Okay, so who's going to moderate you did or do we want to. I'm happy to meet on that role. Okay, I just need to find my documents. So do we want to first go around the room and then just say who we are. Great. Yeah. More than seven. Welcome. Right. Is that right? Yeah, this is the microphone. Yeah, I tried to speak up or you can. I am dev out with word seven. My name is Lee Morgan. My pronouns are they then and I've been the word seven. All right. I'm Sarah Diaz. I'm also in word seven. She they pronounce. Later here in Ward four. She her pronouns. Okay. She her work for. Yes. I call that one. And she her pronouns. Sorry. Anybody online that needed to introduce themselves. So yeah, we have one person online. Would you like to introduce yourself. Thank you. Just raise your hand and he would like to talk. But I really care and I really want to get it. Thank you. Who is online. Christopher. Christopher Aaron Felker. Yeah. If you'd like to talk, just raise your hand and we'll. Well, I just speak. But yeah, right now. So apologies to everybody. We have some serious technically difficult moments. Cause the wifi is out. Here. And let's ask Christopher if he can hear us. And Christopher goes away for something that we can hear. Maybe we don't see his video. Oh, good. Oh, there we go. Nice to see you. Thanks for coming. Chris, can you hear it? Christopher, can you hear us? I think you can. Yes, I can hear you now. Yes. Okay. And we got mine up. Yeah. So do we. No, keep them. I can take some notes. Thank you. Thank you. So we've already gone through. Introductions. Assignments of roles. Pretty much. And setting up. Yeah. So do we have a. No, keep them. I could take some notes. Great. Thank you. Thank you. So we've already gone through. Introductions. Assignments of roles. Pretty much. And setting up. And so at this point, I think that everyone has had the opportunity to review the bylaws. And I'd like for us to just. As we go through the bylaws, will you allow us to. I can't access the bubbles. Honest. On the right. I can see them. You can see them. Do you want me to? Oh, you can see them. Yeah. Yeah. Don't ask me now that I got them. I've got them on my screen here. And I don't even, I think it's because I had this up. Before. And so I saw that access to it, even though I don't have Wi-Fi. Perfect. So if that's okay, you want me to go through. I think it's great. I think that, well, let's start with. I'm trying to get me done. Yeah. Okay. Do you want me to take the, keep going while you're, I want to make the updates on my. I can. Okay. I think I have it right here. I can also do like suggestions on the Google doc here. Live. So you can see them if that's helpful. Yeah. That way we can just accept. Well, they shouldn't be there unless we. If the comments are acceptable to people, they're there. And we can check. You can check them and accept them, right? But if there are any new ones. Okay. So, yeah, just let me know if you'd like me to accept as a judge. Yeah. All right. You want me to. Okay. So, uh, so these are comments that were added since the last meeting. Um, and I believe this was Mary Ann. It's just to, I'm not sure if it was married. Seek to be diverse and inclusive grassroots. Organize a neighborhood. It was me. It was big. Okay. Um, because we're not quite there yet. And I know that the city. Website also added that on theirs. Um, so we're not stating that we are this already, but we're working towards it. Yeah. Um, I don't know. Either way is fine with me. Works. I think it gives us. We don't want to paint ourselves in the corner. Seek to be. I like it. I think it's accurate. Everybody agrees. I agree. Check. So, so that. Okay. So I'm just going to suggest to delete this, but you'll see as a suggestion. Take the art. Yeah. I think. I think that's fine. Okay. This was just written into the text. It wasn't a suggestion. Can we just take it out? Sure. Yeah. Thank you for being so, for being a decision. Yeah. All right. Let's find one. Let's go right through that. And then we'll. Yeah. A lot of mine are just grammatical things. Yeah. I don't even get. Yeah. I would say that any kind of like formatical. All right. Updates. Okay. Yeah. Okay. The next one is again a grammatical one. That just that married. Marcella. As organizations, the ward four and seven NPAs value. Diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging period. We adhere to the following principles. We need to ask some words because there are two words. Yeah, but we're not saying words. Yeah. So we're saying, oh, yes, you are so right. I apologize. I think she added. Yeah. No, no, because it's an adjective. The word four and seven NPAs. The S goes with the NPAs. Okay. I think it's one singular. And board seven NPAs. Yes. Or either way. But so I had. Organizations. Ward four and seven NPAs. Yeah. That's fine.  All right. It's really fine the way it is. It truly is. Because you've got the word for and seven NPAs. Okay. That's in the sentence above. Before the guiding principles, right? The word for and word seven. Okay. Kind of use that. Either way. Either way. It's fine. But okay. No, it's two NPAs. We are two NPAs. Okay. We are two NPAs. So are you saying on this line, the second paragraph, it should also say the words four and seven NPAs. Yeah. So I didn't ask there. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. So I didn't ask there. So where am I adding? No. Okay. That's fine. But it's okay. I'll go along with that. But. And then it's correct. And the next one under guiding principles. It says wards. Four N seven NPAs. I think as long as it's consistent on the document. value diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. Okay. Period. Yep. We have your follow-up principles. And then we've already gone through this at the last meeting. Yes. And we changed in number three. Marisela changed the assembly, suggested changing assembly to NPA, which is consistent with the rest of the language. So we agree with that. I agree with that. Okay. And then we added this additional add-on to this statement last week, as was suggested. We added, at the end of this statement, and where diversity of thought is encouraged. People want to continue with that. Where is that? Number four, number four. Under purpose. And we are seeing a lot of guiding principles. But this has to be number four. We provide safe and well. We're able to share their voices. I'm not going to see it as a matter of your audience. Oh, I didn't update it here. I'm sorry. So this was the conversation where diversity of thought of the current. So the reason why I was moved to come to this meeting is I wanted to provide some historical context on the phrase diversity of thought. So I watched the last week's recording and I, and I could see people kind of hesitating with this and, and not sure why it was being built on so much. But I think there's a reason why your intuition is sending you that way. So the phrase diversity of thought has popped up more so in recent years in response to the DEI movement. And, you know, most of the time, the phrase diversity of thought has been used in the context of being a counterpoint to DEI. And filling a air quote diversity requirement, not by the traditional, you know, diversity of religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, stuff like that. It's saying you need the diversity quota by having a diversity of thought. It's like all lives matter. Yeah. Well, so I, and I come with sources because I don't, so I'll tell you also why I'm hesitant to be the one to bring this up is because I've been through a lot at this MPA. A lot of you understand that the reason why city council passes resolution is because of discrimination I've faced for over a year on this MPA. So it's tough for me to bring this up because I know that there are going to be people who argue this and I'm nervous that this got added into the document because I am seeing a conversation taking place in our neighborhood Facebook group where people are discussing whether or not trans people deserve to be called by their pronouns, or if someone has an opinion that it's not real, but they don't have to. And that's exactly why city council passes resolution is because people in this MPA felt that they didn't need to call me by my pronouns because they didn't agree with it as a matter of opinion. And so by putting this in there, I feel like what we are doing is undermining the reason why we're even here. We are also giving, we're weakening when, you know, when someone doesn't want to abide by the things that the city council says we have to abide by. That's why we're here is what would about diversity thought. And so I think there are ways where, you know, if you're looking at diversity as a thought, if you're looking at diversity of thought as in like it's important to have different opinions, it certainly is. And I think that value is represented in your guiding principles. You talk about that pretty thoroughly. So what I would encourage us to do is to make sure that it is very clear that there are people, like people can have different opinions, but your opinion cannot be about whether or not people deserve the things the city council has decided that everyone deserves. And I'll just kind of wrap up this point where it's, you know, it is not fair to expect community members to make a decision when they walk into these rooms. And this is why I had originally resigned is it's not fair for me to have to make a choice every time is, am I going to have to engage in arguments over whether I deserve the same basic rights that everyone else does in this room? Or am I going to acquiesce to these arguments of that? Well, someone doesn't believe I'm real. So they don't have to respect my rights. And so I do just want to point that out. I do just want to give you sources. So it's not just me spouting my ideas. So there is an article in the root, which is an online magazine. The title is, is called diversity of thought in quotes. It's just the euphemism of white supremacy. So they, they go through, through that. That's by Michael Harriet. There is an article in profiles in diversity journal leadership defined, which is titled, why quote diversity of opinion and quote is a threat to diversity, equity and inclusion and what should be done about it. And there is a quote from the paralegal association article titled diversity of thought hinders belonging written by Kurt Harris. And I just wanted to, maybe I lost the quote, but okay, this is diversity of thought does not equal diversity. When we talk about diversity of thought, we were, we are talking about diversity of opinions and perspectives rather than actual diverse representation itself. Conceivably then you could have a room chock full of white and content that they represent diversity of thought because some are from urban areas versus rural areas. Some grew up blue collar while others grew very affluent. Some are Republican while others are independent and some are religious while others are agnostic without diverse representation and visible diversity risk inclusion. So I just wanted to point that out. I felt like the decision was made to include this without all the information. So I just wanted to, I moved to be moving. I agree. So take that and just put a colon. So let's all vote on it. I just to clarify, so that term, that phrase, diversity of thought is really a buzzword. A dog whistle. It's posed. And that's what these, so that's why these things exist. Because there are terms that to anyone sounds reasonable, right? Like the phrase diversity of thought sounds really reasonable. And so it can get into things like these, but then they, when they are utilized is when, like the next meeting I go to and someone refuses to call someone asserts that I'm a woman and I say, hey now, like we have new bylaws. Oh no, we got diversity of thought in there.  And the other ones that were given at the last meeting or two. I think that we have. In number three, it says we provide a safe and welcome welcoming forum where residents can share their voices and issues that matter to them and learn from others. Also in number seven, we strive to create a fun, creative and vital organization that provides value for the diverse perspectives here. Yeah. I think it's all in there. And therefore I thought it was redundant. So for all of the above, I wanted to remove that. I think it's safe to remove. Yeah. So to make it formal. It's formal. Yeah. I have a point of order question. I realize you're going over changes that have previously been made. Are you taking it in order? Because I have some changes I'd like to suggest. Of course. So should I bring them up as we go along? So, okay. Don't you think? Yeah, we're not, we're very informed. We're not an official formal. Okay. Then I had a suggestion for number six. Okay. We'll wait a minute. We've finished that. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So. So. Yeah. So we voted them to remove this. And it's with a period after. Chris has it. He has. I don't. To speak or to vote with us. Well, it's not in our words. So I don't think you can vote, but we should listen to him if he has a comment. Okay. Sure. Hi, Chris. Would you like to speak? Christopher, you can unmute if you'd like to say something. Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, if you're able to unmute, and you still want to say something. Feel free to do so. You should be able to unmute. We both voted. Is there anything in the QA or is that him? He's got his hands. Is there a form? Do you have to unmute it? It might have been left up from before. And yes. Yes. Yeah. We have satisfied. We have satisfied the form. So we do have that. Okay. Yeah. We both voted. All right. I don't see him. It was a good time. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just to clarify, Christopher, we are preparing what is a draft. To go before the full NPA. So the full NPA, we're not finalizing anything at this meeting. We are preparing a draft to go before. The full NPA. So the full NPA. We'll have a form and decide this ultimately and they, they can change this. So. Whatever. So can we please go back to dining principles and, and the lady you were saying, I wanted to suggest adding to number six where it says. Include those who have been previously excluded. And I wanted to add or underrepresented. So excluded from or underrepresented in decision making roles and processes. I love that. Number six. Oh, I was going to ask if we were going backwards. All right. Someone else added that in, or should I be, who wants to. I'm trying to add it. So we acknowledge the barriers to accessing decision making and work to include those who have been previously excluded from or underrepresented in. Yeah. And decision making roles and processes. We still need to take out the diversity of thought. Yeah. Totally removed. Perfect. See goodness before I. Anything else. I know. And now we're moving on. And then article one, the police. Does everyone, can we up to this point. Is everyone in favor of. Approving. The guiding principles as you discussed. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Perfect. So article one purpose under the second line under a strike and a community development. And number one under. Well, maybe it's already been taken out. Where is it? It says a K community development, including, but not limited to a K community development. I mean, it's no. I don't think it's. I think those are. Yeah. I'm not seeing it. If it is. Okay. We'll come across those. And we just approve all of these changes. Does everyone agree? Yes. Just the grammatical stuff. I think we. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And. Perfect. I also want to emphasize, including, but not limited to. That's really key. And I would underline it. Where is that? In section a provide advice to appropriate commissions, boards, city departments, and the city council, including topics, including, but not limited to. Community development. That's already added. Yeah. Yeah. I know it's been added, but I think it ought to be emphasized and I'm an underlaw. I'm not suggesting that any underlaw. Wait, I want to see. I can't follow right now. It's in number one. I don't know. I don't know. Well, you don't have numbers on yours. Here. Right. I've highlighted it on the screen. I don't know. But. Okay. If it's people. Yeah. Last time. I'll just have to go back and make the changes. They got changed to numbers. Yeah. Exactly. Are you making a change? Because you see everything in this list is coming from the city. Just coming from the top and down to the city. Yeah. And so we, by adding. Including, but not limited to. It makes us able to address. And advise on any issue at all. Sure. Right. I don't know that I would underline it. Okay. I think because normally when you underline something that's online, it looks, it's mental. It stands out a link. It's a link. You know, It's a link. So I would say. Yeah. It's as long as our steering committee knows. It is including, but not limited to. Yeah. I agree. Yeah. I think there's a little. Personality. Yeah. To make sure that that rings through. So are we, have we gotten through. I don't know. Yeah. Are you clicking the check marks on that? Yeah, I have been. I'm still highlighted this right here. Are you still on this? I think we moved on. I think we're. I have the language. We're not going to underline or make bold. Okay. Number three here. Concerning city programs and activities. I'd add. We have to do you want to delete. Um, concerning city programs and activities. Did we want to realize what do we do? Are we placing? We're deleting. What are we doing? So number two. Suggestions. There's a suggestion to delete the responsibility of. So the sentence would be vacant recommendations or consideration. And point in elected officials. Charge with implementing city policy. I think that's smoother. Okay. Yeah. I mean, we might as well make it as concise as possible. Sure. For the sake of people. I don't think we lose anything. But I don't think we do there. So we can resolve that. Take it out. Yeah. Number three. Are you taking out, including the, the allocation of revenues? No, no. The responsibility. Right. So that's really charged. Yeah. Number three. There's a suggestion to remove another portion. Provide a forum for sharing information about city programs and activities. So we would be removing. The purpose of information of information sharing concerning. Of concern and of concern members. So again, it's just to make the sentence more concise. And I want to add city programs, activities and issues to number three, to number three, because there are city programs and their activity. Issues are often the best. Yeah. Good idea. So can we remove it for the purpose of information, that kind of stuff, clean that up and then add programs, activities, comma, and issues. Perfect. What are you guys using the Oxford comma? I'm a fan of the Oxford. I included it because I've been deleted. And we're going to have that from there. The Oxford comma. So then we can we update that? Yeah, I just did. I'm putting things in as suggestions so you guys know what I've changed. There's something up there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. On number one, there's a green something pellet. Oh, yeah. Because it said. There was a Dean said. I put in a piece. It was a D. And it was. Oh, yeah. Okay. So yeah, we can remove that. Then I guess if the suggestion is the error. Cool. And we all move to just change this next few. Yeah. Yeah. Grammatical errors. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm concerned to the members. Yeah. We're going to get rid of that one as well. If I recall. So I'm on four. Just check. Yeah. Check mark. Except in this. Yes. Yep. In number. Wait, wait, wait. We got to go back. Three. Three. We're going to remove all concerned numbers. Oh, sorry. Perfect. All right. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We have something for him. We're not yet. They're not citizens. And I want to. Talk about. I wanted to read commission members. Residents. Yeah. And what do you mean by private citizens?  We should do away with. Non-citizens are well. I'm sorry. Exactly. So do we just. Yeah. We're going to change that to be residents. Yeah. I think representatives commission members and residents. In residence. Period. I think that's all. All right. Right. We're going to want to report that. And then you don't need the rest. No. Yeah. That cleans up everything. I don't think we need. I guess. I noticed it says here, issues and concerns. Do you want to add concerns to number three programs, activities, issues and concerns? We're losing it in number. I think it's redundant. Issues and concerns are the same thing. and we removed it from number four, didn't we? No. There's still one word. We're leaving in, so we'll report. I think we're going to remove both citizens. OK. So you want me to just write to report to resident? Yes, yes, please. We're leaving that in. OK. Just wait, do we still work in? So let's update. Let's go back and get rid of green, so. OK. I just want to make sure you guys see what I'm saying. Provide a form for sharing information about city activities and issues. Yeah, that one was good. Bring to the MPA city officials, elected representatives, commission members, and residents to report to residents of ward four. It should be wards with S, four and seven. No, just ward four and ward seven. So now you're spelling them out, ward four and ward seven. No, wards with an S. We decided to be consistent throughout the whole document. Then you get rid of the second. Oh, I got it. I got it. So I got it. So what are we? So we're going to add an S. Yes. Right. I don't know. I get it. You want to do that. I'm not going to do that. I got it. You're saying it. Yes. Yes, I got it. No, that's OK. That's all right. That's all right. So if you take effort and PAs. But it says ward four and ward seven. Yes. So individual ward four? Ward seven. It says ward four and ward seven. If it repeats ward, it's OK. We're OK. Yeah, good. OK, I think we're good. So in number four, did you take out citizens? And yes, what about the members of the ward four and ward seven? Because isn't everybody that lives here a member 14 or older? Yeah. So and members are defined elsewhere in here. So we really put replace citizens with members. So it's residents. We have to be a member to come to a meeting and listen to anybody speak. Yeah. Everybody who comes to the meeting, who lives in ward four and or ward seven, is a member. Unless you're under the age of 14. Yeah. But that's defined elsewhere in the. I think it's safe to say the residents here. The only issue is phony is for the members. OK. Right. You have to be a member of the vote, but you can come whoever you don't even have to be a member of ward four. So if you come to a meeting or listen. Yeah. Or even talk, you know. All are lost. So yeah. So I think residents are probably too good. Residents are too good. All right. We have three more pages to go through. All right. So this is another grammatical thing. Perfect. We'll just fix the grammatical one. Anyone online want to contribute? There's no one else online in the board. Yeah, I think that's fair. For the diversity. And now that that's one of the ideas. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'll let you come in. Yeah. Good job. Good job. That was funny. Yeah. Yeah. So OK. So then we go on to article two. OK, we're doing great. Which gets, I think, a lot simpler at this point. Yes. So under participation, the only thing that was done, I added will the under participation, I just to clarify what we're talking about, that the people online attendance will be documented by the online participant list. Is that true? Do we have an online participant? Well, you have to sign. Typically every student meeting, there is like. You can pull it out. You can pull it out. Yeah. OK. Yeah, because you have to somehow sign up to be sure they are right. Because I was wondering the same thing. What is the participant list? Right. And then there was a grammatical change under A. So am I accepting it? So we're going to accept that one. We'll accept the law in A. And then so you can check that one out too. Is it in the under A? And here's where we will change it back. OK. The guiding principles of the board's four and seven NPAs. There's also a yes. So you're going to check that one off. So the number A should be meetings plural. It's NPA meetings. Because elsewhere in the document, you say that they may need it separately. OK, then all right. Let's go back to A. Then get rid of the V and make meetings plural. Me can say. Yes, that looks good. Accept that, please. Yeah. Thank you, Fosca. Hey, Fosca. You're really good at this. Fosca. Fosca. At least say your name. Am I saying your name? I think it's Fosca. Yeah, it's Fosca. Yeah. Fosca. Can you just make sure you're saving the document? It's automatic. OK. It just can't. I just want to restart. Yeah, that's a good point. I just want to Google magic. Wi-Fi. I hope that we accept it all. Call it and yes, accept. Yes, we accept that. And anything above that, what's not resolved, you should have nothing above there. I think, I don't know. Like there should be nothing there. Are those all resolved?  