the meeting is being recorded. Yes. Thank you. Good morning. Seeing the presence of a quorum, I'm going to call the GLL committee together at 931 this morning. And I'll just read pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022. This meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. And no in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public adequately access the proceedings in real time by a technological means. And I'm checking for, just want to see who's here. Oh, Michelle's here. Yeah, great. No, I meant in terms of the public. Okay, just one. Okay. The animal standee, not a person, a thing. So I'm going to make sure everyone can hear and be heard. So I'll call the roll. Lynn Griezmer. Present. Michelle Miller. Present. And Pat, I just, I have to grab my charger. So I'm going to step away for a moment, but I'll be right back. Mandy Jo. Present. Jennifer. Present. And I am present, at least in spirit. So there is, there has been some confusion for me in terms of setting up the agenda and getting things in the packet. So I will be working on that and start getting that done in a little bit better fashion. What I'd like to start with, what the first announcement I want to make is that Lauren Goldberg will be joining us next, our next meeting on the 12th. And she can either be here at 930 or 1030. So I wanted to get a sense of what would be the best time. So do people have an opinion about that? And that is to look at the civility, the Supreme Judicial Court decision. Does anybody care whether we? I would go at 930. I'm sorry, what Lynn? I said I would go at 930. Okay. Unless people are saying they can't be here. Michelle stepped away. So let's, let's wait here till we hear from her. Well, except we have a quorum and we can continue and she'll be right back and nothing big is going to be happening. So I think I'd like to continue and we can move on to proclamations. And Bandy, do you want to start with the Children's Mental Health Proclamation? Yeah, the only thing that's different is there's another counselor sponsor. I sent the updated one to Athena and Pat. The only change was to add another name and make counsel and counselors plural. But Dorothy Pam is sponsoring it with me. Yeah. And did anyone else find anything in it? So do I have to move individually on these proclamations or should I just, can I put them in the lump and say, and then move that we're recommending them? What if we do as clear, consistent and actionable? It's less words if you do it separately. Oh, okay. My preference would be separate. So, Mandy, you want to make a motion on the proclamation? Sure. I moved to declare the 2023 Children's Mental Health Awareness Day and Week Proclamation clear, consistent and actionable. Second. Okay. Okay. Let's move on to the... No, we have to vote. We have to vote. Who was the second? Jennifer. It was either Jennifer or Lynn. Take your point. Okay. I told you I didn't want to chair. Anyway, this is... So we'll do the voting. Lynn Griezmer? Yes. Mandy Johanicki? Aye. Jennifer Taube? Yes. And I'm an aye. I'm also an aye. I'm here. Oh, great. Thank you, Michelle. I'm glad you're here. Let's move on to the Asian Pacific Islander proclamation. And I believe that's still you, Mandy. Is that accurate? Yep. I don't have much to say about it right now, but I did check with Jennifer about the timing of the, or the date of the event. So that is in there and is up to date the last time I heard from her. Then I'd like to declare the, unless there is any other comment, I'm going to declare the Asian Pacific Islander Heritage Month proclamation clear, consistent and actionable. Was there a second? Second. Okay. Taube. Okay. And we'll begin the vote with Mandy Joh. Aye. Jennifer? Aye. Michelle? Aye. Lynn Griezmer? Aye. And I'm an aye. And now let's go to the universal free lunch, which I think is a wonderful proclamation. It's actually a resolution. I don't know. I'm sorry. And one of the things, there's a few spacing issues on, oh, no, it's been fixed. Yay. Yeah. Is there any question? I'm sorry. Go ahead, Jennifer, please. Do we want a resident sponsor? Or how would we? We don't have to have one. And, you know, and we don't right now. So let's let it go. So then we would take that out. We wouldn't leave that blank. Exactly. Okay. Yeah. Resolution proclamation, whatever, does not require a resident sponsor, but it does require a council sponsor. Were there any, no, this resolution. So are there any Lynn? Lynn, your format question. Should there be a comment after Pam Dorothy Pam's name in the council's? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else?  I'm sorry. No, it's okay. Mandy Jo. Just a couple of basic things. I think we normally put hands after all of the whereas is except the last whereas clause. Yes. It's just a typical convention. And then there were two whereas clauses that also I thought should have commas. The third from the bottom, the whereas students who participate in school meals, a comma after vegetables. The third from the first page on the bottom, sorry. Yep. The first, the end of the first line of that third from the bottom, the whereas students. Yes. And then the last whereas on that page. I'm sorry. What was the change in this one? The comma after vegetables. It's just another Oxford comma. Thank you. And the same Oxford comma in the last whereas on that page that has the states, California, Colorado, and Maine, the comma after Colorado. Yeah. Anything else? Okay. One of the things I want to say to the sponsors is this should have been in a slightly better shape. You, the spacing, et cetera should have been done before it came to us, but the changes are minor. So thank you. I would like to declare that the universal free lunch resolution is clear, consistent, and actionable. Is there a second? Second. Then Greece Mercer second and we'll vote. Michelle. Hi. Jennifer, Todd. Hi. Lynn, Greece Mercer. Hi. Mandy, Joe. Hi. And Pat DeAngelo says, and I thank you. I think that's everything on resolutions and proclamations if I'm correct. Yes. Okay. Okay. And on the agenda, we have just just a quick discussion of the council retreat, how that was for people and any impact you see for GOL. So if there are any comments or things that people would like to share, Jennifer, I think one comment for GOL, I don't know if it was formally referred was to address the abstentions. Right. Yeah. Anybody else want to comment? Michelle. I really enjoyed it. And just once again, thanks to Athena and Pamela and everyone. It was really awesome. And I learned a lot. I did want to ask you, Lynn, if you see any benefit in GOL looking at that list that you put together and doing anything with it to sort of get it into a condition where we might have a time to look at it in terms of the priority list, it may not need. I mean, the criteria and then the priorities. Yeah. Like we had the criteria and it was sort of coming from different places. And then you put together a really great priority list that came from all of the chairs of our committees. And so is there anything that we need to do to kind of get that into a shape where we could then work with the council to make, you know, it may not be, but I just, that's the only thing on my mind. Joe has her hand up. Let's hear from her first. Yeah. I hesitate calling that list that was collected from chairs a priority list because it really just reflects anything that was referred to the chairs, which I think is different than the council having adopted actual legislative priorities. So that was my only comment. So even further, let me just say that list includes everything that I could identify before the meeting that still needs to get done in this term. So it's some of them aren't even referrals. They're just like, we have to do this. Okay. So that's one list. But before we even get to that list, what might be useful for this group to do before we take this back to the council would be to wrestle with the criteria. And I think at this point, Athena, I need to get all of the stuff you have and all the stuff I have and see if I can put it into some reasonable shape. So if this committee could wrestle with the criteria, then bring the criteria for a discussion at the council and then also take the list of the very long list, if I will, and only highlight those areas that would be considered priorities. And in other words, if it's something we have to do, like for example, hold a forum on the master plan, that's a requirement of the charter. We don't need to discuss that. Okay. Just to highlight the ones that are in fact the areas that have been referred to committees or we see it coming down the road. So why don't I try to do that? I'd like to say I can do that before the next GOL meeting. Sure, I can. I'm happy to help with that, Lynn. If I could be helpful to you or Pat and just to get that together, I'm happy to do that. That'd be great. Thank you, Michelle. Okay. Anything else on any of this? I just want to also say I really just appreciate everything that Athena and Pamela did for the retreat. We always get caught between what can we do to make sure we just better understand each other versus getting things done. And so I think some of that tension was there in this retreat. But I think the discussion we had on Saturday about rules was beneficial to an awful lot of the counselors, if not all. And I agree with Jennifer, the one thing that I think comes back to that committee is that issue of how to, where we can, where we differ from something else. We look at the issue of what a abstention, how do abstentions get counted? Okay. And then the other thing is that I just want to tell you, I was not happy about Monday night's meeting because of the last hour, 45 minutes or whatever it was. And from everything I have been able to gather, we were not out of order to have a motion. And I think that, if anything, we learned that. And it was almost like having an extension of the rules and practicing some of it. But I don't want to see it happen again. And we'll have to figure out how to be less prone to that kind of error. Mandy? If that's the conclusion of the council, then I would request we look at, as part of the rules, the split that we have between what is called presentation and discussion and action. Because the way I look at that, and I've said this multiple times, not just last night, but in multiple meetings, when I see presentation discussion, I automatically believe basically there are no motions. We're here to discuss. We're not looking at things on a table. We're not going to make decisions. And so then when motions come up, not only am I surprised, I'm not prepared, in some sense, to make a motion. And so if the council believes that motions under those types of items are not out of order, and that's a council decision. In some sense, I don't care. I'd rather almost remove that as an option on the agenda so that everything falls under, quote, action items so that every time someone looks in an agenda, they assume no matter what we're talking about, there might be a motion that could be substantive or not. So just another rules discussion on what our agendas look like. I would just request. I would also agree with that. I think it would help clarify what happened Monday night. I think we're going to be going into rules and discussion, some today. So do people want to start there, or in a more open discussion about presentation action, discussion, and what the rules are, or should we go back to we were going to bring up liaisons, and we have quite a bit of going back to look at in terms of public comment, etc. Jennifer. Yeah, so I guess also in terms of rules and action, but maybe, you know, Robert's rules or whatever can't be that flexible. So the action the other night was to ask that a committee consider something, which does seem substantively different than if we were voting on a zoning or I mean, even if it was related to the conversation, we weren't voting on an appropriation or something substance, it was just a referral in a subject matter that was what we were discussing. So I don't know, maybe the rules can't distinguish between a substantive motion versus the kind of motion we were discussing, but I guess that will be part of our conversation. And I don't, I'm trying to think, Pat, I think you were at GOL, I mean, at Finance yesterday, Michelle, you were too. Things got even murkier. I was on it, yeah, I zoomed in. Jennifer, yeah, okay, and we're in the process of consulting with legal counsel because Paul issues financial orders. And what we are trying to find out is can a financial order be amended? Or does he have to issue a new financial order? And if he has to issue a new financial order, that basically stands, Athena has her hand up because so maybe we've gotten some legal opinion back.  