very detailed. Yeah, >> that's okay. >> Right. So, yeah. I don't know. So, Evelyn, you've been through this once, right? [clears throat] >> And then Cody and I have been through this a few times, right, Cody? >> Yes.
>> Yeah. >> It's been different each time. So maybe later we could I mean I don't know if you have any thoughts about how we should do this because um there are a number of ways to do it. I
think um anyway like you know whatever would >> um I would just think about how we should do it because this
is the first time we've done this way. So, >> Angela, we're recording now, right? >> We are recording. Yeah. So, this is a meeting of the town of Ammer's Cultural
Council. My name is Angela Mills. I work for the town manager. We are awaiting the arrival of one more member so that we reach quorum and we are kind of chatting about the way that um the deliberations on the grant
proposals will be handled. While we're waiting, we're able to meet remotely due to suspension of open meeting laws by our governor, Mora Healey. And at some point, this video will be cleaned up and updated and um loaded to the town of Ammerst YouTube channel where it will
live. >> Thank you. >> So, I know that Will can't make it. Um Will Bill let us know by Yeah. So, he let us know by email like right at 4:30 that he wasn't going to be able to make it. >> Oh, okay.
>> So, you all got the email? >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Dang it. I'm only on 45. >> Feel like behind looking at some other people scoring. >> It's You are all good.
I think we said like somewhere near half, but I I think we're like, you know, like acknowledging that we all have a lot of things going on. We'll try to get as close as we can. So, >> that's totally fair. >> Yeah. >> So, Joe, just because it's hard for us
to actually allocate specific funds until all the applications have been reviewed, right? So, like we can't really get into any anything specific. um or type or nail them down until they've all been
reviewed. Um so I guess so if Bill's not here, so hopefully Jess will show up then we'll have Cororum especially over the the coming holidays before the next meeting. I definitely aim to have all 111 scored [snorts]
which should be very achievable from >> right >> time I have. So, >> so Cody, as as Cody mentioned, like we've done this kind of slightly differently every time, haven't we, Cody? >> Yeah. Um, [snorts] we stayed
the same in the past. We meet the me. We never been this ambitious
and yeah, I think um I I looked at some of the training that the Mass Cultural Council sent out for um for all of us. I looked at a couple of the videos of the webinars they had and it seems like
they've they're also evolving like in kind of making new recommendations about how we might approach the process based on like different people's experience throughout the state at the various LCC's and um is it okay if I just share a couple of things that I thought were interesting
while we're waiting for cororum is that all right or is that against meeting laws yeah okay so um one of The one of the um approaches that was put forward by the MCC as a way to
approach it is they would have um people score the applications right as we've been doing >> and the way they've done they you know they said at least three people need need to um score every application. So that's something we can look at maybe
for future years when you know um it's like not everyone has to review all the applications. That's one one approach especially since we have so many right but at least three people need to review each application. So I'm just kind of giving you this as background because it doesn't really impact what we're doing
this year because we all have to review all of them just we don't have enough people right to and enough time to do it that way. And so um and so once the scores have all been done, one approach that the LCC the MCC put forward is that
for example if the full score is 20 points. So they could they said as an LCC one could establish a threshold for example everything above 15 gets full funding and then everything you know below that
they kind of start going until the money runs out. I thought, "Oh, that's >> I don't know if that will work in our situation, but it's certainly it's it's one way to do it, especially if you're like in the place with fewer applications and less money, you know, to
>> Yeah, I would not think above 15. We find them below 15.
We will talk about but just glance was last [snorts] night. is but that I gave 20 and someone else did 10. So
[snorts] um that may not work but um >> that's that's what I was thinking. Yeah. And also
there was I saw a confusion was just she gave it all to something usually fun
because of out and I just want to all understand just because it ain't
mean it's off the table. Right. >> That's something we can ag Oh, I think Jess is here. >> So, I think I just raised as an example. I don't think that that formula necessarily will work in a situation,
but you know, they do have different approaches that we could think about and and I think um I don't know for like Joe. So, Joe, this is the first time you've kind of you're working on this, right? So, >> yes, first time for me working on
anything of this sort. So, I'm kind of getting used to it. >> Yeah. Because Go ahead. >> Yeah. I'm I'm even getting used to like as as I score, I'm getting more used to like what, you know, I'm trying to of course be as objective as possible,
right? But, you know, everyone we're all filtering sort of, you know, each scoring criteria through our interpretation of it. So, I'm trying to be like, okay, what's a four? What's a five? What's a in my own head? What's a three for me? What's a one for me? what's a and then relative to each other like crap did I score that last thing too high relative to what I've learned
overscoring the next 20 stuff like that like yeah as we go along I can defin my mind I've
done this three for Now for example and someone doesn't have a place or date. It may
be a four or three instead of a five. >> Yeah. I'm glad you brought it up. Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm glad you brought that up because I had noticed that some of them didn't
didn't have like places or dates locked or had of course I'm not going to say any specific cuz we haven't reached quorum but like some of them had like yeah maybe we'll do here here and like the range is like all over the valley in Franklin County. Or some of them are like oh maybe we'll do here here and
here but all of the potential places are in Ammerst. So I'm like even considering that as sort of like oh okay like things like that. Yeah. >> Um, and there's someations Definitely.