Underrepresented is one more. Maybe. Is underrepresented. Yeah. OK. And accept. And then assembly and that green thing. Accept. That green thing. It's a beautiful thing, Fosca. Do you want me to accept the list style with the numbers? Yeah, you like that. Yeah, you can resolve mine, too. Because I was going to be talking about that. Oh, look at that, look at that. It's one of those things we've checked out. All right. Going for a list here now. It's a good start of the way to engage that. Yeah, we have participation by non-members now. We are indeed, I think. I don't know. I just want to question here. There's some, you refer to guiding principles. In section four, number five, you refer to guidelines. And elsewhere, you refer to norms. And are the norms and the guidelines and the guiding principles? I'm not sure they're all the same. I'm not sure. Which one do you want to use them? Well, is there a list called guiding principles? Yes, that's right. It's the beginning. So that's the guiding principle and the grounding. Then every place should refer to guiding principles instead of following guidelines. I think guidelines might be different. So we should use a different word there. Where are you listening? Well, when we get there, conductive meetings, it says adhere to the following guidelines. And we should choose another word other than guidelines. So that every place where we're at, well, we'll do it. We get there. We're not there yet. Yeah, OK. OK, so let me get my glasses back on. We're ready. OK, but where do you need to do that, if you're saying? So article three. Article three, meetings. Go for it. Guiding. Meetings. Mine is up. OK, regular NPA meetings will be conducted as scheduled in addition. OK, so number one, frequency. What do you think? I mean, I put cadence. I know. And I think that word didn't resonate. That's OK. When are we going to change it to frequency? OK, I really want to address this. This word, because we're talking about a specific word right now. So if I want to address the whole section. Yeah, but let's finish this topic. If we're frequented for frequency, I think frequency means that thing. Yeah, I agree. OK, so we'll change how many places. I'm not sure. OK, great. I just want some people who I don't know what they know use in terms of that. That's all. OK, so Leigh, did you have? Yeah, we've already said that meetings can be canceled. And our meetings, we have agreed, are on the fourth Wednesday of every month, right? Yeah, not in here yet. All right, well, if you agree on everyone, I don't think you should put in not less than four times in the beginning. Just we meet every month. Well, I don't know. We don't meet every month, though, because we're directly involved. But you have the, it's OK to cancel a meeting and say we're not meeting this month. But if you say every, I mean, I can tell you, for eight years, we met every single month. In August, we had a barbecue instead of a meeting. Put that to some better. If we're meeting, that's fine. But I don't want to have the expectation that we meet every month. And then I do, I want to have the expectation that the NPA meets every month. But I, realistically, I don't know if that's. You want to take a vote on? I think this, this doesn't preclude us from meeting every single month, but it sets the standard of, you know what, at least we're more unique for it. It sets the standard of, well, we don't have to meet this month. We've already met four times. I watched it. I watched it happen that way. There are NPAs that meet four times a year. We're creating a culture there, right? We're aiming for that. But also, life happens, right? And, you know, we didn't expect COVID to happen. Yeah, right. We don't know. So I just think that it was weird. I don't know what the history was. I'm like, oh, maybe you watch it and not be here, where people weren't coming. I think we have a dedicated steering committee that wants to support having these as frequently as possible. And there's a lot of pressure on volunteers at the steering committee. And so I think that to have one more area where we could say, oh, you fell short because you didn't do this, to just change what has been in this case, I don't think is necessary. There was also, so some of the cancellations we experienced in the year that I was, there were just some meetings where all of our presenters fell real, and we knew early enough in the month that we just essentially wouldn't have a meeting. We knew people would be at a time, our steering committee, like we didn't have a steering committee members. And we made most, but I think putting it into the bylaws that it's happening every month. I mean, and we could. We could have it every month. But I don't think committing to it, that it has to be every month. We could also increase the at least from four to six. Well, but I want to speak to every month again. You always have elected officials that should come in. City Council meets every month. You always have your elected officials. It doesn't matter if your presenters fall through. The counselors fell through as well. Well, I just put a lot of pressure on the steering committee, which is entirely the volunteer work. Let's be honest about that. It's really the steering committee doesn't want to have to do the work of every month. I think that's a little unfair. I am volunteer. I'm, Vicki is volunteering her time. We want to put this on. We want to put on a good meeting for people in doing it four to six times a month, four to six times a year makes a meaningful meeting. I think that's better than putting on a meeting every month and having people come and say, oh, this is really disappointing. I, no one showed up or this was always a city issue. And even if you did a meeting that was public forum, even if you just let people talk about what's on their mind. But I give up, I give up. I give up. Oh, no, I give up. I'm giving up. Well, I mean, you know. No, it's something to say in European. Well, this is something you can take a vote on. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so here's where I'm coming from. And I didn't even know that I honestly thought they were supposed to happen every month. I didn't know the answer to the thing. But I guess when I think about this, I would rather feel, I would hate to see, I would, how do I say this? I would hate to see an announcement that a meeting has been canceled, you know, more than that would feel negative to make that meeting has been canceled. Right. So you don't cancel the meetings. You know what I mean? If we're gonna cancel, we're gonna have a public forum. Ooh, they have to cancel a meeting. You don't cancel them. That's the point. Can we have an at least? That I have more than four, but less than 12. Right. I mean, saying at least is something that we're going to commit. Yeah. Even the way it is. I honestly don't want to deliver this any longer. So let's just move on. Well, take a photo of it. So how can people feel? I mean, I guess I feel better about it before, honestly, just because I hate to see that meeting was canceled. So now the next point was, whether it's we talk about it or not. Yeah, well, I don't think so. I vote to leave it. I, yeah. I don't vote to leave it. I think too. I'm sorry. Sorry. I think that we're motivated. That's fine. We can have that. Absolutely. And then can we update this? Yeah. So I don't know. Yeah. Then is whether or not we meet regularly on the fourth Wednesday? And the answer is we don't. Okay. Yeah. And so at least people cannot, cannot put the fourth Wednesday on their calendar. They have to wait as they are right now. They have to wait until the agenda goes to foster because she hasn't put the 27th meeting on the government meeting calendar yet. She hasn't. She hasn't. We haven't seen it yet. Really? Like I just want to be fair to foster it. Like the reason why it's not on there yet is because you have a certain amount of days to put it on and I'm sure you follow that. And when I receive an agenda yet. Yeah. So when I receive an agenda I posted, it has to be posted at least 48 hours before regularly scheduled meetings to comply with open meeting law. So I'm going to say six days before. So, so according to open meeting law and then it, you know, most people who come to the NPAs know that certain NPA meets on certain day of the month. Okay. So if they were to meet on a different day, they would need to warn that change. Yes. So it's kind of assumed that they meet on the fourth Wednesday of the month and spread on the city website as well. Every month for our community meetings and the town meeting. So that is a true statement. Yes. I feel like I always see posts about it on pro-parts forum too. Yeah, in my Facebook group it's great. So we have forum and then various other social networks. Yeah. What did be possible or can you even posted all the meetings going out every fourth Wednesday that this is happening? With an agenda to follow? With, you know, can you just book it? And then if, if it for some reason isn't happening, you, would you be able to say, this meeting is not happening or this meeting has been canceled on the website? I mean, I can try to put them in, but without an agenda, it's not like warning meetings. So for the sake of, I think for the document. Forward movement, we're good here. We're good. Yeah. So can this be? Yes. I do also want to point out that just for like, like process, like we can, we can make decisions here about the NPA, but we can't make decisions about what FOSCA or CO does. Right. Right. So, so I just want to, we can ask, but we can't like require FOSCA to. No. Yeah, right. But on this community web page, you can see when certain Wednesdays are allotted for various NPA meetings, right? Yeah, it says on the NPA, like on the city website, there's NPA web pages for each NPA. Right. And it says what day of the month that they usually meet. And this one. FOSCA, when, when, like, if I'm on the board for library commission and I'm looking at the city calendar to see when is a free night for us to meet, we use that calendar to schedule other meetings. Mm-hmm. Yeah. So that's a reason to have it booked for a meeting. Well, I know as, as, so on the parks commission as a culture, when we're looking at like scheduling things, we do just kind of keep in mind that like NPAs are a thing and it's more just the culture of like our scheduling where we'll, we'll go on the city's website, not necessarily the calendar website, but the city's website to check when each board has their NPA. Okay. Hey, can we look at three? Is this 3-1? The number screwed up. Okay. Back up. Can you back up, FOSCA? Just to the one above it. See, we got two ones there. Just the time check that it is 6.38. Thank you. We have to get out of here at 7. And I was never going to have to leave at 7. Yeah. These are rooms booked, I think. So let's see their problem. Oh, they can write us. What was that? I have no idea, but the last time you were like, you'd be like, they're like... We're dancing. They're done. Yes. Yeah, it's going good. Yeah, it's going good. It's going good. I think if you take... I don't know why the formatting is missing. If you take the two... If you take that later, we'll just fix the formatting later. It's fine. I'll fix it later. Yeah. Okay. I want to speak to the number four agenda that we're in last. Wait a minute. I want to facilitate this meeting.  I'm doing a very poor job. No, I'm just saying I can't have it being clear about that that way. Thank you. One person has talked to me about it. That's what makes me the nicest. But I don't know. All right. There's a possibility. We're on the number three. Two. On Civic Clerk. We took that out. On the city's website, take out Civic Clerk. Yeah. Okay. Three. Yeah, because it could change whatever else. That's true. Good point. The stair committee will also will. Okay. That's fine. We'll update those. Sure. Sounds good. Should I capitalize cities? No. No, no, no. And then what's that? What's that? That's just like the number two there. So you can just check that. Yeah. I'll fix that. Yeah. All right. We have nothing for coral, huh? It'll be three, right? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, this was, I can help walk through this one real quickly. It was, yeah, I thought it was a little unclear the way it was working. So, and we're here, like, so instead of assumes the responsibility of establishing. So let me help read this. The Syrian committee is responsible for establishing role assignments and setting the agenda for all meetings, comma, and agendas shall be included with all meeting notification. Okay. Got rid of during meetings. There will be each agenda shall process thing. Do we want to vote sentence by sentence? Just for the interest of time. Like as some of you just, I would say change it all. I was going to say change it all. Well, let me read it through if that's okay. Each agenda shall include a designated period of at least five minutes for open forum discussions. Okay. It used to say during the meetings there will be a designated. During this time, any member may propose topics for future meetings that the steering committee shall consider adding to an upcoming meeting agenda. Period. Okay. And then just to clarify this because it was kind of it would be back. It was backed into. In addition, members may directly add topics to a future agenda agenda of a regular meeting by majority vote of members in attendance, provided that one performance present and two, the vote has been warned in advance. In other words, it cannot be added as an agenda item during the meeting. Maybe you should say that. That was my attempt to really clarify that. I like it. I like the. Does that imply that any motion, any. Any motion has to be warned for the next meeting. And if there's basically two ways to add in, that's what it said, specific to adding to the agenda to add an item to a future agenda, you can suggest it, right? And they can consider it. But remember a few minutes ago, Andrew said, let's just vote on it. That happens at NDA meetings where there's a discussion and somebody says, we've had enough of this. Let's move on. And we say, well, let's get the sense of the room. Do people want to move on or do they want to keep talking? Let's have a show of fans. And that's a that's a vote. Those are usually from. They're already on the agenda. So that agenda didn't be it's not. What if it comes up during public forum and people start talking about it? Then we put it on the agenda for the following month. That's wonderful. Yeah, but we have to take people coming back, right? One, we get people coming back and two, if there are people aren't who aren't present, but it's Andrew settled that issue by saying, you know, let's vote on it. That comes up at NDA meetings where you have to move on by calling for a vote. But I also can see where there can be an abuse of power. Right. If you sat in a meeting and say, everyone's gonna come in and well, they can stack up the next meeting too. But I see. I mean, again, that's for my right. Everyone's going to vote on everything twice. So, you know, farmers don't get upset. Well, I'm back there. I love it. And I'm sure like if we're having like an agenda item, like let's say we're like someone's doing a presentation on, you know, how we should spend like we have a surplus in the budget, which happens with the NPAs. And we want to donate the rest to the, you know, whatever, whatever. And I'm sure if someone's, well, I want to consider donating the rest like it's different organization. Like I'm sure like that is probably fine. But I think this new formulation is good is what you don't want in the same interest of the diversity of thought is there's this term called brigading and usually it refers to like online. But what can happen in some of these local groups is a group of people will come together, come to a meeting and they will say, for instance, I move that we update the bylaws to add blah, blah, blah.  So I feel like this is preventing the meeting, which I think is good. Yeah. And just through my little state thing to do, I just prevented that. Also something you always have to warn about. So like if you're going to make any decision, like whether it's like using excess funds to support some organization and whatnot.  It always has to be warned to the fans. Yeah, it has to be like the agenda has to be classified as like a discussion item or like an action item, right? Yeah, theoretically, usually in the general state like vote on blah, blah, blah. Yeah. And we talked about that final sentence, all NPA meetings making them publicly accessible in city hall and on the city website. Then we have to be more specific than city website because the city's got so many websites. Do you mean the city, the government meeting calendar? Or do you mean the ward for NPA website? I think that we already answered that because they're changing. Yeah. And so we don't have to update our bylaws all the time. We have to figure it out. Well, you want to call the city's NPA website? It's all the same website. There's just different like web pages. So links within the website. I know that the government calendar is linked to Civic Clerk, for instance, that's all through the same website. Is there a search function? Yeah, yeah. So can you say ward for NPA and it'll take you to the ward for NPA page? Yeah, probably wards for N7. Yeah. Well, I'm back to what Pam said. Yeah. Well, in terms of search, like from office. Yeah. Well, across from NPA. Right. I think that we accept this section.  Just sounds like people can offer in it. You said something during this time. Any member may propose topics for future meetings. You're saying it's the way that infers, it suggests that only at that last five minutes can people can suggest topics for next five minutes. Oh, okay. We don't find that. I think they should be. Oh, I didn't even think about that. Oh, okay. Yeah. I would just take out during this time, just any member may propose topics for future meetings. Yeah, that's right. I think that would be helpful. Okay. Yeah. That's interesting because I kind of wondered why it was thrown in there, right? Well, I guess it has to do with the agenda. That's a good point. Okay. Yeah, I guess you're right. So, folks, could you delete during this time and the little A and put back the capital A? Yeah. To that. I assume that's when it had to come up because that's why it was there, but all of it was there. Do you have to accept the other changes or? Yes, accept all the changes. Did you clean up so much of it? You cleaned up so much of it. It was, it was, it was, it was backed into it, but I had to read it three times. It was a lot of like a circular thing, right? Yeah. I was like being pure one thing. I thought maybe, you know. Hey, are we on conductive meeting? But are we have to vote on Sunday? I think we're just leading out of this section. Yeah, do a quick vote for that. For agendas, to clean up the agendas as we discussed. In favor. In favor. In favor. In favor. In favor. I want to say aye. But I'm realizing something didn't come through as intended. Okay. And that is, but I'll let her finish doing that. Yeah, I'm ready with you. And that is the third sentence. Supposed to write up there. Any member may propose topics for future meetings, comma. Yeah. And the steering committee shall consider adding these to an upcoming. Yeah. They're perfect. Yeah, that's what it should have done. Okay. Good. Thank you. I don't know how you edit like everything. Conductive meeting. Conductive meeting. I'll see you. I'd like to propose instead of the moderator will oversee the moderator will facilitate. Good. And then the following guidelines. We need another word for that because we have something called guidelines. So we could just say the following. Perfect. Yeah. So I just, tell me. Good idea. All right. So moderators shall facilitate. We're going to change. Yeah. Moderator change. Overseen facilitate. Don't bring my page. Don't bring it back. Oh. Never. And it's facilitate. Comma. Yeah. Facilitate comma. Open and close. Comma and close. Or open and close. All the attendance are expected to abide by the following. And we're going to remove guidelines. Yes. Good. And put a call on it. Put the, yeah. It's on there. It is on there. Why are we taking out A? What are we talking about? What A? Follow. Oh, we haven't gotten there yet. So meeting the shell feature clearly defined agendas and parole assignments. Oh, well, check that out because it doesn't really go right with them. It's not being parallel. And that's why I actually put it up under agenda. And I said the steering committee is responsible for establishing parole assignments and setting the agenda. I knew I meant. So I brought some of that out here, please. Yes. The parole assignments are here. I knew parole assignments. I think it was familiar. That's fine. That's what I thought. Got it now. So yeah, I think we can probably safely take that out. Anyway, yeah, I think it was very, very cool. Everybody agree to agree. Agree. Agenda is that is that done? Seven people? Yeah, because it's not. What did you say, Lee? It's not like parallel. You know, that's it. Oh, I remember that stuff, but I forgot. That's Jen, since we have less than 10 minutes left. So I don't think we're getting through this tonight. But we are going to be able to wait. When's the next NPA meeting? Next week. Next one. So we're probably not able to have an orna meeting. Because I think we're going to get through this. Yeah, we have a last question. OK, I want to ask my question. We have one page. Thank you. We have like a couple of edits. You know? Yeah, there's two, three, three and a half. Oh, that's like three and a half. So we don't have time to do that. But we don't have eight minutes. All right, let's just go. Let's see what we can do. Let's see what we can do. OK, so the last sentence under six voting, do you have who are presented or not? We're not. We're not there. We're here. Conduct of meeting C. We're taking it out. Yeah. Everyone agree? Yes. So the last two agree? Yes, agree. Yeah. Section E there. No. Use everyone instead of all others. Treat all others. Treat everyone with respect. Because what's this? Others. Did you move that from the first section? Treat. I'm doing. OK, it's just a format style. Section E. Treat everyone with respect. And as they would like to be treated? Yes. Yes. And short. Everybody? Yes. Yeah. Everyone? Yeah. Oh, I think we're in. So yes. Excuse me. Voting. Five minutes. The person is going to have seven. This is the one for the whole. We can stay. Stay. Really? We can stay. Help him. We love them. Thank you. Well, they're invited to our meeting next Wednesday. I'll bring you back to the police. Can I have both of us stay, though? It's because she's like, I don't have any sense.  Let's go. You might have more. That's important. OK. Voting. Yes. Yes. Should it be NPA's plural? That's so confusing. Well, I'll just say NPA by the NPA's. Yep. That's an S. Thank you. I have the S at the NPA's. OK. So we're good on this section? Yes. Yep. Perfect. Love it. Love it. I want to. Let's go. What does Marcella say then? Chili and S. Perfect. OK. No, we added one, didn't we? This is the word. This is a under article four. The word. OK. So no, we need the S there. Right. I have a word. Yeah, the word. That's where I decided, though. I disagreed. But I'll go along. I need that on my intended line. I'll leave that. Just when I put it on my intended line. Yeah. OK. I'm listening. OK. So what does this say? I think that if you do that, I'm really angry. Marcella, question mark one year. Question mark. So the term is restricting. All right. So I thought I did that. Is that true? We have to elect them in March. Yes. And they only serve one year. Yes. And then you reelect those ones. Stay on. OK. I thought it was one year. I believe it's a new addition because the previous rules at least were not abided by. So we were having people being elected once and then never. OK. That was a weird one. That's how I thought it was. I liked it. I thought I liked it every year in March. I don't know. Second. I think that we accept. Yes. Yes. OK. I just was questioning it. I was like, what is the S close to the S? This is just from this word here. You guys were debating whether you're going to sell it. You want the S there? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Lisa says I want the S. I should say that now. Oh, you want shall? Yes. Shall be elected. So back up. Good day. Right. I mean, isn't that the way the others are supposed to be? Right. Under the terms, the first sentence. Post. Your intermittees shall be elected. Sorry. Just make the change. I'm not going to tell you. At this point, I'm like, oh, thank you, Kirk. Just fine. Whatever you want. We're doing great, folks. You're amazing. We got this. Vacancies are good. No, it's not. OK, it's not good. Who came up with this idea that the steering committee fills vacancies? It was it was in this recommendation. Well, the thing is we have right now like six vacancies. Yes, I know. Is there anyone joining the steering committee? I think it is bad policy to say the steering committee will fill open seats. You have to put them in there. So this is how it would be. It's filled that they can see temporarily pending an election at the next regular. Yeah, not only temporarily. You don't fill the seat temporarily. All right, you may nominate at the next meeting or you can even nominate or you can't nominate at that meeting because it has to be worn. Yeah. OK, but that's why it's good for a temporary.  So like our last year committee. All is well. And it was you know, steering committee. So if something like that happens again and there's one remaining member and they got a plan the next MPA meeting, they can bring some people on, help plan, we can warn the vote to get it. I think it's a nice little safety net. Should we need it? Hopefully we won't. It can also be brigade. I have your right to vote separately. It can be brigade. You do not want a temporary steering committee taking over. Well, I think you do because they are temporary. So then you're like, no, because they're I mean, even some of our current members when we were first nominated, kind of accepted their domination and I mean, just for their own transparency, saying, I don't know how long I can commit, but I'm willing to be here temporarily. And so to be able to again, be able to plan our scheduled meeting. And what's the scenario? There was some bad intentions and someone's temporarily stacked steering committee with ne'er-do-wells. It would be sorted out at the next MPA meeting. Right? It would be limited. What if they don't call meeting? It would be at the next meeting. It would be at the next meeting. The next meeting could be six months from now since we only have to have four meetings a year. I actually do. I am concerned about the privilege involved with that. There's power and privilege in this in a way that could be harmful. Because if we misuse our power here and are electing our buddies, et cetera, we are excluding marginalized populations or people that may be interested in joining that I've been waiting for an opportunity. So if we're always backfilling, and then I'm considering that people may not want to see that the people that want to see it. But they could be nominated. If they weren't temporarily appointed, they could be nominated at the next meeting. It wouldn't be just the people temporarily appointed. They would be nominated at the next meeting. Right? I mean, when you say that, let's say that they don't, what you said, what if they don't need the meeting? And how much damage can they do on that steering committee? If there's no meeting, it's an over-wonder. Well, look at how we got the steering committee we have now. Everybody resigned, the NPA got put out a notice and came together and had nominations from the floor. They called themselves temporary, but that was a made-up word. I mean, they are the steering committee until March. What is the language of the original one under vacancies? It's not used, because it's taken out. I mean, it's just not in there at all, because if people resign, then they resign. You nominated at the next meeting. Should we include, I mean, is the proposal then to take it out, one take the whole thing out, or to change the language to take the whole thing out? So Chady made nominee individuals to be elected at the next regular. Do we lose anything by taking it out? We could nominate from the floor. Nominations can happen, right? Anybody can nominate. I don't think so. That's me. I think it would have to be an award quote. Love it. So if you're worried about what happens if we're very warm to wait, then we start, like we did this last year, right? Yeah, so we have to figure this out. Yeah, we have to organize it and everything. So that's how the December meeting happened. Otherwise, it wouldn't have happened if we had it organized. Yeah, CEDO like ran and organized. Oh, yeah, right. Because there was literally no unsteady committee. So if we take it out, there's not a whole lot of. What if everybody dispersed anyway? Right. CEDO would have to. Then CEDO would have to. So there's probably less community members came together and called and said, hey, we wouldn't do that. I don't want to take it out. So I don't think there's one. I'm taking it out. I'm OK with taking it out. All right. All right. Anything in there about vacancy? So no, there's already something in there. I think I got it. I don't want it to pass into a corner. It's after March. In March, election in March. And if vacancies occur throughout the year, you can fill them at any time. But everybody has to stand for election or reelection. I don't think that does. Thank you. So if someone wants to say, so what am I doing on the steering committee now? Could someone at the next NPA meeting say I would like to be on the steering committee and nominate themselves and speak and that members could vote? Would it have to be worn? Well, I think that's what I did. No, we don't want them for them. More than we have with them. Yeah. OK. We try to warn, like, we know a name of somebody, but we leave a spot on the agenda for other people to be nominated. OK. As long as there are vacancies, then on the agenda of routine. Routine. I want to point out that you do have for no more than one year per election. So at our next NPA, when we're voting people in, does that mean that people on the steering committee can't continue? Oh, yes, they can. They can continue. We should have voted. They don't have anything. OK. OK. So what am I taking out? We're taking out vacancies completely. Yeah. The whole section. There we go. Does everyone agree that it would be OK that I went in and just remembered these in the correct order? Yes. Yes. Thank you. So that's what you have to do right now. Yes. Don't leave a random number. Just make a guess. Just make a guess. That's a good question. I mean, geez, I'm only talking about arts. OK. So next, next, next. There's no changes to attendance. Nope. OK. So for abusive power, I put in prejudicial or discriminatory conduct or repeated acts that violate the guiding principles of the NPA. I don't know why repeated in there. Yeah, I mean, if you say repeated, sometimes I only did it once. I should have repeated it once. OK. Yeah. Should be plural NPAs. Yeah. So you guys want to read this comment? Yeah. Oh. So Marcella was saying that for any reason seems like it doesn't feel very safe that it's like. Oh, that is true. Edited for any reason. Honestly. OK. It depends on the sentiment of the. I can read it clearly here. Marcella said, I see this highlighted. So I assume there's a plan to discuss. I think this is really too broad and does not feel safe. The CEDA sample Bible as document states the following steering committee and member may be removed from their position for standard, quote, abusive power and or repeated, quote, repeated and willful violation of published norms. And this isn't perfect, but it is at least a standard that a steering committee member could strive to meet. I don't think it is appropriate to simply say that they can be removed for any reason. You're in number five. We're done. There is repeated willful violation. We're in number four. For number four, we're highlighted for any reason. And this is Marcella's comment that she made about. I think. And then let me just finish the comments. I'm reading Marcella's comment. And then Becky replied, I agree. I think it could read removed from their position for abuse of power, prejudicial or discriminatory comment, discriminatory or repeated acts that violate the guiding principles of the MPA. And I think my mindset with repeated acts was that we are here to learn. Yeah. Right. And so, you know, if someone's intention, like if it, so it's not one done. It's not one bad day. So maybe it's repeated. That's good. Yeah, that's good. Repeated or willful, repeated and willful. So can we accept the chance that it's gone for? And can we change public nor published norms? We're not using them. We're not using them. Cross it out completely. No, we're not even using them. We're not going to use them. So what we're doing, that was a comment. Well, it's under number five century published. We're not there. We're not there. We're still at the risk. I like this. So, yeah. So when we get there, we, yeah. And we're taking out taking that out. We want it. Yes. We're taking it out for the other reason. Just confirming. Yeah. So, sorry, we were just trying to figure out where we are. And I don't know why that. Is everybody okay if I can fix the fonts? Yes. Well, so she doesn't have to know. Once it's checked, it'll be fixed. If she checks it, I think. Yeah. Was it changed after? She just fixed it. I think. Thank you. I'll fix it later. Yeah. Well, did we want to remove repeated apps? You're welcome. Do the same. Thank you. Oh, I think the next one. It was in the next one. And again, I think to Vicki's point, we know that people are going to make mistakes. We are human disputes. So where are we? Oh, no. But I just didn't know if we wanted to remove repeated and willful acts. I don't see willful acts. There's not willful acts. I'm just like re-adding. I'm not putting by the guy. We need to ask. The examples of the NPA's plural. Did we? Are we still on four? Yeah. Now we're on three. Three. We haven't made it before. Repeated acts that violate the guiding principles of the NPA's. For two years, yes. Maybe put an S on NPA's by a simple majority vote of the members present. What? NPA. What? Confused. Yeah. So that's just saying that the folks who are, oh, and if they got in that meeting are on full work on that. Yeah. And it has to have been a warned meeting. Okay, that's good. That is good. We're happy. I don't think that happened. I think we're good. We're good. Love it. All right, Paul. So what's this? Disputes? Wait, go back to censure. Well, we're just getting it. Which he would have passed it on the screen. Thank you, Lee. What do we have for censure? Okay, censure. All right, go, Lee. The word published norms. Should this be guiding principles? Or is it something else? I don't know. I don't know if they'll have another document. Guiding principles? Yeah. Okay. Okay, okay. Thank you, Andrew. You wrote them in quotes, do we? I don't know why it's in quotes. I don't know why it's in quotes. So what was that? Guiding principles. Abusive power does not need to be in quotes. It's quoted from another document. Right. Well, I don't know why it's in quotes. Well, I don't know where it's quoted from. I would like to suggest we define what censure is, because it doesn't say what that is in this paragraph. And we've got that up last June. So, that way, I think that should definitely illustrate this. I mean, the same thing, the same thing as removal. You know, that's what's weird about it. Do you, should we put removal? Let's just put removal then. We'll use, but that's with the other section. Now my censure can be without removal. Right. So what I know censure as, and because I've had a researcher recently for my Parks Commission is someone can be in the room, they can vote, but they can't contribute to the conversation. They can't like add anything to the agenda. Basically, they're like, they're to only absorb information and to vote. So I just think it's important that we define censure. So we all know like that. Yeah, like what we're agreeing to by adding an engineering. Oh. I think this is the simple bylaws part of this, like language, I think. What if we combine those in together? I'm just going to get everything, I'm just going to get everything. Yeah, let's make it removal and censure. I think there's a legal component to some of the language or like the terminology for censure. And I don't know like all the backer on this. So I don't know if like, you guys want to specifically define it or like whether that's something you would want, maybe like the city attorney's office to define. My understanding is once we approve these and we vote on them. Then the city attorney repeats. Yeah. Or before voting too, because then you don't vote on something that has moved. But then you have your vote. Yeah, like sentence of the city attorney before the NPA meeting. Yeah, before voting. Let's return around. I don't know. I mean. But now there is. Remember, this is just steering committee members. It isn't members of the NPA. Right. So I think this section should be