Jennifer, did you want to get in before me? Yeah, I just wanted to ask, so if, and again, Athena may have new information, but what I was understanding yesterday that if we can't make any changes at Monday's meeting, then there wouldn't even have been an opportunity then for someone to make a motion. So why don't we hear from Athena and then we'll talk about this because it really, this all started to unfold in about two hours before finance yesterday. It was pretty messy. So the general laws don't allow the council to increase an appropriation when they're considering it, and I can send you the chapter in section. We're expecting a memo from Lauren explaining all of that. And so we just met with her this morning, so I'm trying to digest that advice and pass it on to you at the same moment. But essentially what it means is that the council would act on the appropriation and borrowing order as it is because it can't vote to increase it itself, but that it can request an additional appropriation from the capital stabilization fund separately. And I think we're going to try and get some language in addition to the motion or the memo from Lauren for the council to consider on Monday if it wants to do that all in one evening. But it would be because those appropriation orders originate with the town manager and then the council acts on them. The council can't propose its own appropriation to itself. The additional funds from capital stabilization would need to come as a request from the council to the town manager to spend from the stabilization fund on that project. And then the council, the town manager would propose a new request, a new appropriation of the council. And then that process would begin again. We'd need to post it on the bulletin board. It would be automatically referred to finance committee. They would need to make a recommendation. We'd hold a public forum and so on. And that could happen in the future too outside of the meeting on Monday if there were additional funds that the town wanted to use for the debt exclusion to lower the amount that could happen in the future. If it was from a, if it was an appropriation outside the budget, then it would take the same process. The town manager would make an appropriation request to the council and it would act on it separately from the original appropriation. So at this point, the advice we're getting from our legal counsel is that the council cannot increase the appropriation by itself. Thank you, Athena. Jennifer and then Lynn and then Michelle. I guess I'm just going to say that's why I, which we did, you know, I, it didn't make sense to me that all this could wait until Monday for the motion to be made because that seemed, it just didn't seem to make sense timing that we could then change what was before us on Monday to vote on.  I mean, I'm, I am pleased that we got to refer the motion on Monday because it seemed like this past Monday, because it seemed like to do it all on Monday, was not, it didn't seem to make sense to do it then and now it turns out legally we can't do it. So that's just my thinking off the top of my head. I'm just pleased that we were able, the motion was able to be made and go to finance committee for finance committee to discuss yesterday, even if the discussion didn't go my way, the process played out. Lynn and then Michelle. And so this is a question back to Athena. If a motion is made to appropriate additional money or to ask the town manager to prepare financial order to appropriate additional money from any account, I don't care whether it's this or, you know, you know, Montefel from heaven and we got a huge amount of money. Okay. What is the vote quantum required for to make the motion to request that the town manager put together a financial order and also then if it comes back to the council, because he did do it, what is the vote quantum to pass that? So a request to the town manager, I would consider a non measure. So it would be a majority present and voting. And that would be the request to the town manager to present the council with an appropriation order for such and such. And then the appropriation order itself depends on borrowing is always a two thirds vote of the council. So we need nine votes to borrow money. If it was from the stabilization fund, then that's a two thirds vote or nine. I have to look again. If it was an appropriation from a different account, then there were there might be different voting requirements, but it would all be in accordance with state law. So it depends. The answer is it depends. Thank you, Athena. Michelle, I'm going to be very careful not to talk specifically. I'm going to try at least. But just so the question I have, and maybe it can't be answered in this context is does the current appropriation order in this case include the five K and there were the five million that was recommended by the finance committee. And just that's a process question because that was refer that was recommended out of finance. So that's the question. And then wondering about that process. Yeah, this has gotten a muddy in various ways. So finance committee made that recommendation before the town manager had submitted his appropriation request to the council and the town manager took that recommendation as advisement and he included it on his original appropriation order. So that five million is in the original appropriation request. Now that we have an original appropriation request, the council can't increase it and a recommendation from the finance committee or anything like that. Now that the appropriation request has been made, it couldn't be a recommendation to for the council to increase it. So I hope that clears it up. But but it really depends on what the town manager, because those appropriations originate with the town manager, that's where an increase would need to come. And at this point, because the process has begun, and the, for various reasons that Lauren will get into detail in her memo for the council on Monday. The advice we're hearing is that we need to move forward on this appropriation request. And then like I said, any additional funding spending from the capital stabilization fund come as a request from the town council to the town manager. Can I just follow up? Thank you, Athena. That's super helpful. Lynn, do you do you believe that there, if the council's will is to increase it more, do you believe there's enough time to do that before the May 2nd vote of the time? Point of order. I don't see this as related to GOL at all. Yeah, I'm concerned. Us. I agree. I caution us about whether this is even on an agenda, whether it's even within our purview. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Thank you. And yes, I agree. We'll have a memo. We'll have a memo for the entire council, hopefully soon. And we'll be able to answer questions after that. Thank you, Athena.  So I think you want to speak? No. Okay. All right, since we're moving off that topic for the reason, I'd like us to, we have the, that's coming up. I don't think we have any, I'm not completely sure where to go right now. I did, I have been looking at the bylaws that have been referred and what we're carrying forward. There is the snow and ice has been brought back onto the agenda, but the, the, what was included in the packet was Alan Snow's final, finally we got some information from the tree warden about what he thought should be in the bylaw. And I was wondering if I could have a volunteer to work with me and we can compile that together, those changes and bring that to the next meeting so we could get it done. Jennifer, that'd be great. And I'll contact you and we'll set up a meeting time. I don't think it'll be complicated. Yeah, that's fine. I'm nice chair. I should help. I mean, I want to help you, but I should help you. I'm looking forward to working with you. So that's fine. So Athena has her hand up. Yes she does. Thank you, Mandy. It sounds like you're making a subcommittee. All right, well I am, I'm making a subcommittee. And do I have to make a, to move to make that or? So if you're, if you're making a subcommittee, we need to post those meetings. We need to take minutes. They need to comply with the open meeting law. Even if it's two, because we're a minority. That's because the committee is informally designated to members to do work on the committee's behalf. So we'll be zooming publicly when we talk. Well, that's fine, but I just feel like all this stuff about how much work is that for you, Athena? We don't have more posting it and all that. So one of you can do work on the committee's behalf and check in with other members independently. Okay. And then present what you have prepared to the next committee meeting. But if you decide to work as a team on something that's within the committee. I will work alone, but I will be contacting, I'm asking each member to look at the bylaws that have been referred and send me and only me do not reply all the information you would like to share. And I will gather that together. And then we just need to make sure if you prepare a new draft of that document before the next meeting, we just need to make sure we post it on the web before we post it for the committee. Yes. Yes. Could Pat say in her memo not to reply all ask us, some of us to do some work and get it back to her not replying all? That's all right. We'll figure it out. Okay. Okay. Well, particularly that takes care of the Snow and Ice 3.40. But we also need to be looking over the list of bylaws. And I started doing that this morning. So I would like every member of the committee to go through those and see what you feel like we can just let go of. And again, send that information to me and I'll pull the information together, Michelle. I just wanted to make sure that everyone saw Tracy Zaffian's email on the Snow and Ice bylaw and the memo that she put together. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. She does excellent work. Jennifer? Yeah, I was actually just going to say the same thing. So she also raised some so we can weigh in like she asked like what is administrative and legislative because she had a lot of suggestions about who's responsible and how so can we how does that because that seems to be now what the major issue is, is how do we enforce this? Right. And can we say we think like DPW and the police should work together? It should be at one or the other? Or do we meet with Paul? Or how does that, because that's not really our jurisdiction. Right. Well, Paul has already said that he would like it to remain in the police department because that's how it's and therefore they use the traffic wardens also to help with that. But Mandy, Joe, give your hand up. Our jurisdiction since this is a bylaw is to declare who can write the tickets. And that's what Paul was weighing in on. We've eliminated criminal fines or penalties. I don't know how it's defined. We eliminated that completely in the draft and under the civil we said who enforces that. And so our jurisdiction is actually to determine who as a legislature, we believe should enforce the bylaw. You can pick one, you can pick four. You know, there's been I think KP law has sometimes said the more you pick the sketchier it gets on who actually has like like who's going to take main enforcement. Right. And I think that was the point of Paul's. But we do get to decide as a legislature who we assign the enforcement to. Okay. So that's the enforcement. But so if somebody calls with a complaint about sidewalks to the police, do the police communicate that the sidewalks need to be cleared to DPW? Yeah, how does it work? I mean, it seems to me that the that what I understand, and I don't know how accurate this is because things get very fluid in this town, is that if you contact the police and they go and speak to the people and if it can't be done, that they give them some time to do it. And if it is not done, then they can be ticketed fine. So does anybody have anything better than that to add? I think the concern that was being expressed, though, is somebody may receive a ticket for not clearing it. But if it's still not cleared, how does the clearing happen? Yeah, I don't know. And but, well, it seems to me, oh, God, I don't know, where do you place responsibility for? Yeah, I don't know. Any thoughts on that besides my lack of them? Athena, were you going to say something? Um, right now, it's the homeowner's responsibility to clear their sidewalks outside their house. So in the past, what we've heard from the police department is that, you know, they, if there's a complaint, then they would go and do a kind of a friendly, friendly knock first. And if there's some issue that the homeowners having that's preventing them from doing that, then they could help address it. But it wouldn't be go and give them a ticket to bed. And if it was a town, town owned sidewalk, then that would be a DPW. The other thing that I'm sorry, sorry, Athena, were you finished? The other thing is Cress has been out. And so I have, I believe there's been communication from the police department to Cress about helping homeowners who for whatever reason can't clear. And I'll do a double check with Earl about that. But I believe that's been some of their responsibility. Anything else on this? Is there any attendees right now besides the Indy? I need a Sarah. I'm one of the things that we are not going to get to minutes today. They were the wrong minutes were pulled and put into the packet. So we'll be voting. We're not going to be doing minutes. So what I guess I'd like to us to do is to go over the, we go back to the rules of procedure. And I, Michelle. Sorry to interrupt you, Pat. Are we so on the flag policy is on our agenda. And I, I didn't see it in the packets, but I'm wondering, is that something that we're going to be doing today? Or are we putting that? Well, it is on the agenda. And because it wasn't in the packet directly, we did, we did receive it. I'm not sure. Can we go forward with it without it? Do you have a copy to pull up? It's a beautiful policy. It's well written. And I was reading through San Jose's and it's very clear. But we can go to that. I'm pretty flexible with this agenda, I think. Oh, let me pull up the word version. Sorry. Yeah, you can go ahead and talk about it, even though it wasn't in the packet. It's been in a council packet before. So Yeah, it was referred to us. So Michelle, would you like to start that now? I mean, it's really up to you. I just, I know that we've been trying to work our way through the rules. And I don't know if we have a timeline in which we have to have those, that rule review completed by. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm interrupted. There's no deadline on that. And if I share my personal preference, I really would like to wait for that. I think we have some repair to go back to in terms of public comment. But I really would like us to wait on that particularly after the civility because we are going to have to spend time on that next, at the next meeting. And I would, what I would request is that people again go through the rules as they've been updated so far and see the places we were, that you still need to focus on. I'm in terms of liaison. I, yeah, so we can stop there. And let's move to the flag policy. Are there any questions about the policy? It was interesting for me to read about governmental versus individual freedom of speech and stuff. So we'll start with that. It looks like Mandy. Yeah, the only question, you know, that I had necessarily was in section three item two that talked about the town council shall consider the display only if a request is made by a member of the town council. General requests shall not be actionable. Our current practice is that at least for those two flag polls that we require that any flag raising on those flag polls basically be done through a proclamation or a resolution that specifically says a flag will be hoisted. And those proclamations or resolutions can come from a counselor or under our charter, you know, people can request action of the council by various things. And so maybe some clarity as to are we removing the ability of someone from the public through an initiative or petition with 50 signatures to make a request for a flag raising number one that then the council would have to act on? And do we want to in this policy indicate what the request from a member of the council needs to look like? You know, I had thought about adding words like in the form of a resolution proclamation commemoration or citation, you know, so that it's clear how you do it because otherwise is it just a random motion at the council that says I move to raise X flag on this date? You know, like how it might be nice to specify sort of the form of that request. Mandy, you don't think section one covers what you're saying about commemorative flags, etc. That they're connected to the displayed in conjunction with official ceremony positions, such as a formal vote proclamation resolution of the town council. Where do you see that? In section three, number one, just about what you're looking at. But a commemorative or flag, that's just what a flag refers to. Governments recognized flags of the UN, flags of sister cities, flags of sports teams and flags displayed in conjunction with official ceremony positions. Yeah, but so how would we, if someone wanted to display the Pat's flag, could I just make a motion at a council meeting under business not anticipated? I moved to display the Pat's flag on July 2. You know, take a random date, right? Like as a sample motion. Or does that motion need to be in the form of a proclamation resolution too?  That's a select board policy that the council's never re-adopted, right? So. Except because we went from select board to council doesn't negate a decision made by the. No, I understand that. The MIA flag isn't as far as I know not listed covered in section one. I'm not sure. It is in several of the other policies. So that's. Yeah. So I guess I'm just asking for clarification on number two. How do you make the request to flag, to fly a flag of Canada or Japan? I just think two might be more clear if it's by a member of the town council through or in the form of X, Y or Z. Yeah. Yeah. And that might protect against someone saying, well, I should just be able to say I want the Pat's flag up. And that's Pat DeAngelis' flag, not the Patriots. Michelle and Lynn and then Michelle. Thank you. I want to support what Mandy Joe is requesting and I hope that it would also then just say consistent with the charter somehow because the one question that I remember coming up during public comment was, can a member of the public make a request? And I think we want to be clear that they can, but there's a process. I also, the reason I want to see a little more here about the process is so there's no question and that there are not just all of a sudden surprise motions at meetings, which is part of what I think doesn't work for our council. I have a comment on that, but I'll wait, Michelle. Yeah. Lynn, could you expand or someone who knows expand on what is the public's process? Is it the same like where they would get with a counselor and be a community sponsor or what is the process if a request wanted to come from a member of the public? My understanding, and I'm looking to other people, is that they would either come to a counselor and that often starts a proclamation which often leads to a flag being raised and then the other there is a whole section of the charter about citizen petitions. Yeah. Okay. So one of those two ways. And Mandy, do you envision if we were to have the form be a resolution or proclamation coming from a counselor? Does it, it's a lot of work to put together a proclamation or a resolution. So are you imagining something that would need to just be simple just to sort of mark that or is it just in the way that we might think about it as counselors? Mandy? Oh, may I, may I share my screen too? That would be great. Oh, Athena, you're gonna have to unshare.  Doing the same thing. So this is what's on our webpage as GOL, an FAQ on resolutions, resolutions, proclamation citations, and it declares how you can get a proclamation before the council. And the easiest way is to get a council to sponsor it, a counselor to sponsor it, or you do a group petition under the charter, or you do a resident petition under the charter.  