay. All right. I don't see any other hands. I just want to, I want to, is Pat, I don't see your pictures. Pat's still here. Yes. Yes, she is. I, in one of the articles, it made a big point that she'd studied under Eric Hawkins. And of course I did know that name. So I had included that because a lot of times artists include the names of their teachers. But Rick, the man who had presented this to us said, well, she also studied with a lot of other people. So it, I just thought I'd tell you that because you probably know the tradition of putting the teachers in where it's sometimes really important. That's why it's not there. Not a problem. Okay. Any other comments, suggestions, changes, commendations to this document? I'm not seeing any. So I'm going to make the motion that this citation in honor of Marilyn V. Patton be declared clear, consistent and actionable. So moved. All right. Pat has made the motion a second, please. Second. Andy seconds. Any further discussion? I don't see any. So I'm going to go immediately to a vote. And I'm going to start this time with Pat. Yes. And Lynn. Yes. And Mandy. Yes. And Andy. Yes. And the chair has a yes. So this citation is declared clear, consistent, actionable, unanimously five to zero. And it's going to the council on this week's agenda on the consent agenda. Okay. All right. Can I ask one question? I think I answered, asked this before, but I don't remember the answer. When we give one of these things, is there a paper copy? Yes. Yes. Okay. It goes on town letter head. There's a paper, I sign it electronically these days actually, and then we make sure a paper copy can be sent and printed in color and everything else. Great. Thank you. And usually like the sponsor gets the copy as well. So Dorothy, you'll get a copy. Oh, absolutely. Thank you. Athena is very thorough about that. Yeah, she's great. So Lynn, you're going to send this as well as the racism, anti-racism resolution as a meant to Athena. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Dorothy, thank you. We're going to proceed on to our next item on the agenda. And I will, I will say farewell. All right. And get back onto my office hours. Okay. Thank you. Bye bye. Yeah. So I put on this item number five, town council policy regarding the control and regulation of public ways. My understanding is a very small change. It was in the memo that Paul sent to us. And so it's in the packet. And my understanding is we just need to act on this quickly. There's something else coming later related to this, but it's not ready. And I believe it's going to go to TSO. So I felt that we should just vote on it. And then I believe the council will act on it at the next council meeting, I believe. It's my understanding. So if that's mistaken, we can we can hold it off. But it's a very small change. It's the underlined. It's the sections that are underlined. And I believe it's just in. Where does it show up? Twice. Yeah, shows up twice. Number four in four. And right there. Right. I don't have any thoughts on this whatsoever. It seems to be just a technical change that has to be made. Anyone have thoughts on this? Or are they ready to deal with this today? I'd like to get this out and send it to the council in case the council wishes to act on it. So that's why it's here. Mandy, Joe has her hand up. Yeah, Mandy, go ahead, please. Yeah, so I have a couple of questions. One was, I know TSO talked about this and probably made a recommendation. George, you're on TSO. So I'm hoping you can tell us whether they made any, whether they recommended any changes to what's presented to us so that we can deal with that if they did. And then I just wanted to say, I'm not sure it would surprise this committee. I drafted this and when I did, I tried to do what Andy asked, which was incorporate sort of that generic state of emergency language. So that even if we'd have to modify this if temporary zoning and bylaw goes by the wayside to just get rid of it, but otherwise it's any state of emergency that this could apply to. And then I wanted to note one thing that the document we're looking at on the computer doesn't note is there's actually a deleted portion in the little I section for A1. You know, the language that's being added, no, no, page down, right there. The language that's being added after the end of the pertinent state of emergency or the termination date is actually replacing a phrase quote, the phrase past the effective date. So, you know, we had originally passed this with Paul's authority not to extend 180 days past the date, the effective date of the zoning bylaw. And so we're deleting the phrase past the effective date and essentially moving it to the termination date of the zoning bylaw along with this state of emergency thing, which will allow us to not have to modify this again if we as a council extends the time period for the effectiveness of zoning bylaw article 14. Okay, now to answer your manager's question, TSO has not made any changes or recommendations on this. So it's thoughts about the changes and from the committee. I'm prepared to move forward. Okay. Yeah, I am too. I am, okay. I'll make a motion. Please. I move to recommend the town council revise section four of the policy regarding the control and regulation of the public ways as