It just feels whoever it was. Well, let's see what happens. [snorts] >> Yeah, >> maybe they will prove us.
And that in my mind is a object story, but that's just how I do it. I I definitely feel that and I think that's I'm starting to realize okay that's why
we've got multiple people doing this so I'll everyone sort of can coalesce into a because for me and I'm not going to say you know who or what application again but I've been getting a lot of uh I've been reading that line like rather than only benefiting a single individual
or specific group again like I look at the application then I look at that line I'm like hm and with some of these applications you know >> which is good that they have it for each time. It reminds us to say, okay, you know, look at that criteria. So, I thought I saw Jess, but maybe she like
lost her connection. She was here momentarily and then >> I'm I'm emailing her right now to say like if you can join us, that'd be awesome. [laughter] >> Yeah. Um I think I don't know. I think one of the a I had a couple of questions
which probably will influence um maybe how we review the the outcome for each of them. One question was um we raised this last time I think when um Angela wasn't with us but we need to if in case there's anybody who did not file their
grant to receive report from last year then that's we you know then in theory they wouldn't get another grant this year. >> Yeah. >> Right. That was one thing and then the other >> sorry and then um I don't think I heard about this happening but the for this
last cycle but in the past people have returned money that they couldn't use for some reason. So I don't know if that we had any of that happen. Um but that's you know something we can take into consideration um down the road. And the
other Sorry Cody do you want to say something? >> No. >> Okay. Um, and then the other just to to kind of briefly address what Joe was saying too is that um like for my
for my um scoring I think in cases where people didn't have a venue or date or supporting document um that I definitely took that into consideration and so there were a quite a number of those I thought this round
where people don't have a confirmed date day or venue or um [snorts] the no documentation saying that they have you know either a partner or a place a venue because and
>> exceptions would be people who have the venue themselves. They don't need to provide that to us, right? Because it's their venue. So we don't need that from them. So um or if they're like they have partners that we know are going to um facilitate for example some of the
outdoor things that happen you know you know on the town those things um I think we you know kind we we can become confident that they will occur but then a lot of the applications did not have either venue or date they just didn't
have enough details >> lot of TBD I've been seeing and it's like hm >> and it says in criteria for funding that those details should be available. Okay, so that's that's one thing. And then I think my sorry I was working on my Mac
and I was attempting to copy and paste all my comments into the spreadsheet and it didn't work. So I had to anyway so I had to end up entering all my numbers manually. So I didn't incorporate the comments but you know they'll can discuss them as we go. Hi Jess.
Jess, thank you for joining us. So now we are at quorum. So Cody, if you want to call the meeting to order, I will share screen and we can get moving on the um on the agenda. >> Yeah, I'm calling
the meeting to order at 548. Hello, come on again to the coal count. Oh, you got a lot to get through
as you already have is any of the here like to comment and please do So
the race hand feature room and um I think we're good to move on. So I will pull up the draft minutes from the last meeting. >> All right. Sounds
good. Um, has anyone had chance to review the me? [snorts]
Um, so was that um everyone feel comfortable
taking a vote on this man. [snorts] Yes. No. [sighs] >> Yeah. I'll take a vote. Yes. Um, I will just
go by my stream. Um, Rachel. >> Yep. >> Here. Sorry. here and yep approve the minutes and
>> yes the minutes and army yes the have been approved
and Thank you. Um, next I do believe this grand and before we dive in
finish the discussion of how we want to approach this. We got about 55
grants. [snorts] We reviewed um and the dress just was a go and did more of
what we needed and less that you got to do in the coming >> [snorts] >> But yeah, in my head I was
thinking that we will talk about those sports. first and then we can talk about the high scores.