And so that's why I think requiring for a flag raising a resolution, proclamation, citation or commemoration is the right way to go. Because we've already got procedures for that. But also to your question, Michelle, if, if raising a flag is deemed under this policy, if we are saying this is the council's speech, I actually believe we should have some support for why we are raising the flag. So even if it's just I'm going to keep with the Pat's flag, even if that proclamation says, whereas the Pat's won the Super Bowl on x-date with a, you know, whatever, now therefore we raise the Pat's flag on x-date. Even if it's as simple as like two things to declare why we're doing that, I think is vitally important. But that's my position. Lynn, and then I have a question. I'm just going to support what Mandy Joseph is saying. I think we need a little more understanding, even if it's a half-page resolution of why we're, why we as a council should approve flying that flag. Yeah, and I agree with that as well. I have a question. If the charter says that 50 residents can come together and sign a petition to have some flag flown or whatever their request is, what happens if 50 people come together and they want a flag, they want a flag that I particularly find offensive for some reason as a lesbian woman and it's anti-lesbian? How do I deal with that? How does the council deal with that if 50 citizens, and this is a question that's not, so it's the first time I thought about 50 people coming together could counter man the whole purpose of the flag policy, perhaps. Mandy and then Jennifer. So I was wrong with the 50, it's 150, but that group petition that allows 100, it's still a number that's easily gotten for someone who's dedicated, right? Right. That group petition requires action, but not passage, right? We just have to act. So it would be up to the council to say no, right? And that's the whole point of it being council speech, right? The whole purpose of this flag policy I say, I see is the choice of its council speech or its government speech is to say, you know, you have to get the council, the elected body to agree to the speech. And so if it was something as offensive as that, I would hope that that petition or that resolution, it would not receive seven votes, right? So we still have the protection of government speech by making the decision by voting in the by voting now. Yeah, thank you, Jennifer. We're supporting it, right? Because I think when the public comment was actually for a member of the public to be able to ask and not have to go through the council, and I think we discussed there that no, we would still need a council vote for just that reason. Are we ready to go back in and look at some of the language of the flag policy? And Mandy, you want to make a suggestion on an amendment for it? Or are you not? Are you ready to do that for that particular section or yeah, section two under section three? I mean, my amendment would be by a member of the town council comma in the form. What did I say for mine in the form of a resolution, proclamation, commemoration or citation? What that doesn't take care of is the question about our practice in who can propose resolutions, proclamations, right? Right now, any councillor that sponsors one, it goes in front of the council for a vote. But then there's also the charter stuff that Lynn had talked about, you know, by a member of the council, you could say, or in the form of or in accordance with the charter or something. You could potentially add that somewhere in. Yeah. Something like that. Because I'm not sure we could, I don't know whether we can restrict the charter right to group petition to not be able to group petition a specific item. That would be an answer for a question for KP law. Can we say this group petition right under the charter does not include resolutions? I don't be hesitant to even say that, but I don't know why we're legally allowed to. Yeah, I don't support that. I feel like people need to be able to just, you know, the whole COVID thing came from a non resident of Amherst who brought it to the town and it was a it was a very important proclamation and decision. Lynn, you're muted, Lynn. Yeah, no, a couple things. As I look at Mandy's changes may be made by the member of a town council or in accordance with the charter by members of the public. And I would just say by charter section, whatever, by members of the public in the form of a resolution proclamation and then you've got the word resolution. I think you want something else there. You got resolution twice. It would be resolution proclamation commemoration or citation. And the group petition is charter section 8.2 B, which is the which is the petition that requires council action, a resident petition under 8.2 a doesn't require council action. So I think we could reference or in accordance with charter section 8.2 B. And then I delete the by a member of the public. Yeah, just in or in accordance with charter section 8.2 B. Yeah. And then the other thing I would suggest rather than vote on this today, that we ask the chair to work with Athena to forward this to Lauren who's going to be with us next time anyway, and that we also invite Pamela who actually authored this for Paul, because I think she was expecting to be here for the discussion. Got it. Anything else in this? Just one thing, Pat. I don't have language, it's just I'm bringing up what Andy brought up at the council meeting. He talked about section three one, what the definition of commemorative flag is, and to ensure that we are okay with that definition. I think he mentioned potentially that the Tibetan flag that is currently flying on the flagpole per our current flag policy and adoption of a proclamation or a resolution. I'm not sure whether that's a resolution might not fall under this definition. And so he asked GOL to take a close look at that definition to see if it's what we want to see if it's what we want. I'm curious about when it says flags of the United Nations. Does that include any nation's flag that is a member of the United Nations and then what is Tibet still a member of the United Nations, the exile government of Tibet, our nation of Tibet? Michelle? It's not really about any changes just to say that it's interesting if we read the background in the memo that, and as I'm understanding it now, and maybe I'm behind the ball on this, but just that, you know, without a policy how much liability, and in this case in the city of Boston, they were held liable. And it just is a sort of deeper thinking for me about how the council might decide on, particularly if a person from the public or people from the public were to bring forward something. And yeah, that's it. Yeah, it costs a lot. Lynn? That's a good question. And I think one for the next time we talk about this, which would be at the next GOL meeting, because I think we could get ourselves in some pretty deep water over certain issues. The other thing is I could foresee that there are some flags of the United Nations. If they were individual country flags, I could see a couple of them being very controversial and immersed. So I question that piece of it. But you know, that's all part of democracy. We don't have a democracy in this country, but let's not go there. A commemorative flag refers to flags of governments recognized by the United States, flags of the United Nations, flags of sister cities, flags of local love, and flags displayed in conjunction with official ceremonial positions. So I'm, I guess I'm less so. Let me just point out, we recognize Russia as a nation. And yet, right now, given the Ukrainian war, I think if we flew the flag of Russia, we'd have a protest on our hands. But there'd have to be a resolution proclamation or something that went along with that flag. So it wouldn't, and that would have to pass the council. So I don't see that as problematic because, well, I don't know what the resolution might be, but you know, if it were, again, the council would vote and that would determine the speech. It's not that this allows in any way that I can see anything to go up on our flag poles. That's exactly what it's trying to counter. Does that make sense, Lynn? Yeah, I hear that. Just trying to think of every angle. No, I know, and I appreciate that. Jennifer. Yeah, I was going to say what you just said, Pat, in terms of like, you know, flags, but you, Pat raised a good point, is if a government is a government in exile, yeah, would that, I mean, I guess I was initially reading this as this was like among the flags, but if it's literally saying it's restricted to that, like I don't know if the flag of the Tibetan government that we is, yeah, so that would be my question. Somebody needs to consult Jim McGovern's legislation on this. Okay, I can do that. If I could, I guess part of the conversation is it wouldn't the Tibetan flag or some other flags that I can think of would not fall under flags of governments recognized by the United States. It does not appear to fall under flags of the United Nations. I just looked up the member states, assuming that it's would be found under T, and I'm not totally sure it would be. There's a lot of them, so it's hard to scan quickly, but would it fall under five? And I think that becomes the question. Does five basically give the council the leeway to declare anything an official ceremonial position, whether or not it's specifically excluded under one or two because it's a government in exile, or if it would fall under one or two because, but it doesn't because it is say a government in exile, or you know, things like that, can you still put it under five? And I guess that's the question. What does five include? How expansive is number five? And that feels a little like a Lauren question as well. And I guess, similarly, sorry, when you look at numbers one, two, three, and four, right, and you read that in conjunction with what we just did with two or before it was done with two, before the recommended changes, we just put into two, the in accordance with the resolution or whatever. Because number five in section one of what a commemorative flag is, sort of references that you need the commemoration or proclamation was the intention then of items one, two, three, and four to not need anything specific is a new question that just hit my head. Such that if we wanted to fly the Kanagasaki flag, our sister city, was the intention of writing one and two the way they were before we amended number two, an intent to say if a counselor requests the flying of the Kanagasaki flag, you don't need anything other than a vote. You don't need a ceremonial position because it is already declared a sister city, such that now if we want to fly the Kanagasaki flag, with the changes I proposed, would we now need a resolution or proclamation? So I guess that's a question into the mind of Pamela and KP Law. Were they trying to basically say if you were a commemorative flag under items one, two, three, or four, you shouldn't need a resolution or proclamation only if you're under number five. Should you read that need that resolution similar, I guess, to what then Michelle was asking earlier? So Pat, yeah, go ahead. I'm going to parse out what Mandy's saying. Yeah, and I think Mandy Joe has an excellent question, but this is where the council, as long as we are within the law, if we say you have to have a resolution, then you have to have a resolution. And to me, again, if somebody just comes and says, gee, you know, I'd like to fly the Pat flag, I want to know why and I want us to be able to say to the public here is why. I mean, this is our flagpole and it's the public's flagpole and I don't think we should just be casual about that. But I also want to make sure that we're within the law. So does that go, how does that reflect on the simple version of a resolution that you posed before, which I thought was a good idea, you know, that there's a sort of a standard thing that gets voted