presented by the town manager in his updated November 18, 2020 memo. Okay, you might want to try to have, we can have the note take or repeat that back. It's a bit of a mouthful. Sorry for the mouthful, Emily. She may want you to repeat that. Do you expect me to remember it? Well, I'm not sure, but hopefully somebody remembered it. Maybe between the two of you, we can come up with an agreed motion statement because we are actually recommending this, that the council approve this language, right? Yes, because that's part of our charge. Right. So, okay. Emily, do you want to try and read that back? And then the two, with Mandy listening, she can make any changes necessary. So if you could start reading that back. Yeah. So what I have is moves to recommend the town council, approve the revised section four of the policy regarding the control and regulation of the public ways as presented by the town manager updated in the 20, I think it was, what was it? November 18, 2020, memo. That sounds good to me. Okay. All right. And is there a second? Yes. So Lynn seconds. No further discussion. I'm going to move a minute to a vote. This time I'm going to begin with the chair. The chair votes yes. Lynn. Yes. Mandy. Yes. Pat. Yes. Andy. Yes. Okay. So that vote is five zero. Okay. Okay. Okay. Council adopted language. Just change. Okay. All right. Next item on the agenda is the. Our continued discussion of the process. Timeline for. Town manager. And performance goals. And Lynn has given us a revised document. This is draft number four. And we want to go through it. And see if we have any. Changes further. Comments, et cetera. So. If we can get that up. As soon as I find it. I know, I know. I want to find the. Give us a break for a minute here. I'll be with you in a moment. It's all right. Catch our breath. It's four, right? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. So draft four is the, is the title. Now it actually says draft three on the document. So I'm hoping that's just the typo. That's correct. But the title is draft for. Timeline. Just make. Somebody confirm with me that this is the one you have. Looks like it to me. Yes. Yes, it is. Okay. All right. So. What I was trying to do was get. Things. All right. So. I'm going to. Arrange properly, but I still don't feel I've completely achieved is the shading. And then I also want to just raise one other question. That was raised to me by somebody on the outside. And that is, should the evaluation process. Include a time when we actually discuss. What constitutes a measure. And if we do that, it seems to me that we would need to. Ask GOL to meet with Paul. Sometime. You know, early on in, you know, January, February. To have that discussion. Okay. We also have. A very big block of time in here where it could be done, but we're already past those dates. So you want me to start and go through. By theme or how would you like to look at this? I would thank Lynn in terms of what. Areas where you still have concern. I mean, unless we hear from our colleagues areas that you still have. Concerns or questions of your own. You've already raised the issue of measures. And I think we're all sort of pondering this. Are there other places that you have. You concerns of your own, or you would just like feedback directly. I let, I put a question here and sit on the screen and that it. The review of the progress on the town manager's goals. Be in January. Note that the state of the town address is normally been in December. But, you know, for instance, Paul and I are both working on each item. We're working on the state of the town address is right now. It is not going to be at particularly geared toward the goals. It's going to be geared more towards what is this year been like. You know, some of the. A lot of which really gets a COVID. So my question is really, whether these two items should be moved to January. Remembering that. January every other year is when you see a new council. Right. I mean, if they're moved there every other year to begin with, which our notes at the bottom say, in some sense, it almost makes sense to just put them every year. That's that one. I don't know what other people think, but yeah, it makes it more consistent. Yeah. And then I guess I'll take the opportunity to respond to Lynn's question. If. If the council desires to set measurables instead of just. Here are your goals. But also, and here's what we're going to measure you on. Then it's probably better done earlier rather than later. In that. In a set giving Paul. The notice of here's how we're going to measure your progress on.  