removal and we should stay away from this idea of censure because it can mean many different things. And can you imagine telling somebody you can't, you can vote, but you can't talk? I mean, I can't imagine. I need to start with a letter. I didn't really understand this, but we have to have the signature, right? Well, this is like a steering committee member specific thing. Do we have to have the signature? I don't think so. No. Is this required? If it's not required. I think it was in the sample bylaws. It was in the sample, but is that required? I don't know. I mean, I think it was kind of in response to some of the events that have occurred. I mean, if I was sent, I'd probably be fine. I was like, something that the steering committee can do. It says the holding, if you're upholding your guiding principles consistently, this could be a possible avenue if something happens. You know, I can't hear you. I can't hear you, sorry. You have to either move in closer or... Yeah, I can't because I have to connect to power, but I was saying that I believe this is in response to some of the events that have occurred in the past as a possible avenue that a steering committee could take if something happened again. I don't know if it's required per se. It's been repeated and willful. I know the theory of using censure as opposed to removal is for like, it's like giving someone like one last shot at like kind of self-correcting. Be like, hey, like we're not gonna remove you. We're gonna censure you. And you can like put a time limit on it. So you can say, we're gonna censure you for like two months. I actually don't, I would vote if we don't have to have it to remove it. And the reason I read that, you know, when there are issues of marginalization at the table and often the people of marginalized identities are under a microscope. And I think it's a message to them. Okay. So just have removal and no other like it out directly. I mean, the violations for both of these processes are the same. So it would either be the censure has to be less. I would take out censure. I would like that. I think we take both a neutral on it. Only thing I'll say is that removal, like you can't do that during the actual meeting. If something were to happen, you couldn't remove that person from the steering committee. You couldn't tell them basically to stop. Saying whatever they're saying, et cetera, you'd have to wait until the next meeting where you warned that vote to remove them from the steering committee. Censure is basically, I think from what I'm understanding is like a process that you can theoretically use in a meeting if something occurs with a steering committee member. All right. Yeah. It is meant to be almost like how in court they have like contempt of court. It's meant to be a corrective action in the moment. Yeah. You're right. Yeah. I do remember that now. But that's not warned and voted on at the next meeting. Right. That's the point. So let's use a scenario. Let's say perhaps you're in a steering committee meeting where you've expressed that you would like people to actually use your pronouns and that people are abusing. You know, this would give you an opportunity to address that in the moment instead of warning it and having to either like deal with that behavior or just not go to the meetings anymore and fill a warrant meeting. So there would be a benefit. I'm honestly, I'm neutral. I'm happy to acquiesce to the group on this one, but I do see a benefit of roughly stopping harmful behavior instead of having to wait until the next meeting. Okay. How about this? I have a suggestion. Good point, Volska. Yeah. I was just trying to figure out what I'm saying. I have a thought. I have a thought. What if we change the wording under central to say, if it are in the event that an NDA steering committee member is found to be and then just say abusing power or violating the guiding principles. Oh, shoot. Staring committee holds the authority to issue a censure. So steering committee holds the authority to issue a censure. Period. Well, and then you'll want to say what it is. Okay. And then so there you're gonna censure and then all the rest of that stands, all the rest of it stands and to me that says it's at the present moment. Okay. And they're violating it right then and there and you have the authority to issue a censure. And that is moved before removal. And then next, so that becomes four and removal becomes five. That makes sense. And you have something in a censure like your belly. Timeline, like this can't be permanent.  Right. Yeah. I just think it comes before three moves. So you just says. So you just want to keep it the same and move it before removal. Well, not keep it exactly the same. So it would say in the event that it's, I'm just gonna say steering committee member is. So remove engaged in full scope, please. It's found to be abusing power or violating the guiding principles. She's trying to get, sorry. Thanks. You're doing a great job. We appreciate it. You're a true for abusing power. So others out. But, you know, this goes on to talk about like we finished this. Well, we're not done it. Oh, the last part of this, the steering committee's job is to agendas. And now you've got the steering committee determining if it's warranted. Careful consideration. Okay. We kind of want to do the semesters. Oh, geez. Okay. So it reads in the event that a steering committee member is found to be abusing power or violating the guiding principles, comma, the steering committee, I say get rid of holds the authority to just say may issue a censure. Right. The censure is a formal expression of disapproval reflecting the committee's commitment to uphold, get rid of the ing, ethical standards and maintain, get rid of the ing, a respectful and inclusive environment. Perfect. That's good. We can leave the rest of that out. Because the rest of that, you can have six meetings. Yeah, and then we can leave the rest of it out. And then you could say, we could believe, I mean, you can delete the rest of it, except you could say the censure will be documented in the committee's. I think that's good. The censure will be documented in the committee's records. Does the center have to be voted on? Just by the steering committee. All right. Right? The majority vote. The steering committee determines that the center is warranted, the members informed and the decision is documented. That last sentence. Documented in the committee's records. Right, in the committee's records. Yeah, that I included in the last sentence. So this is what I added just now in the censure. Doctor, this is your district's records. What do you want me to say? No, I think that what we just said was just keeping the last sentence. The steering committee. What did you say, you had it, perfect. The last sentence as it reads is fine. So I'm deleting this here. Upon careful consideration, if the steering committee determines the center is warranted, the member will formally be formally centered and the decision will be documented in the committee's records. So upon careful consideration, if the steering committee determines the center is warranted by majority vote, okay? Good. Good. I was saying. Oh, thank you. Thank you. So are you saying majority vote of the NPA or the steering committee? Of the steering committee. Oh, are you great? And so I think everything upon careful consideration can be removed. All right. So this is what the last sentence reads. Careful consideration, if the steering committee determines that center is warranted by majority vote with the steering committee, the member will be formally centered and this decision will be documented in the committee's records. So we already, there's a little bit of a repeat. Okay. Just because the sentence before, I think you guys asked me to. Oh yeah, we want that. So it also says that at the end. Yeah, so that, so the sentence before. Do you want me to take that out? Okay. It was a little confusing at the time. Thank you. Upon or how about after careful consideration? Sure. It makes a difference to me. Does it to you? Isn't it? It's good. Yeah, good. We could, and let's, okay, let's keep going. After careful consideration, if the steering committee determines that center is warranted by majority vote, comma, and they get rid of the steering committee because we already did, you know, what about that? Comma. Is it clear that it's and then get rid of the steering committee? Well, it, it, it, well, Polska doesn't think that sounds like it. She doesn't think it's clear. If the steering committee determines that the center is warranted by a majority vote, I think it's implied that it's totally clear. You don't need to repeat it. No. Majority vote and the member will be censored and the decision will be done. The decision will be documented in the committee's record. Yeah, perfect. That's perfect. And then, so then there is, it's clear. There is a difference between center and removal when you make this a little clearer. Can we just scroll down a little bit? Now what I heard the committee also asked is for the three become four and four become three. Yeah, I would search those. Okay, we'll reverse the order and removal. Yes, because that's the order of, yeah. I guess how the escalation path will end. You're so good at this, Polska. I didn't think it was a good question. It's amazing today. And then we go to removal and then, so this vote, the center vote is by the steering committee and removal vote is by the full FDA. Right, correct. So then it should, to my mind anyway, my suggestion would be the steering committee member may be removed for continued abuse of power, right? Should we say continued abuse of power? Well, I don't think you necessarily need to require that someone be censured before they... Yeah, okay, okay, all right. Somebody might do something. Yeah, don't agree with that. You're just like, yeah, it's not like, oh gosh, like try to have the door open. Like, I don't want to scroll down. This one would be exciting, like, and Jake came from Austin. We're doing great. Wait, wait, where are we? Good, we're done with that. Oh, that's the abuse and conflict resolution. Is that where we are? I believe we are. I think we're getting to the test. So yeah, this section... My comment on that is it sounds like the only complaints go to REIV and there could be other disputes. I really, and we don't know how... We don't know, you know, when I think about, like, this is non-partisan, so we have new mayor. Hmm. Let me have a... I'm sorry. We have so good... We're so good. Looking at this. Oh, no, no, I was just thinking... Wait, wait, wait. What were you doing? I might have information on why it's the RIV. I could get information on why it's the RIV. Oh no, I know why it's the RIV. Or the other disputes that don't have anything... See the thing that you see with that process. I mean, somebody's complaining about the way I have an answer for you. So this is because this is by decision of the city council. This was in the resolution. So part of the resolution was that the NPAs had to do things, but also the city had to do things as well. And part of that process is that there has to be a complaint process. It was up to the individual NPA steering committee to decide whether or not they would even hear the complaint. That's fine. So why don't we do REID or who we don't get to decide that. Because that's outside of the NPA. The city council has decided that the REID and I believe CEDA would be the ones to handle. So it'll be REID or CEDA, but that's REID is under CEDA. Right. So I don't think it's worth even. Trying to look at this yet. Because they're, they're still working on a, on a process. And so until that's clear, I think. You know, this might just be okay. So try to just. Make the corrections that are there. Yeah. Or can I make a suggestion? Yes. What if we do number six? We do. This is like disputes. Are any party involved in a dispute within the NPAs? May initiate. The current NPA. The current NPA. The current NPA. The current NPA. The current NPA. The current NPA. The current NPA. The current NPA. The current NPA. The current NPA. The current NPA. You don't want to be in a dispute within the NPA. May initiate the concrete resolution process outlined by. CEDA City Council. City Council. Perfect. And that would notismatic. Cause that is still being. Yeah. Well, and that again, that we were not and we don't have to defy everything. I'm not sure you don't know that. Yeah, site site the city council resolution that stood up the process. I hear the street. It's really cool now. I'm going to see the council. Manish it. As outlined by the city council resolution. I may have to sign and set it out. It says as. I'm not sure I'm going to. I don't know. I know. I know. I don't know. I don't know. I wish. That is very particular. Just. And. It's like a spooking conflict resolution. You should join us. Sorry. You want to take a. You want to do a little. Did you do that man? You need to do what we can. Oh, wow.   