on in council? It gives some reason. Why are we doing this now? Is it because, you know, this is the anniversary of the founding or the anniversary in the case of Tibet of the day that the uprising, you know, related to the preservation of Tibet as an exile nation. I mean, what is it? I think we as a council need to understand why we're doing this because otherwise, there's going to be lots of questions. And one of the ways to understand why in the rationale is to put it together in a resolution or proclamation. And that can be simple, Michelle. I'm also thinking about, oh, sorry. I'm also thinking about timing. Would there ever be a case in which we would want to fly a flag that night or the next morning after something occurred and getting a resolution or proclamation through the council would take more time? Would that ever be the case? Like where there would be a scenario where we really need to be in solidarity with something, you know, on that day? How would that be handled by this policy? That's a really good question. I think part of that is if it's council speech, the council has to hold a meeting to take a vote. And so by definition, then by making flag flying government speech, you might not be able to do all of those emergency ones because you can't necessarily hold an emergency. Emergency meetings with less than 48 hours are really specific under the law. So you need at least two days to call generally a meeting. And my guess is for much of what you're referring to, it wouldn't fall under the emergency meeting portion of the statute such that you'd need 48 hours. And in that time, you can create a one-line proclamation. But it becomes, I think that's the downside of a choice of making it government speech. Exactly, yeah. It's an interesting phenomenon. Anything else? That's a really good question. It's really what I'm thinking. The town manager decides if the flag is going to be, the United States flag is going to be lower to half-mast or the state does. If we lost someone in town or whatever, that gets, that's sort of automatically, and it's addressed in here. Is there a way to address major crisis? Something, some event that happens, that we want to have an immediate response to, is there a way to write that and still protect in this instance government speech? Or that's, I think that's a real question. Lynn? We're not going to resolve all of this. I'm hoping that our minutes reflect these questions so they can be forwarded to Tampa and Lauren in advance. Yeah, yeah. Anything else on this? Really thoughtful work on this. Well, I will bring the, I will refer the questions to KP Law and to Pamela. And so I guess I'm suggesting that we move on right now. And I guess one of the things that might be helpful, because I will be contacting Lauren, is are there specific questions about the Supreme Judicial Court decisions that we think would be helpful to have for her to have in advance? Mandy? It's sadly not too specific, but it is based on that decision and the charter requirement that all multiple member bodies have public comment at their regular meetings. What is KP Law's recommendation for a public comment policy? It's not too specific, but I kind of want to know what their recommendation is given that we're required to have it. Can you dive into that a little bit more? I'm going to leave you alone for a minute and jump to Athena. Thanks for calling on me. One of the questions that I would ask is if the restrictions that the committee already, that committees and council already put on public comment, usually the chair will say on matters within the purview of the committee. And I would question whether we're even allowed to do that. Oh, interesting. Wow. That's a push that I didn't because I want to be able to talk about anything I want to talk about. And that, wow, weird decision in some ways. And go ahead, Jennifer. I'm sorry. Yeah, I guess just a little thing, you know, that this decision doesn't really, this is the message is that we can't do much to restrict public comment. So I guess then the question is, at what point is language being so offensive that we could, I guess that's my question. If someone were to make, you know, racist statements, is there any point at which we can intervene? Right. Lynn and then Michelle and then Mandy Jo. I think we should make sure that we identified, I believe it's in the section of the charter. No, the section of our rules of procedure, what we presently say about public comment, because I know in the past I've had to ask people not to applaud and the issue of, you know, multiple responses and the issue of signs and so forth. What our present rules of procedure, I think, are not consistent with this new ruling. No, they're not. That's, yeah. Right. So we bet we should make sure that that particular section of our rules gets forwarded to, I would include Pamela in this as well, because of her legal background and because of human rights work that she does, but Lauren definitely because she's coming for this purpose. Okay. Thank you. Michelle. I would like to ask a question about Zoom bombing, so-called Zoom bombing and how, so a public comment period is defined, right, in the chair announces that the period has started and that the period has ended. Is there anything, any implications in this ruling with respect to shutting down a Zoom bombing that may happen outside of a publicly called comment period? And is there a slippery slope there? You know, like if somebody comes in and is it, we may consider them Zoom bombing and they're saying things that are offensive, what, and it looks like maybe Athena has an answer to that, I don't know. Let's go to Athena and then we'll come back to Mandy. Thank you.  No, mine were extra questions. So Michelle, typically what we think of as Zoom bombing is when it's a webinar, not a webinar, a meeting and everybody is allowed to just come in and then people can share their screen and unmute whenever they want. And in the case of the Northampton School Committee, somebody was allowed in that way and they were able to share videos, inappropriate videos, during the meeting. So the way we run our meetings, and we've talked about this before, is to do them as webinars and that way the host can mute and unmute and members of the public don't have screen sharing capabilities. And that's why my strong advice has always been that we keep that webinar format so that we're somewhat protected from that. I think the question that it would be great to have some guidance from Lauren is if somebody were speaking during public comment, because that's the only time when members of the public are called on and allowed to unmute, is there anything that a member of the public could say that would allow the chair or the president to turn off their microphone or cut them off during a meeting? And in the case of Wayland, it sounded like that is pretty broad what they're allowed to say because there was some offensive stuff that they said in that situation. And could I just follow up? Is that okay? Yeah, I guess I was just thinking about it in terms of like in-person. It is interesting that we can control through webinar when people can come in and out, whereas if somebody shows up to an in-person meeting in the town room, we can't say, you can come in now, you know what I mean? So it's just an interesting difference and I'm surprised it hasn't been addressed given that we've been doing these hybrid things for a while now. So my understanding, and great to have this conversation again with Lauren, but my understanding is it's during public comment that those rights are protected. It's not any time during the meeting you can be disruptive. So the chair or the president can ask a member of the public who's disrupting the meeting proceedings to stop. If they don't stop, then there are additional ways that the president or the chair can address that up to calling maybe a member of Crest to come or the police department to come and try and help resolve the situation. So that would be outside of public comment. During public comment, different story. Mandy? Just a couple of questions with Lynn's question about forwarding the current policy. We deal with public comment in two different sections of the rules. I think both section article five and article six, so I would encourage forwarding both because one of my questions is, and Athena's gotten to this, but I'd love clarification from KP Law, part of our civility code is not just civility during public comment, it's civility during the meeting in general. And so are we allowed to, if we invite a person of the public or a member of a committee in to be a panelist, say in a webinar format, do they have, are we allowed to restrict how they are civilly? Or is it only us council members that were allowed to have a civil code for it? Or is it any sort of invitee into the action items of the meeting, say to give an example? And so comments on the current policy and what we can have a civility code for versus what we can't. And then a definition of peaceable. If KP Law has figured out what the court may define as peaceable, that would be lovely. Since that's the word that this decision used as a way to restrict stuff, but they did not define what they meant and certain, clearly certain words they did not deem, quote, as affecting peaceability. Yeah. Yeah, it's interesting. I felt in that rule, you know, it was clear to me that the select person had really been quite out of water. And yes, there was a pretty derogatory comment made. But at the same time, I feel like the person who was most this my personal opinion, personal, who is most out of order was the select board person. Anyway, anything else for KP Law and Pamela on this? So I am going to take a minute and if Anita would like and to call public comment here. And so Anita, if you would like to speak or whoever is representing the indie wishes to speak during public comment, we can start that period now. Anita? Pat, before I allow Anita to unmute, we don't typically identify members of the public. I'm sorry. She's a friend. Yeah. Yeah, I'm sorry. But would you, unknown person, please state your Sure. And here comes Anita Sarah, District five. I do appreciate the care. Excuse me. With with Gio, Gio well is paying attention to the wording and and to the decision of Baron and the effect that it potentially has on public comment. I just asked that some besides a legal review or in the context of a legal review. And I did practice law that involve policy for a number of years in a non governmental setting, but that applied regulations and laws. So I'm familiar with the balance that any kind of legislative or governing body has has to bring to how carefully you you have to parse what is allowable and and what is it. I just think sometimes we get into a situation where first we become so fearful that we're not bringing common sense and knowing that there's no way to define so clearly that we are 100% protected and going forward. I think Baron is specific set of facts and the lawyers among us know that every case is fact specific. And I think it was particularly egregious and brought brought the SJC to a specific place. But in the course of the the the decision there was some interesting and I think instructive language about how one approaches this