Telling him that in January isn't as helpful as telling him that in July. Right. It's I was, I was thinking more about this year, which we still haven't done. And, but should we in. You know, future years say in July. Or it's August to have a discussion of. You know, Why wouldn't this be part of the process of creating the goals themselves? Why would it be a separate. Why wouldn't it be the case that as the committee working with the council. To establish this goals for the coming year. Part of that discussion. Would be, you know, what would constitute measurables. And either incorporate them into the goals document. Or create another document. I don't know. But it seems a little odd to create the set of goals and then later come back and say, well, how are we going to measure these? It seems like it'd be something you'd be doing at the same time. And so far as they can be measured. And so. Why wouldn't this be part of the, the goal setting process itself. And either be expressed in the. The goal setting document. Right. George, it's interesting you say that because it was never part of the goal setting document in the past. But when we had the. Process a year ago, not this year, but the year before that. There was a lot of discussion about how could this be measured? And we really didn't do that this time. Right. I like George's suggestion of including it into the drafting of each year's goals. Should it be part of the goal statement or an attached document? I think you have to figure it out. Yeah. I mean, it could also create. Yeah. I feel like it's, it could be easily be separate. But it doesn't seem like that's the most important thing to figure out right this second. Right. So I guess the answer that we're coming to is that it would be part of the goal setting process. And in that process. It would be determined. Whether they would be incorporated into the goal document or whether it'd be a separate document. Right. Or at least the discussion would take place. Right. Maybe it never gets written down in black and white. I don't know. But in some sense, you would you'd want something in black and white because Paul's looking for, you know, what are the measurables here?  Yeah. And it isn't just Paul that's looking for black and white. I think we. I think it would be helpful to counselors and the public. If they were saying, if there were measures. And there still would be the ability to input something that was. Outside of those particular measures, I think. But I think it would be helpful. Okay. All right. Then the other question I have here in this, this is just to bring it back up one more time. And should staff and the public have the advantage of seeing Paul's self-evaluation. Before they are asked to submit their own evaluation. That feels weird to me. I mean, I feel like why should people be given his self-evaluation?  It sets up a odd dynamic. And with the public, I think there, I can't. It feels like there's something there too that makes me uncomfortable. I can't name it right this second. I agree with Pat. You know, if we want the public and the staffs and the committee members is true feelings. You almost think that that self-evaluation could. You know, color that. And so I'd rather get it without. I don't think it's appropriate. I don't think it's appropriate. I don't think it's appropriate. Them having necessarily seen the self-evaluation. I feel like the self-evaluation is geared towards us as counselors who have to do the evaluation evaluating, not other people who might also submit their own evaluations. Right. I would second that as well. I don't, I don't see the. The need or the advantage. Of having that available to people in advance. I don't think it's appropriate. I don't think it's appropriate. I just don't need to say it again. Okay. Then moving on to the color. Blue and bold indicate the process for the next fiscal year. So that's really right here. It's in the goal setting. Okay. Gold indicates. The process. Current fiscal year. Green indicates where council has to take action. So that leaves a couple of places where there's no color coding. For instance, town provides oral present. Town manager provides oral presentation regarding progress and current goals. If we're going with green as council action. Probably shouldn't be green. We actually say no vote. Yeah. Yeah. You know, and so it should be. Green involves. Maybe the wording isn't right. Maybe it's not council action, but council review or something. Yeah. Whatever. Council. I think you can leave it. I mean, it basically, the council has to do something, right? We have to do this. And maybe we don't take a formal vote. But basically it means that there's something we have to do. Yeah. Yeah. Council review or action. Right. Right. Council review or action. Sure. Council review or action. Okay. Okay. And I'll go back and. So I have one question. It was related to the May. Lines. Yeah. You know, I know I'm the one that talked last time about, I think it's the one that's been in the council for a month. Could the may C and D be moved to the third week. That gives the council two weeks after receipt of the self-evaluation and everything to submit their own evaluations. And it also pushes Paul's. Self-evaluation. Later into May. So that he's definitely doesn't have to work on it while he's working on it. So it's just the third week of May instead of first week. This one also then has to be moved. Also third week. So it all be third week. Yeah. And I think, you know, we should run this by Paul, but I'm guessing he'd be happier with not having to submit the budget and four days later. Or five days later, submit a self-evaluation. Right. Okay. I'm a little concerned about this town council reviews. Town manager presents. We don't have a color for this. Well, I don't think we need a color. Okay. I do think we need green in the July. E column. Nope. At the very first July E. At the very top. Road two. Cause that's voting the current contract. I just noticed