All right. Okay. Voting. No. What about a form voting? All decisions made by the steering committee. What we determined by the majority of the vote. Of the members present during the steering committee and somebody put what about a form where you can't meet without a form. Yeah. Okay. Well, that was my question. That was my question. Should we write? Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Providing a form is that. But you can't meet with that. Yeah. You can meet. You can meet. So. Yeah. So you can meet, but you can't do it. Oh, yeah. This is the kinds of steering. Yeah. So those are not usually open meetings. So. I don't know that. Okay, so we don't need that. So I don't know. So just take that up as a question to have had. Yeah. My question. No, I have nothing to add. Okay. Why is it yellow? That was just because of my question. Yeah, I didn't, I tried to get rid of that. I can't figure out how to get rid of my. Seven. What happened? I had a question about this. You don't mention city employees. Got city councilors both mentioned mayor appointed department. So board boards have members who are currently holding elective positions. Of. Four servings. As mayor. Instead of this line, it starts word for it. Members. They're serving as mayor appointed city department heads. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What about. Maybe we saw. Yeah, what about. This is legal. So like. Mayor cancer and city councilors cancer is drink many members. I'm not sure. Some of the reason for like some of this is like legally like. Sorry. The mayor can't sit on steering committee for an NPA. I'm not sure about school commission members, but that's. I think we can decide that though. Right. Possibly. I don't. I don't know. It's specific. 15. This key. Order. Okay. This. Does we want to include city employees. Well. The city employees. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah. So many. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah. What about, what about. I haven't seen it. Like the city kind of a company. What about. She's elected. Not not elected commissioners, but city commissioners. Like. They're appointed by this council. So. So, so. So we need. So if, if you're saying like. As you've said. Like people like having positions like closely aligned with the city. So he would have to think like, so do we want. Commission members on the steering. I'll go into point of a city. So commissioners are appointed by city council. True. Like a voter registration. A lot of the city commissioners are. I think they're kind of people. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. I guess what's the what's the purpose? Like what's the motivation behind this role? Is it what that is when I was so in a deeper question. Yeah, I think it's foundation. Yes. In the fact that it's separate from these some grassroots, grassroots, neighborhood organization, and so that people can have two seats of power. And I think about if you're, you know, a city council, right, or an elected, an elected position, right? And then you're, you're, that's a position of power in the community, community government, and then you're taking a seat at the table from someone in the community community level, right? I agree with that. But I think we need to explore also commissioners, because this, I mean, the same kind of thing could be argued, you're not obviously as powerful as it is. Well, I think we need to have the discussion. Right. It wasn't mentioned here, and I don't know if anyone's thought about that. Yeah. I mean, the mission or can be like I used to serve on the board of the registration of voters. I was a commissioner. That was soon right now. I know, I don't, I agree. That was like nothing really. And I sat at the field of the polls and helped people register. Right.  I mean, those are the kind of people that work with commissioners. Yes, you know, they're not, they're not really fun. They're not very powerful, right? They're just some have more power than others, but they're all mostly advisory. The only one that's I pause, I do the housing border review. Yeah. And we've had, right, and Olivia Taylor's on the housing border review, right? So do we think she has a conflict of interest? I don't think so. I don't think so. I think the other left is different than that position. So I'd like to keep the language the same commission. I'd like to keep the mayor sitting city counselors and spoke commissioner members. I agree. That's good. Keep us to name them. And they are appointed city department. Yes. Just to point out, because this will be an issue, this will make Monica ineligible. Yes. And I don't know that that's a good thing. I feel like we covered if they are elected, holding elected. I think that's a second. I think that's another discussion. I agree. I think we do this because this is also my understanding the history of this. It's been to the city, the community, this NPA separate from city government. I think the issue of Monica is a separate discussion and our by-laws don't hinge on that. Right. And we can discuss that. But she's a school commissioner and as an elected school commissioner, she's not eligible to serve on the NPA steering committee. So she has always been that way. That's all fine. But doesn't the fact that if you say people who hold elected positions cover those three areas specifically? Yeah. I just wanted to point out by the side that that that will make a current member ineligible. So I just wanted to allocate that election for reelection. But not at this time because it wouldn't be until these are voted on. So if she's voted in for reelection and then these are instated, can she finish out her term or would she be expected to step down? I think she'd be expected to step down. I'm not saying I disagree. I'm just saying all I'm saying is that a decision on this would make someone ineligible. So I just want to have the discussion. I'm not saying that I think I'm not fighting either. I just think for the sake of this of the document and the meeting that we would want to make a decision regarding this language, that's a separate issue. And it doesn't change upon this. Correct. Yeah. And I think that she would be amenable to that saying, oh, that's so it's so free this out loud because the mayor, mayor, city council, mayor, city, city councilors, school permission members and mayor appointed city department heads being closely connected to the governance and administration of the city are not eligible to serve on the steering committee. Right. So if we vote in favor of this, I'm saying it would make Monica ineligible. Right. Yeah, but the only reason that Monica's on the steering committee is because there weren't experienced people there to say, wait a minute, because all the NPAs in the city do not have those groups. No, I agree. I agree. And I think this is good. I'm just saying I just want to make sure it's set out loud that we are making someone ineligible. Okay. So we put something in that. That was a little weird. Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't mean it. That felt very, but I meant we have said it. I mean, we have said it. Well, I've said it. And then I feel like the things I'm getting back are saying we don't have to decide on Monica now, but we are deciding on Monica today. Yeah. If we put the cloth, like saying that says, if there's a current, you know, commissioner, when these bylaws are passed, they're allowed to finish out there. I don't feel comfortable with that because I think that we're a, we're a growing entity and our hope is to get more people at the table to join. And if it's taking up a seat and you already have a voice in city government, I would like to have that seat because there's really only one more available after on Pro Ward 7. I don't know where she's in. I think she's in 7. Yeah. Yeah, that was set myself. And so we'll have someone, two people joining next month. So I just think, I just think about a seat, I think it's more equity. Yeah, I think the reasoning is sad. The reason we're specifically naming these positions are because they are lacking. So what about word clerks then? Because those are elected and inspectors of election. Yes. So that's why I think we should say that the current Carmen wouldn't be eligible there. What is she? She's just the teacher. She's a white shirt. She's not involved in my, but it's elected still. I think that's why we said those positions. Right. I think that's why these were here. I do understand that it would make Monica ineligible. However, to Vicki's point, she already sits at the table and has influence. So we'll be a member. He'll still be a member here. I mean, we can't read the values to those spaces. So we're not saying elected people. Okay, that's a good piece. Positions. I don't know what I might do. Yeah. I'm just saying that because in this, this, there, anyways, yeah. So I'm holding the elected position versus there. Well, and we just brought up if you say it's an elected position, a elected position would include Justin, which doesn't make sense. So I'm fine with it. Yeah, I'm fine with that too. Then I back down. Okay. How many people are in agreement with this? I guess. Can you be real? Okay, sorry. The mayor, the mayor city, the mayor sitting city counselors, school commission members and mayor appointed city department heads being closely connected to the governance and administration of the city are not eligible to serve on the staff meeting. I don't want to strike sitting. What's sitting city counselors? You know, and maybe we just say current, but the current mayor, city counselors, school commissioners.  So why do we have a city? We don't hear our own or city council or anything like that. So we just need to remove right sitting because then it would have to say sitting school commissioners sitting mayor. We can just remove city. Okay. Okay. Cool. All right, city. Let's look at on this. Yep. All in favor. Is your head up or down? Seven. Okay. We're good. And it's school commissioners and you can get rid of members. School commissioners, mayor, city counselors before you hear that and mayor, mayor, city councilor, school commissioners. Basically, we go back to the way before I mess with them. That's all you know what? Yeah. So we're taking out members. Yes. Yeah. We'll put it back on. But now we all, but now we understand. Okay. You're doing beauty's of the steering committee. It looks good. It looks good. Wait, wait. There's Ward, something on there from our cell. Maybe not. This is the same as before. Yeah, because she's right, but we're not going to do that. Given the words. She's right, but number 90. No, no, no, it's mine because it's Ward 4 and Ward 7. Yeah. All right. I think this section looks good. Yes. Except for, let's go down to that deaf woman. Oh, she has so many comments.  