kind of discussion and particularly whether they talked about limiting to time manner in place so that as someone said you know we're talking about during the comment period that is defined by the council. As that civility belongs throughout but the implications are really the most profound during that public comment period. And that the restrictions or the definition that we bring to things is really under that three prong test really talking about what is the compelling state interest what is the compelling interest that is leading us to that role. So you know yes I think there might be some things that raise questions and might even be problematic in the current rules you know post Baron. But I would just urge you to proceed with caution and proceed with a sense of common sense bringing to this and with the expectation that there will never be an ultimate definition that will serve all purposes. So thank you for all the time and effort that you put into these things I really appreciate it but I you know just keep doing what you're doing and and knowing that we rely on you the public relies on you to make wise decisions on our behalf so thank you. Anita thank you very much. And with that I'm going to close the public comment period for this meeting and now I'd love some help about where we should go next. And I know I should have this all worked out but that's not my style I guess we have about a half an hour. And I guess according to the agenda the thing to go to would be to look at rules and procedures and are people ready to do that in any way and what would the suggested pathway forward would that be? Is Mandy Jo out of the meeting? No I'm here just dealing with stuff. I'm listening. Sorry sorry I just didn't hear. Yeah opinions? Pad it oh sorry.  I'm much more casual I'm okay with people speaking out as long as we're not speaking over each other which is my tendency so. I would it would help me to just have a quick frame of reference of where we are with the rules I missed at least one meeting so we I know we're pausing for public the public comment section but where are we what else we're going to be looking at liaisons and legislative issues. I don't have I can go get my rules. Yeah Athena I'll come right back to Michelle. The council referred back to the committee that questions on around rule five. Yes yeah yeah around the public comment yes public comment but there were other things three point two nine I think and I'm sorry I don't have my notes here I apologize uh five yeah five yeah basically they referred back the whole kit and caboodle right oh I think yeah so um and liaisons Pat is one of the right liaisons still needs to be look at and legislative yeah and all the changes from rule seven eight nine or whatever so do we want to start um I feel like the reason I want to hold the public comment issue but perhaps not all of it is because we're going to be dealing with that directly next week. Lynn yeah I also had made the recommendation that we not bring back additional changes in in piecemeal fashion right the council but we kind of do a collective set and then it may mean that we don't come back with this until the summer just because it's going to take us that long but um that we do in addition you know we continue to go through things work on different sections and then take it all back to the council right and I think that's I think I think a mistake that we made was initially we had basically very minor things and we brought it right out instead of bringing it forward um as quickly as we did and certainly a mistake about putting a substantive issue or a controversial issue um in the consent agenda so Jennifer yeah no I was going to say if we're going to you know there's the items that we're going to wait until we meet with KP law um and then just maybe right now I don't know we could list the other items and then just go through the list and decide what we want to take up I mean what comes to I I'm interested in the conversation about liaisons because I hadn't quite realized that they're not allowed to participate in public comment but anyway that's just I think that's yeah I'd like to get to liaisons too um and it's very interesting because so is that all right with folks yeah okay so basically I feel like the rules were carried over from the select board that the first council was we debated it very carefully but then we did as far as I understood at the time um we were actually physically in the room at that time and we were not allowed to sit at the table etc um and I think things have gotten very murky um and I think that the way it's designed now is good and and I would like to see more and more follow through on following the guidelines of it but this is an open discussion Mandy I thought I saw your hand no I didn't realize you were specifically talking about the non-voting liaisons as rules carried over from the select board I thought you were talking about the rules in general and I was so sorry that was that was my own no no misinformation there so that's why I don't know that's right I'm not stated in the clearest way Lynn yeah so let me share just some thoughts I've had on the liaison thing counts and and I haven't come up with a proposal but I just want to share some thoughts okay a counselor will often a volunteer to be a liaison to a committee because it's an issue or an area that they are most interested in and this allows them to you know give them an additional reason to kind of follow the issues the thing that we ran into is and and some of this is created by Zoom but some of it's not okay liaisons were never supposed to be at the table therefore in a Zoom meeting they aren't supposed to be on a panelist okay and they are there the definition of liaison in in my mind having had a liaison when I was chairing a committee went back in the select board days um and it was most useful I mean they could help me and the committee understand process for how we were going to bring things forward and he was my liaison for the fire and dpw study committee and um you know at that point we had steps where we had to go through the select board and then we had to go to jcpc and then we had to go to town meeting and all of that had to get timed because town meeting only met twice a year and so you started backing out and so forth and so on so it does mean that liaisons either need to be pretty understanding of process of how to bring something up to the council or it means that they you know just basically say you know I'll get back to you and they check on that and so forth um at the same time staff people are in the room and they should have some of that knowledge as well but the thing that's bugging me is we say to this one or two counselors who are liaisons other counselors can come to this meeting and speak as residents but oh by the way you can't and so it's created this artificial distinction between somebody who happens to be the liaison and the other counselors who might speak at a committee meeting and so part of my thinking was that in either case the counselor that is a liaison is in is not a panelist but they could raise their hand and clarify initially I'm speaking as a liaison or I'm speaking as a resident let me tell you the concern I have there though and it becomes in a lot of this is also training the chair and the other members of the committee as to what is the role of a liaison and it's also making sure chairs and other members of committee understand that counselors as residents can come to committees and make public comment but they don't have a special privilege they just have privilege as a resident so I'm trying to resolve all of that and I just wanted to lay that out because since this issue came up and it did come up over the planning board and it came up because we had liaison and members of the other members of the council both speaking during public comment in a way that shared their thinking or their opinion if you will and that's what caused this item to kind of surface so I wanted to just share all of that thinking that's been going through my head without a conclusion okay thank you yeah and it wasn't just planning board I mean it came up on several different committees so anyway Jennifer yeah I think that would help what Lynn said would to resolve a lot of the issue is if the liaison was in the audience and not a panelist I mean I had a situation the beginning of last year the first time I went to a housing trust meeting the chair at the time you know who I have in you know respect for he he said he before the meeting he wanted me to share my thoughts on things and I said I wasn't supposed to do that um anyway so yeah so maybe some of it is also you know making sure chairs know what the role of the liaison is but I think that if the chair if the liaison wasn't a panelist then they wouldn't be able to be make any comments aside from public comments like everybody else and then identify themselves as speaking as a resident so I I think that was um that that some I think in some with some boards and committees the liaison probably is just in the audience and then others it may be that the chairs feel they have to make them a panelist but if it was clear they're not a panelist although the chair could bring them in if the board or commission had a specific question I think that then the ambiguity of whether you're speaking as a person or a liaison you know an individual liaison that might resolve that. Mandy? I mean it's it's tough right but you know some of my concerns um after observing a variety of meetings right this is not just about my observations of planning board meetings recently but of other meetings that have we've assigned liaisons to are that and maybe it's education of the chairs but but I don't think as counselors we should put that education on the chairs everyone's like well the chair should know better but the chair is not a counselor if we as a counselor are going to take on a liaison role we have to police ourselves and things I've seen recently are liaisons not ever identifying themselves as liaisons yet speaking I've seen liaisons raising their hand not during public comment and giving their opinion as part of the discussion of the board or committee that they are liaison to and I think some of that is entirely inappropriate we don't assign liaisons to be part of a different committee's discussion you know it says the liaisons are there to observe share information answer questions to the degree that they can and make sure that the council is kept apprised of the work of the body they're not there to put their opinion out there on items that are being discussed by the body if the body has a question about council procedure they're there to answer it but they're not there to say oh well well this is the council's opinion or this is my opinion at least that's my view I feel like some liaisons are seeing themselves as potentially sort of an extra member of the body and that's problematic um you know and and I think we need to police our counselors on what their role is not tell chairs that they have to manage counselors and start managing extra people that they didn't sign on to manage right I think that puts an undue burden or an unfair burden on chairs to say you know we have counselors that are going to be liaisons