that. So. I'm sorry. I flipped through this pretty fast. Yeah. So I had no other comments. I thought it looked good. So this document will guide. Obviously the council, but in particular. The president. And I assume the chair of GOL. Right. And also Paul. And we're going to get input from Paul on this. And I think it's important if I understand what we're doing that. That he be okay with this. If he has a problem with it and he wants to make some changes, we need to consider that and see if that, right? We want it to be something that we can all live with. Particularly the town manager and the council. We're going to run this by the council, eventually for their approval. I don't know if we resolve this. In other words, is this. Get approval. I think we agreed that it's. We want their input, but we're not going to have a vote. I mean, if people have a problem or concern with perfectly willing to entertain it, but we're not asking them to vote on this. I think that this is an internal process that. GOL is constructing to just facilitate. What is a challenging set of. Processes. So it doesn't need a vote, but it will be presented to the council for their review, I guess, or discussion. Or no. No, I think, I think it's good to let the council know. Cause it's changing when we're doing things, but I think this is a GOL timeline. It's a GOL process. We'll need to vote on it. The council is expecting to see it. Yes. No, that makes sense. I understand. But we're not. It's GOL that is, is creating this and presenting to them. If they have serious problems or concerns, they're welcome to weigh in and we'll certainly take it into under advisement, but we're not asking for their, their stamp of approval. We're not asking them to vote on it. Do we need to vote on it? I guess in a way, yes, I guess. We're not ready to do that today. I don't think, but. At some point we will. Vote on it until after the council sees it. So maybe a vote to. That it's ready for the council to see. Okay. For the. It's on the agenda for Monday. Oh geez. Monday's going to be a long meeting. So if you, yeah. Do you want to actually have it discussed yet? Or you just wanted to get, maybe you just want to get it out to people. And have them start looking at it and thinking about it, but actually discuss it at some future. I don't know what's, yeah. It's certainly one of the items I would either defer to the. Later. It's not what I see as pressing stuff. Right. But if you've got time, you'll do it. If you don't, you won't. Okay. And I think. Correct me if I'm wrong. All that would mean is a one quick memo. Transmission from. The chair of GOL. To all the members of the council. With this attached. I'm sorry. What, what is it that you're asking? Yeah. And then that, I mean, just throwing it in. The packet. Right. Whatever. And in the report, I could simply point out that it's there. And we are soliciting, and we could also make this, you know, I could make this during my oral report. It's there. And we very much want you to look at it. And if you have any concerns, questions, problems, you just send them to the chair because we will take them up. At our next meeting, but we're planning to move on this fairly quickly. But we want you to see it and we want you to get back to us. And then we'll do that orally, as well as in the report, but oral would probably most effective. But we're not going to discuss it. Hopefully Monday. It's just noted that it's there and please send comments to us. To me. And then I would forward them to the committee. Can I ask a question? Should we leave? I would delete those three. I agree. And I think George. These items right here. Yeah. Just include as part of the memo. Okay. Okay. All right. I'm saving this as. Draft five. And I'll put a date on it. Thank you. And send it to you. Okay. Okay. Are we done with that? I think we are. Okay. I'm. Going forward with this. Obviously we're going to wait and see what reaction we get a response from the council. What's our next step as a committee with this whole larger issue with this document, but also with. And maybe that's it. Now there's once the document is what we vote on. And say. Our next meeting. Or by early January. And then we just start following it. The things it tells us to do. The first step is the, that is coming up in January is. The town manager talks about his goals and. If the manager hasn't seen this. George or Lynn should send it to the manager. I sent an early on version. I sent it to the manager. I sent it to the manager. George, why don't you go ahead and send it to him and CC me with it. So that's. I don't necessarily want to adopt it till I know that he thinks he can. Absolutely. No, it's absolutely right. So. I would send him this CC Lynn. And tell him that, you know, it's also going to be given to the council, but please look it over and you can get back to us with his thoughts. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to ask them in the comments section. If you have any questions or comments that you could send us written comments. So here's my question. Shall we just take it off the agenda for Monday? I would. To the 21st. Well, it sounds like George thinks it can be handled just through reporting and. Comments directly to him. It's in the packet. I mean, you can put it. If it's in the packet, I could simply acknowledge that it's there and tell them why it's in the packet. And then I would bring it up in the oral report briefly, just to remind people. That works. Andy, do you have a problem with that? No, I just, just something. I just thought it. I just thought it. I just thought it. As soon as possible. And also sent it to Paul. Thank you. Incorporating it in your committee report. That's the plan. Yes. You mentioned in the committee report. Which would be in the packet. And this document would be in the packet. So it'd be referenced. Right. And then I would bring it up in the oral report briefly, just to remind people. I just thought it. Is an item that was appropriate with the chair's report from on behalf of the committee. Right. Right. So. I just want to mention one other thing. When we do adopt it. I'm looking towards. As a fellow chair of a committee towards when there's new councils, we should make sure it goes into the SharePoint under some sort of folder of committee processes or committee policies. So. I think that whoever becomes chair. Can find these types of documents easily. Okay. Have you talked specifically Mandy Joe with Athena about that as she organizes. Yeah. It just hit my mind today as I was thinking about this, like, we're going to follow it, but in a year. I have a meeting with her too. So let me just write myself. And then I'll go to the other committee. I'll mention because it fits right in. And that is the finance committee has not been using SharePoint because we have three members who don't have access to SharePoint. And we therefore put the packet on the web. Site as opposed. To the SharePoint. Yeah. You're muted, Pat. I was wondering just now for the first time. Why we don't have the packet on SharePoint. And available on the. Committee page. It's probably good to for these things to also show up on each committee page too. As, as they get adopted. So that people see the timelines and all it's just. And that's what I mean by SharePoint is the committee page. Yeah. Well, that's two very different locations. They're both, I think. Appropriate. See, every other committee has that there. They're in both places. Finances. The only one that doesn't because. Of the non-resident. I mean, the resident non-voting members. Yeah, we're trying to not do anything that makes them different. Sure. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. I guess it doesn't feel to me like that makes them different. It makes them unable to access SharePoint, but it would is easier for any other counselor. So I don't know. I will, I'm not, it's not a big. I can talk to a team about that. It's not super important, Andy. So do, do what you feel right about. Okay. So we have. We have some issues with the. Delt with item six. I believe. Item seven is the update on bylaws of future consideration. I. I've told Lynn and I've said to you that if you have any. Additions you want to make to that document, send them to me directly. And I will incorporate them. Does anyone have anything to report. On any actions they've taken. In the list of things that I feel the council needs to accomplish. By next December 31st is this set of bylaws. Okay. It's one of those things we really, it's our job. Right. So for GOL, we need to make sure this gets done. Okay. We're the next, the next cycle next. And I want to just keep in mind, we have. We're going to have a ton of zoning bylaws. At a minimum. Four general bylaws. Coming on. Related to sewer and water. And we're going to have a ton of zoning bylaws because Mandy chose going to be. And I'm out. Okay. And so we are going to be extremely busy. On the issue of. We're going to have a ton of zoning bylaws. We're going to have a ton of zoning bylaws. We're going to have a ton of zoning bylaws. As GOL. Well, GOL, though, for most of that. Is clear, consistent and actionable. Recommendations. Whereas this group, we might be the recommendations for. Right. It's going to be. We might have to start. Starting our meetings with this group of stuff. Yeah. Okay. That's. We're all avoiding it. We're all avoiding it. We're all avoiding it. We're all avoiding it. We're all avoiding it. Excitement. In the process of my actually going and finding my bylaws that I'm supposed to review. Okay. Which includes the peeping Tom one. Excuse me. That's not the right word. Which includes. Fearing and peaking, isn't it? Yeah, it is. I found that we already have a bylaw. About naming streets. We already have a naming bylaw. Yeah. There you go. There's all kinds of fun things to find in there. I think where we stand at basically is now everyone has in a sense of their homework. And this, I'm saying this to myself first of all. Right. So in the future. It's people telling me that they, or the coming back to the committee and say, I've done my homework and this is what I've got. And that can happen anytime. You know, you can do it anytime. You can do it anytime. You should give me head to heads up. You're going to do it, but you can do it anytime, including even during the meeting. But, and I hear Mandy's point that we need to start leading. With this soon. Even if it's first or second item. And the answer is nobody has any homework to hand in. It might be that the chair needs to tell so and so. It's