Yeah, we'll accept that. I think we just accept them all. I have a budget management and that is, we do get private donations. Really? For example, at least cost $500 to the next, to the Nepali. The city to the wards for, so that one doesn't even ask. Deb was incorrect there. Oh, what did I do? Put that in the notes. Sorry. All right. And then what is that presenting the lead space deficit? Okay. Yeah. Just, yeah, put the next online. Oh, I got it. You're teaching me. Yeah. All right. So this was from operational to operating. Yeah. All right. Adding an S for conflict. Yeah. Yes. Back to Mark. Oh, is this one affected? The reading on the effective issue? When we vote on the issue at hand, that's fine. Let's accept that. Yeah. Because we don't have to overthink that we've affected this. Yeah. Nobody knows, right? Nobody feels. All of that. I just wanted to use me more. All right. So what I want to do, we said, okay, wait, we're almost there. We're almost there. I'd like to speak to duties of the steering committee F funding. Okay. Overseek funds granted from the city or privately donated towards four and seven NPAs. Okay. Okay. Where's that? E. So what are we doing differently? Granted from the city or privately donated? We're adding. Okay. Or Oh, how'd you do that? Oh, she typed me. Okay. All right. Amendments to the five lines. That stands the way it is. Right. What did we do with conflict of interest? I think we just did. Well, I didn't ask you. The last sentence isn't complete. It just says a vote null and void or deceptive further deliberation or a and just draw a review on the issue at hand or a review on the issue at hand. So we're good there. Yep. Now we're just at the miscellaneous provisions. Yep. So the miscellaneous provisions. Can we continue to scroll discrimination based on race, color, creed or sex, origin, gender, and what happened there or any other characteristic protected by the law? Well, we need everything but the I'm not understanding why discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, gender, age, disability, or socioeconomic status periods. Right. I think that's all we, those are the protected categories. I don't think that there there may be more added in the future. Like HIV status. I think I know word five for the resolution that they came up with their inclusivity kind of resolution. They included this statement that way. They didn't have to update every time. Okay. So it was another characteristic. But yeah, up to you. They can add a bazillion other things. Are we all in favor? All in favor. All right. Another suggestion here. Add shall. We love that word. I want to add shall. Okay. So what happened? Wait, why don't you just, we just, we just accepted the shall Okay. That's good. That's all. That's an excerpt from the city. So we just kept it. Now members of the ward four and seven NPAs who violate these policies may be called out of order and upon repeated violation asked either to assist or leave the media. Okay. So this is not the steering committee. This is during an NPA when someone says something out of pocket and how we deal with them. Yeah. I'm not sure. Let me see where it is. But I don't know if you can ask someone to leave an NPA because it's a problem? Yeah. Well, you can ask. I would suggest we change as to suggest because I think putting ask to leave, I think a lot of people that would interpret that as saying you can tell them. I actually, I don't think this section is even necessary. All right. Let's take it out. Well, I mean, I think there is, I can't, I've seen another NPA where this is the question because we had meetings where people have said very offensive things during the meeting. Sure. And so we, what we could do is kind of like a censure where you're issuing that the NPA doesn't agree with this language. Okay. And that could be the way to deal with it that everybody in the room votes like that. Then this doesn't mean our standards. And we can't kick them out, but we can say like, we can put on the record that the majority said, this isn't full. You could like the, you couldn't adjourn the meeting, like for a definite amount of time or the rest of the meeting, like first to be what? Twister. Yeah, like you could do that for like, in someone could try to de-escalate or something. Or like a community member, like step in like. So what I've done in a meeting where there was something inappropriate said, I've recessed it and I then like talked to the person to the side. And it is a way of kind of like publicly shaving, you know, where if someone's like, so someone says something and someone can say like, I moved to recess for five minutes and then someone from the steering committee goes, it's like, don't do that. Okay. So I think that that whole thing gets indented also. I think, right? No, it's not part of the statement. It's not part of the statement. Okay. I see it on here. So it's not. Yeah, that was, she added it, but it doesn't belong under there because that's the quote of the city's policy. I also don't think the word is members. I think it's participants because even if you're a non-lord member, all right, it's anybody, rat president, that's a good thing. I've tried to catch those and good for you. Well, do we want to get in there? I go back to that. Yeah, maybe not. If we think it out, we don't have a way to deal with inappropriate behavior during the meeting. Right. Well, we could also change it to a turn or a recess or something. So I propose we put members of the award four and seven NPA who violate these policies or how about, let me agree with this. So let me finish my money in here. Okay, going. So any participant in award four and seven, awards four and seven NPA meeting may call the meeting to recess if inappropriate behavior is displayed at which time a steering committee member is expected to blah, blah, blah. I don't know. I think that's maybe the way we want to. I think that we take it out. I don't want to have to do that. So let me ask you then. So if someone says something at a meeting that's inappropriate, then what do we do? Well, I think that's fine. I mean, you said I'm with you. Participants of the awards four and seven NPA meeting who violate these policies may be called out of order. Just maybe called out of order, asked to leave, asked, called out of order, asked to desist or leave the meeting. We can't ask them to leave the meeting. Maybe called out of order. But what is that, you know, like, what is that mechanism? Like, I don't know. I know, but if we take it out, we have no mechanism for the rest of you in a further procedure, at least holding a file that it reassess. Nothing, nothing. I think that was the issue. I think it was the wild west and people could just say and do whatever they want. I think, honestly, I think the best way to deal with it is to have something. Okay, until then, can we get rid of to add grievance procedure and because it's already in there also and all gone. So all that can go. And we just on this one last piece post. Is this it? Is this the end? This is I think, are we done this thing? No, I'm just cleaning up the end. So and the last part we get to see her is now and I've got one treat at it for this too. Okay. And I think that if you say you have I'm going to take out maybe other things. I would just say or not. Tending to violate these policies may be called out of order comment and NPA members may call a recess may vote may vote to call a recess or end the meeting. Fine. All right, let's give this. It says attendees who violate. Do we want attendees of the ward in seven NPA? I don't know. I don't think so. We need attendees. Making these changes right now. I just want to make sure that declaration. I don't know. Are you on the internet? No. Okay. I would love to do it. I can save this on my and I just want to double check. So this is the last city attendees meeting attendees who violate these policies. Okay. Yeah. So maybe call out of order or just at calm out here to the state of Vermont and city of Burlington. Meeting. Do you want to have a meeting? No, I'm taking a meeting attendees and then everything else between that and who can go. And then it came to Burlington and I don't know how you just get back here.  There you go. Perfect. Maybe called out of order comma. And I would take a while anyway. Okay. And we can change. Let's just get this out of the way and NPA members may vote to call a recess or end the meeting. You can't vote without warning it on the next agenda. You can for point of orders. Oh, great. But it doesn't say that in here. That's just like standard procedure. Anyone can motion to adjourn or we can put that in there. But that's I mean meeting attendees who violate these policies may be called out of order. Oh, so instead of in adjourn the meeting adjourn the meeting. Just totally disrupt your meeting 10 minutes into your meeting and then you're going to adjourn it because somebody says no, if we vote that this person's out of order and adjourn the meeting, there could be things on that agenda presenters who are there. But I think it's a little less. Okay, so let's say an NBA made members might call the police or not. Meeting attendees who violate these policies. All that of all are not in order and NPA members were due. That's an option. May be but you're out of order and then you put them on the next agenda. Now them or us. May vote to call or recess. Oh, sorry, corner. They vote to be violated when he's talking. Everyone's talking. All will recess or adjourn the meeting. I like it. I like it. Everyone on board with that? Yeah. We got options. Should we vote? Are we voting? Yeah, we're just getting it up here. We're voting before we finish it. Meeting attendees who violate these policies may be called out of order and NPA members may vote to call or recess or adjourn the meeting. Does that work? Yes. Can we put in there? I think that's applied. We're just interviewing the bylaws like, why are you here? All right. Are we voting on this? Yeah, I think we're voting on it. All right, ready? And so we actually made it this entire time. Wait, I've got one more. Okay. Let's go back to where it says under non-discrimination. Additionally, our NPAs shall adhere to. It's the state of Vermont and the city of Burlington's declaration. Remember that declaration came from the state when the governor signed it in the legislature. Where are you staying with that? Just put it in that sentence that says, what's additionally? Additionally, our NPA shall adhere to the state of Vermont and the city of Burlington's declaration. All right. The state of Vermont. I think the city of Burlington includes at least the expectations from the state, if not more. But I can't hear you. It's different. I'm saying it's the state of Vermont. It's not different. Okay. That's why I'm just wondering if it's like, it is the same. Ali Gang made the resolution on January 7th, 2022 to for it to pass. Burlington may have added additional. It is different because the state of Vermont wouldn't say the city of Burlington unequivocally condemns. Right. So let's just keep it the way it is. This is the word and from the state's declaration that the governor signed and that was sent to all the cities of Vermont. Burlington, I think added additional language around it. So then we don't, as I understand it. They did not add additional language to the declaration of inclusion. They did because this says, so why it says the city of Burlington's declaration of inclusion is because it starts with the city of Burlington. Yeah. And every, every city or town, it doesn't say in the city of all or the city of Maryland. But it doesn't make it Burlington's. But we're saying which states, the state's document doesn't state. Okay. Well, hold on. No. Okay. Well, all right. Can we vote on this point? Yeah. And then we'll, I think I have a solution that's real simple. Go for it. Okay. Additionally, our NBA shall adhere to the city of Burlington's declaration of inclusion, which includes the state of Vermont's declaration and states the following. I'm okay with that. Does that work? Yeah. That's a great solution. Thank you for pushing. Thank you, Combinizer. Additionally, comma, our NPA shall adhere to the city of Burlington's declaration of inclusion, and then after which, after which that includes the state of Vermont's capitalize. Yeah. Declaration lowercase and you want declaration lowercase? Yeah. Yeah. Declaration lowercase. Sorry, Posca. And, and you're done. And that's it. Do we agree that it's okay for the font, the numbers to be adjusted on this by me? Yes. Yes. Yes. Or I'd be like to confirm, but I mean, you don't like Google Docs. No, I, I'm good. Okay. If you want to do it, you go for it. You go for it. All right. Do we want to, but if you want to do it as a whole? Yes. Yes. Let's vote on the document as a whole.  Facilitator. And the whole way. If you want to do it. Okay. Let's vote on the whole document. We did it. We're gonna vote on the whole document. I removed this here that says plus the change. I'll get rid of that. Yes. Yeah. It's a final draft. This is the final draft. Everyone approved the final draft. So does it take four or nine? Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait for now. You just take final draft instead of the date. Okay. Yeah. Final draft is a beautiful and that could be in red too. We did so such a good work together. Yeah. It can be done. Are we voting? So we're gonna say we edit, we final draft. I'm just so excited to vote on that. 2020-24. 802-3M. All in favor of adopting the final draft, date of 2020-24. 802-3M. All right. And I would like to officially acknowledge everybody's hard work and both VOSCA, especially, for picking with us. Thank you. I mean, really. And thank you for editing and your wisdom that you are. Yeah. My gosh. I move to adjourn. All in favor? Yes.