we have rules but you have to enforce the rules like shouldn't our council and counselors enforce some of those rules um you know and so so I I struggle with even the need for liaisons and and I say that because we've removed liaisons from some bodies and they have counselors that they go to and just ask questions and say you know when is this coming up or when is that you know and and then you know so that's number one but number two what you know what is the council's purpose of having a liaison um and I think the rules that are here try to define the purpose of sharing of information not being an extra member of the committee oh the other thing I was going to say is we've had liaisons that that never mind I'm I'm losing my train so that's okay I'm gonna go to Athena and then Michelle who hasn't spoken yet and then Jennifer um you don't have to call me first ever um I just like doing that because it's always refreshing when you speak um I I just wanted to to mention that if if a counselor is speaking about their personal opinion during the meeting and that that could be considered a public comment if they're not speaking in their role as a liaison and if they're called on outside of public comment and they give their personal opinions then you're creating a special public comment period for just that one person and if you're not allowing other members of the public to speak during that special public comment period that's I think that's very problematic in terms of the conversation that we just had earlier about Wayland um if you're creating an opportunity for public comment at one point in the meeting then it should be open to all members of the public during that point in the meeting and and I've made that point during committee meetings too if if the committee is calling on a counselor who's in the public to answer a question or or um express their opinion then I usually try and say um you know if if we're going to call this a special public comment period then you need to open it to everybody who's there okay thank you Michelle I would like to share a perspective um that that I that sort of has been guiding some of my thinking about this um and bear with me just for a second so um I um as Lynn wrote an email to let folks know that I attended this course um Jurassic Parliament um and it really opened my eyes to a lot of different things and one being that the chair and again um I'm gonna make the connection here to the liaison but the chair of um a voluntary association which is what we are is not there to be our boss like in a typical hierarchical organization they're there to be our leader and to make sure that we're following the rules um and so uh Ann who runs that organization recommends even and I think Lynn does this really well um that the chair withhold uh you know their opinions generally at least until the end um perhaps that the chair doesn't bring motions forward necessarily um and so just sort of mapping that on here a different perspective in the way we might want to think about this is yes liaisons um they volunteer for a committee that they feel passionate about or that they are interested in but perhaps a way to think about it is that the liaison may want to be less interested or less passionate about a particular um uh committee that they're assigning themselves to or volunteering themselves to um so that their role it kind of solves two problems one it is it makes it more likely I think that they will be focused on procedurally helping um the committee uh to liaison with the town council and also allows um them to be freed up to come and speak um about their opinion during a public comment period um without and making it more clean and pure um and so I actually sort of agree with the idea of I'm not really sure that liaisons are serving a purpose at this point and so I'd like to expand on that but just offering the perspective that you know we end up chairing committees in some cases that we feel like that that's our body of work and some of us do you know we we try to be still neutral I mean AHRA is a great example I can speak for myself on that right um but again just thinking about maybe um uh volunteering as a liaison um to a committee that isn't something that is in our heart and soul so deeply thanks interesting thank you Michelle uh Jennifer and then I'm going to take a moment yeah I mean I think the world I mean to me the role of a liaison I think of it more as to bring in just we get an update at the end of the council meeting and maybe you know it actually usually happens at a time when we're pretty exhausted at the end of a meeting so I'm not even sure how much the information is being taken in that we're giving but it's really just to let the council know what's going on in the different committees and I always saw it as more as it was the liaison was the information going to the public body back to the council and there's and then it's letting the chair of that board or commission have a point of contact on the council although maybe they're you know that person is more likely to contact the council member they that's either their representative or that they know personally but that you know so it's somebody that the chair can contact but it probably shouldn't be and I think if the liaisons in the audience it's maybe less likely that they're just going to be brought into the conversation you know I'm it's very helpful what you just said Athena about it's setting up a different public comment because I know there were a couple times last year where I was asked to speak and I always made it clear that wasn't my role and that anything I said was just my personal opinion but now it actually gives a little more you know you can say I really can't comment because that you know so so you that that that would actually be very improper even as an individual but again I don't know that we have to have liaisons I just thought I always saw it as a way that information was being brought back to the council but we don't have enough council members to be a liaison to every board and commission so it's still selective but I think that it probably is confusing to the chairs maybe less confusing if we're in the audience that you know what our role is and it gets murky but I would be okay if we didn't and I think we're all so busy that to say you should be a liaison only to a board or commission that you're not really focused on that subject matter I don't know how many volunteers realistically would have for that Lynn I'd like to speak after you so if you can please go ahead well I'm sitting here and I think there's some good ideas being presented there is some one of the things that I want to share a little bit is my being liaison on the disability access advisory committee because I really do see myself as a point of contact I get asked questions during the meetings and I sometimes I have answers about procedure or whatever or I take it back I have been requested to send a memo to the town manager for asking a question for the committee so it isn't even just the town council that I'm getting information to but in this instance the town manager I don't speak unless I'm spoken to I am in the room I do I must admit I like being able to see but of course I can when I'm not when I'm just when I'm in attending when I'm in the audience I can see the members of the committee the other thing so the other thing that I feel strongly that the liaison needs to think about the power dynamics and there our voices sometimes have a lot of power and on many committees like housing with John Hornick particularly he invited that input because he felt very grounded in what he was doing and he wasn't but often a chair of a committee will be new or they're more hesitant and that can create an unbalance if I as a counselor am constantly saying well you know what I think about this street light and the signal thing that is happening no what what is what is the committee need me to do and I I do happen to care passionately about the issue but I feel restrained that's not always been true on some other committees but it's it's really made me think and I think we do need liaisons as this point of contact and I like the idea of not being in in the room or how how was it that it got listed let me see I forget right now I'm sorry and I it's why I don't like to not be in the panel my train of thought shall sit where the public are seated right now pardon me shall sit where the public are seated yeah yeah and that yeah and I think I think that can be protective uh of the committee um and I think that's important I'm going to let go because I lost my train of thought which is why and so Lynn will get to you in the mind it may bounce back and it may not but really want people to think about the disparity in power and in roles so I think that's an excellent point Pat um one of the things that we might think about when we choose liaisons are choose it with the committees that are most active in bringing things to the council so that there's you know some because that's where understanding council process is useful but I also want to point that every committee has a staff person assigned to them and that person should really be doing some of this and this brings me to a much larger issue that is really beyond the rules and so I I don't think I should get into it because it's not part of this discussion I I'll just mention it but then leave it go and that is that we really fall down on the job in um educating chairs of committees about how to run meetings how to post agendas the fact that they have to have public comment etc and we really fall down on the job as a town but that's not the council's problem it is on this committee Mandy and then Michelle yeah I I second Lynn's Lynn's thing and and what what some of what Lynn just said but also the the idea of you know if we're thinking about liaisons as a go between to get things to the council in the right way I'm looking at the list of liaisons we have and and I think back to how many have actually reported to the council in the last year many of these committees we've not even heard a liaison report in a year or we've heard one in an entire year at that point do we really need a liaison is a question but but I'll I'll I'll even bring up planning board but but you know I'll talk about planning board separately but recreation commission they don't bring stuff to the council really that's a new new I'm gonna interrupt just the second it's a new liaison and it's we they meet during town council meetings well well you but you don't have to go to the meetings yeah yeah you know so so my point is does the recreation commission ever bring something to the council the board of health they yes they adopt regulations they're a very important board but they don't need council approval to adopt their regulations so we don't actually see stuff from the board of health um you know when you look at the housing trust in some sense it's the same thing they don't really bring stuff to the council they have their own authority um versus in some sense a difference and I'll I'll say CSSJC has a charge that I think is includes the word advise the council so maybe they need a liaison because of how their charge is written on advise the council I think ECAC is the same way they have