your week. My question though is I've, I've handed in the homework, I've handed in the results of the homework in the committee and then pass that on again, whether we're doing it or some other person. Right. Right. Right. What's the next action step. Yeah. And it sounds like, man, you're right. So, um, I will mark that as a future item. For our next agenda. We'll see. We've got a couple of things coming, but I hear you. Um, draft calendar. I just, you know, pretty. Nothing we need to do about it. Um, we need to, um, People just look at it and they see any particular problems, but it pretty much follows at the moment. The schedule we've been following, but that's certainly open to change. Mandy. I had a couple of questions on it. Yep. March 31st and April 7th. I just questioned why we had two, two weeks in a row. When we could probably get rid of one of them, unless we are backed up, maybe that was the reason you were asking. So that was just a, we should probably just pick one of those to delete. Um, November 3rd. Here's my thing. Do we really want to have a meeting the day after the election? I'm just going to put that out there. Sure. Sure. That's why, yeah. And then. I mean, it's, it's not necessarily a problem, but it is the election we and school committee and all are up for. And then January 5th. So there's going to be a meeting. And then there's going to be a meeting. And then there's going to be a meeting. And then there's going to be a meeting. And then there are all sorts of things come in that the new council is going to be sworn in on the third. So I'm not sure January 5th, 2022 is an appropriate time to be meeting because I'm not sure there's going to be members of the committee at that point. If the council elects a new president. I mean, they're going to have to elect a new president and do their elections on the third. We know there's going to be change over. It's not going to be the same 13. It's not going to be the same. But it's going to be the same. I mean, it's going to be the same. Maybe, maybe the 12th, but the 19th, which would be after I assume the second council meeting of the month, which would give whoever's named president of the new council. Time to a survey. Counselors and figure out committees. Sure enough. So you suggest the ninth. I mean, obviously even the day of week and. if we're going to put a date out there, I wouldn't put January 5th out there. I wonder if we should just not even put a date in. I don't know.  I don't know. I'd take it out or just put a footnote at the end, you know. Because the last official meeting of the committee as a constitution would be December 15th. And after that, it's somebody else's problem. Might still be your problem, George. Different groups of people. So I would suggest. I'm sorry. Recommended. For the next council's consideration is a footnote or something. All right. So that gives them something to start with. Okay. The other piece is that if the council starts. Messing with committee structures. BOL actually has to take the reins up pretty fast. Okay. So I'll just put an asterisk next to it. And, you know, in the end, someone else will have to figure it out. The recommended for next meeting. Just acknowledging that it's. And I assume that at least for this meeting, I'm going to put an asterisk next to it. And you know, in the end, someone else will have to figure it out. Final respond to the board member. Okay. So I think it's pretty good. I understand that. We're acknowledging that it's, and I assume that, at least for this. Well, I mean, this body also needs to choose. We'll have to choose a. Upchair and vice-chair. But I'm just going to assumption that we'll continue to meet. On this day. And time. That could change. I understand. What were the other changes? We had, what was it March? November 3rd, I don't necessarily think it's truly a problem. You know, but election day is the day before. So, so there's a potential for depending on what we're considering to, given that we're governance that we might not have the right people available for a meeting, depending on what it is. We're all still seated at that point. Yeah, right. I'm just, just consider whether that is a good day or not, or whether pushing it a week might be better. Okay. I think we're going to leave it for the moment, but it can be as we, you know, we'll see where we stand. You had a, another issue earlier where there was. March 31 and April 7. Two in a row with March having three meetings. I know other week other months have three meetings because you really did just do one every other day. Every other week. But I don't see the need for two in a row unless you were thinking, we were so backed up, we'd need it. Okay. So. All right. Trying to follow the council schedule to George. I think that's what I'm trying to do. So let me. Yeah. And we ended up having to double up meetings. That's true. I didn't compare it to the council schedule. I assume that you. That's what I was trying to do. I just look. Yeah, I know. I think I'm going to leave it for the moment. We can obviously whoever is chair in the future of the committee can, can change this. But other than that. And then provisional date of January 2022. Any other comments or concerns? Cause I'm going to just leave these then. I'm going to leave them to you. I'm going to leave them to you. I'm going to leave them to you. I'm going to leave them to you. They can be changed at a future date. No problem. But this gives us at least some idea of what we're. The committee is committed to for the coming year. Should we be voting on it? So that Athena can post it on the committee webpage. And get. And get Emily and all set up for him. I didn't even need to vote. I mean, it's just. Yeah. I mean. The council schedule. So. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So basically it's just sets up a tentative schedule. Are people comfortable voting on it now? Or do they want to consider it? Doesn't that mean anytime we change it, we have to vote again. Well, we change it all. I mean, we make changes, you know. Right. We don't. This is basically just saying this is for the public. And, you know, obviously for instance, if we suddenly change the day of week or the time, then we would have to read through everything. So there's no super rush. But if things don't, you know, nothing radical changes. This is what we send to Athena and she posts it for the public. And we use it obviously internally, but you know, sometimes we have extra meetings. Right. We don't change the schedule. We just have an extra meeting. And occasionally we might drop a meeting. So it's really more for information's sake. I'm not perfectly willing to have a vote on it. And then I will send it to Athena and come January. Whatever it'll get posted or it can be posted whenever she wants to put it up there. I don't know what I mean. But I think it should get sent to Athena. Okay. All right. So I'm seeing consensus to send this to Athena. And move it from draft to the actual schedule. With the understanding that of course things can change, but good. We have two sets of minutes. We do not have the November 18 minutes. They're still in production. So you've had a long time now to look at these two sets of minutes. Anyone have any changes or problems with either set of minutes. All right. Total silence. There's no rush here. We can take the moment. I'm just looking at my version to see if I have any notes on it. Before I. Anything that I have is really just typographical kind of. You know, Scrivener things not substantive. Could send them to me and I could make those corrections if you wish. I can do that. I think it's easier to just do that and try and do it on the. Fine. Rather than do it in real time. I agree. Immediately after the meeting. That's fine. We want to just adopt them as amended. Right. Okay. Well, there's no substantive changes and it's just a Scrivener and typos then I think we're okay. I don't see or hear any substantive concerns about wording. They want changed or something deleted. There's some minor typos. We can do them now or and he's going to send his to me. I'm sorry. I can pull them up if you want me to. It's up to the committee. I've looked at them now a lot. And I have no changes to make. But yes, you can put them up if you like. But I don't see anybody who seems to have anything substantive to make changes on. So I just assume we move to a vote. To adopt both sets of minutes. For October 21 on November 4 as amended. Or as to be amended. Second. October 21 is the only one that I had two. Just send him to me and you know, make the change. We have a motion second. Anyone. I'll second. I heard a motion. Fine. Maybe just second. I don't care who says. Fine. So chair says yes. Pat. Yes. Andy. Yes. Then. Yes. Thank you. I have no items not anticipated. We do not have any public presence. So there will not be any public comment. I want to talk briefly about future agenda items. Our next meeting December 16. We plan to have interviews. And a vote on the thin cop. I don't think that would take up to assuming we can do it all in the morning session. I don't think that will take up two hours. But I'm not yet ready to put facial recognition on the agenda because I'm afraid that might take up more time than we have, but that's what else is out there. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think that's going to happen. The other thing would be out there is if TSO. Gets through with the larger issue. Of the public ways changes. Right. That could be. I think that we want to get back to, you know, for instance, the thing, Nandi Joe. Suggested which was to start looking at those bylaws. Good. They're enough. Okay. Yeah. I don't think that's going to happen. Surveillance coming up, but for not for a while. Okay. Well, you have facial recognition, which. They're separate. George. I understand. And my thought was that to hold that off until January. Yeah. That's what. Okay. Surveillance. CRC won't see it. CRC. GOL won't see it till the end of January at the early. Right. So at the moment we're looking at possible public ways. We're looking at obviously interviews. That's really going to take up a good bit of our time interviews and then vote. And. The bylaws. Right. And then minutes. Minutes. Yeah. All right. That's. I'll have. Thank you, sir. All right. So. Very efficient meeting. I'm exhausted. George. I'm out of here. All right. Take care, everyone. See you all soon. All right. Safe travels tomorrow, Mandy. Thank you. Take care. All right. Thank you. Paul is if you need road company. I got a book.