part of their charges advise the council um planning board half of their charge never comes in front of the council which is every site plan review permit application they request the council has no say in and so do they need a liaison for that part the second part of their charge advising the council on zoning changes by law changes requires actually the council to refer something to them and then them to under state law write a report so do they need a liaison for something that the council will always be a part of anyway um and so I I urge us to think more about what committees really need liaisons and what their purposes I could talk about TAC and DAAC much of their interaction with the council is through TSF and that is working wonderfully from what I've heard um we don't want to stop that interaction but does it need to be a formal liaison just another way of thinking of things mm-hmm Michelle um I wanted to come back to what Pat was talking about and really support what Pat said about power dynamics and specifically looking at E I think it can get really murky when those power dynamics exist and a counselor is offering anything it can be something really really minor um it can be interpreted that it is coming from the council or on behalf of the council and I think so I'd really like to kind of look at that one a little bit more um the other one that I'm a little bit concerned about actually is I um is that happening um our liaisons reporting pending policy or budget budget recommendations to the full council in a timely manner and is there even a process for that really so it shouldn't be there if it's not happening or at least it needs to have a more defined process thank you Athena thanks I um I think that did um come up for ECAC I'm not sure if Anna was still liaison to ECAC when it happened but um but she did report on the budget and recommendations from ECAC to the council um and then also what I heard was that um it might be a good idea for us to offer training for chairs and staff liaisons for um you know how to conduct our meetings similar to what we did for the council and how to understand the charter provisions that apply to boards and committees how to understand their charge including how to make recommendations to the town council and or a town manager depending on what's in their charge so if that sounds like it would be helpful that's something I can propose to the town manager and try and work on I think that's a great idea anyone else what's 1123 um I I want to do something that I do in it in the mobile market meetings I don't do the facilitators do but um I'd like to hear from each of you about how you felt the meeting went today for you for you or how how effective you thought the meeting was etc Lynn since I have a hard stop I'm gonna go first uh Pat I'm enjoying watching you grow as chair and encourage you to work with Athena so that you learn some more the new technology about agenda stuff and as for the conversation I think it reflects some of the respect that we're trying to bring back to the council and our differing of opinions so thanks everybody someone else Lynn why don't you pass it to someone else which is how we do it in the mobile market Jennifer yeah I thought this was a really um you know maybe because we just have like a controversial issue on the table but I thought we had a good conversation and Pat I really appreciate that you keep the meeting in order but you also just let us have a conversation so I think um I think you're a natural chair baloney um no please pass thanks Jen oh um Michelle yeah I second that about Pat being a natural chair particularly in the um aspects of the discussion um so I really I really appreciate that um and I think there were some controversial topics today actually I would disagree with Jennifer um and I think that we did well uh to discuss them Ms Mandy Mandy oh sorry Michelle I mean I agree with Michelle I've always found this committee um for some reason able to talk about some controversial or issues where there are major disagreements fairly respectfully um I don't know how sometimes when we get to the council that doesn't always translate um but I've found that this committee and and and generally committees in general have always been able to have those difficult conversations slightly more respectfully than the council as a whole does and I don't know it's interesting to think about why that is um whether it's a smaller group whether it's less people watching I who knows but but I always appreciate this committee and its ability to get to a compromise on stuff before it comes to the council will you pass Mandy Pat you're the only one left Pat no I'm not the only one left see that's something um oh well of members um I think it was a good meeting I would like to feel less nervous whenever I do this I feel like um I don't so that's something I'm working on um but I would like to pass to Athena and to get her response to the meeting and her participation in the meeting I am not a member um but I appreciate you calling on me I'm just happy to that the committee will tolerate my participation in the way that it has um so thank you for that yeah no we need your um knowledge and understanding of many issues and so I feel like you're called on consistently and in my world that would make you part of the GOL family so you will be called on as needed also I think that that you you really show what a liaison can be doing in positive ways because that's what we do we go to you as the link to uh open meeting well many of the issues and we like your personal opinion as well so given that there is a hard stop for Lynn and for probably others I'm gonna suggest that we adjourn the meeting and I have had 11 28 thank you thank you very much everyone and Athena could you stay on for just a second yeah and I just want to


An extra bird means extra chicks, or extra meat, or extra eggs. Just one extra egg a week provides around 8g of protein, 6g of fat, and a bunch of useful micronutrients, which can make a lasting difference to a child's growth. And best of all, the researchers proved this. They found boys and girls from households that received the vaccine both ate 24% more high protein food. This led to them growing taller and gaining more weight. So one chicken can make a huge difference. It's a clear example of how protecting animal health also benefits human health. An intervention like subsidizing a chicken vaccine might seem simple, but consider this. 7.8 million people live in rural Kenyan communities like these. That's a lot of people who could benefit.


Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this panel discussion on the West after the Ukraine War. I'm Terry Martin, a journalist and TV news anchor based in Berlin. I'll be your moderator for this session. We have a remarkable group of speakers with us here today who will share their views on the implications and lessons of the Ukraine War, a war that has shaken Europe and the world. I want to introduce them in a moment, but first I just want to say how delighted I am to be here. This is my first World Policy Conference. I want to thank the organizers for inviting me and extend my warm thanks also to Abu Dhabi for hosting this event. Now, this session is focusing on the Ukraine War, a topic that has already received some attention at this conference. Hamas' Israel War may have bumped Ukraine from the front pages, but as we heard yesterday from Ukraine's Foreign Minister, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is continuing with brutal consistency. Now, what we're dealing with today is a very difficult topic. We have to be very honest about that. Ambassador Kubella gave us an update on where things stand from his perspective in the Ukraine War right now as his country fights for its survival. In this session today, we're going to be looking at the conflict from a broader, longer-term perspective, and that, of course, is no easy task because, as we all know, the war is ongoing. Nobody really knows how it's going to end. Plus, the geopolitical context is rapidly changing. And what is the West anyway? That's in our title, What is the West? So, for the purpose of this discussion, let's think of it mainly as liberal democratic societies, not limited to the geographical West, who claim to value a rules-based international order. That's what we're going to work with as our working definition of the West for this session. So, a tough brief for this session, but we'll do our best to get a sense of where the West might be when the Ukraine War is over. Now, fortunately, we have a distinguished group of speakers who are extremely well-qualified to reflect on this, and I'll introduce them in order. On my immediate left, Elbeidorch Tsakhyagin, working on that Mongolian pronunciation, he's the former president of Mongolia. He played a key role in leading the Mongolian Revolution, Democratic Revolution. He created the Elbeidorch Institute and is a commissioner of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty, a topic that you spent a lot of time working on. Next is Bogdan Klich. He is a senator in the Polish Parliament, currently serving as the chairman of the Foreign and EU Affairs Committee in the Senate. He served as Poland's Minister of Defense and was a member of the European Parliament as well. Beyond that, we have Zakir Laidi. He is special advisor to Joseph Burrell, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security. He was formerly strategic advisor to the French Prime Minister. He's been a professor at Sciences Po for 20 years, over 20 years, and he's written numerous books on global affairs. And someone who I've been familiar with for a long time, Norbert Röttgen, we both live in Germany, is a member of the German Parliament, the Bundestag. He sits on the Bundestag's Foreign Affairs Committee, which he led as chairman from 2014 to 2021. He has served as Germany's Environment Minister, and I remember being in background talks in Copenhagen with you at an important COP a long time ago, you may not remember that. And he is co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations. And joining us from Paris, I hope you all can see him, if he isn't on our screen just yet. Hubert Verdrin, I hope you can hear me. Hubert Verdrin was going to try to join us remotely. His flight, I understand, from Paris had a problem, and he wasn't able to join us. He was trying to be here, but perhaps he'll tune in a bit later, I hope so. But I will go ahead and give him a quick introduction. I mean, not that he needs much of an introduction. He's the former Minister of Foreign Affairs in France. He's the founder of the Hubert Verdrin Council, a public affairs consultancy. He's written over a dozen books and served as president of the Institut François Mitterrand, a French president he was very closely associated with. So, enough introductions. Keeping with the WPC format, we'll hear some introductory remarks from each of our panelists. And then we'll get the discussion going, hopefully integrating some input from the floor. So, as we're discussing up here, please reflect on any questions you might have and save them for... I'm hoping to bring you in during the last third of the event. So, without further ado, let's get going with our opening remarks.