Um, I think if we just go through every city, we do need a time keeper in
um, in the past We done five minutes, but we are sure on time or maybe
too many minutes in highlight of why we gave something we it. And if we need
detail, we can circle back. So, [snorts] >> sorry, Cody. Are you saying that we should start reviewing the individual ones or or like talk um generally about how we want to do it? You said like you
say two minutes. Well, I say how we want to do it. I shared
my idea, but I want to hear other ideas. I mean, I like my brain wants to just start jumping about the ones that interest me, but I kind of agree with you in the sense we could go through it more
systematically. So, [laughter] um, did you did Cody, did you mention going like low scores first and then high scores or just going through them one by one? Were those two of your suggestions like from the top? See my
the store ones we will probably find fun. I'm more about that on [snorts]
that. Um yeah, >> I I agree that we probably need to go through them individually. The only thing is that I I don't know if um you
all notice this too is that if we're using the current spreadsheets with the averages, it's not going to work. The averages will not be accurate if not everyone has completed their spreadsheet, right? So we don't re
really even know what the scores the average scores are at this point um very accur accurately. So before um we had quorum I was asking Angela what would be a a good way to try to resolve this like do we maybe we need to either
pull any spreadsheet or scoring sheet that's blank and that way the averages will come out more accurately. Right. um to to discuss the items. That was one thing. And then um the other
>> Yeah. >> The other Sorry, did somebody want to say something? >> No, I would just agree with you. So, and then the other thing too is um I just
before you joined I was I was mentioning that like I had zero for a lot of them and that's because in part um many did not indicate venue or date which was one of our criteria. So I think we as a
group maybe need to decide on if those that information is missing does that then become like grounds for like it's like it does not fit our application criteria or you know because some of
them like I was saying earlier is that they because we know they have the venue themselves the applicants have the venue then they don't necessarily need to provide documentation on that. So that was that was one thing because I don't know if you all were looking at the same
thing when you were scoring and then [snorts] >> um yeah and then in some cases and I think probably everyone had this where maybe the score is one thing but what you what you know we individually would be inclined to grant may be another
right it could be a great project but if this amount is being asked or certain criteria are not met maybe it's very difficult for us to make grants. So I I I just um maybe before we start talking very specifically about
the individual ones um I was I I would like to know if anybody else had um have similar questions um about like when when we're going through the individual items so that we're not having the same discussion over and over
again with each. I agree. I I think I agree with that if I was hearing you right that idea of maybe maybe expanding on that a little even going into like setting aside all the ones that don't have a set location date
and prioritizing only the ones that do first and like putting set sorting them to sort of those two priority brackets if that makes sense. Um but that that's not exactly what you said. I'm just kind of jumping off of that. But I do like that idea of kind of like thinking like hey the ones that have their venue and
date set >> give us a higher priority to discuss them not uh first if that makes sense. Doesn't mean like high priority for funding is higher priority for like discussion just as ways to start parsing them. I I like that. I like that thread
of thought. Um, >> now I do agree and we always been critic or low. So,
and just the way we are doing it means what we've had in the past. I've mosticient
way to do it. So, >> we do we do have to pair it down, >> right? And then flip side of Excuse me. Go ahead. >> Oh, no. I you you were gonna you were saying something. I didn't want to
interrupt you. >> Oh, okay. I was just gonna say flip side of that consideration is >> um does each of us have like say a handful of applications we really would like to champion for you know full
funding or nearly full funding because I think probably um when we look at the overall spreadsheets there probably will be some applications where everyone you know supports Um
>> I I do. >> So So I think that's a way for us to like to think about things too. Um and like you know as we're going through the individual discuss uh applications. So I
don't know if um so in theory we could there's five of us here. Um, so Jess, do do you have any specific
questions or did any like because I I noticed you also finished the >> Right. So, um, did you was there anything you think we should take into consideration as we're deliberating that jumped out? I
think a lot of the big like request projects that are really competitive were a lot of them were all up at the top. Um there are a lot of like smaller projects.
Um in the second half and I definitely agree with the point about wanting to have a set date. I don't necessarily think the date itself needs to be set, but that there needs to be like a considerable amount
of planning that makes it clear to [snorts] us what the project is actually going to be because there were definitely some grants that I read where it was like a concept that was cool, but I don't see the implementation all that
much. Like there was one play that sounded really cool, had a good write up, but they didn't have any sort of like >> here's how we're going to put it on here. Like nothing like that really. >> Good catch.
>> And some [snorts] say, "Oh, we will come to your town. You know the kind of robotic
language that they probably [clears throat] just submit to a lot of count just
pasted. um the language. So those are in my mind. >> I just wanted to also call back to the
idea that you had Rachel. Um, I really like the idea of I mean I I noticed this as I was grading as well. So I I don't know that it's like the super catchall answer. Um, but I like the idea of maybe picking a threshold number. Maybe it's a
a much higher number than what we think. Maybe not 15, but something like 17 or 18 that we know like, okay, if we're passing through something from this, we're going to do like a like maybe 3/4s partial to full.
um just to kind of get some of that out of the way. >> Um I like that >> or or kind of start to like really identify what projects we want to push forward. So I really like that idea as like a way to kind of just break the ice a little bit. >> Um I feel like it it should be a larger
number. Although I will say that we then run into the issue of like there are definitely some projects that I scored highly that when I went around to what I thought the funding should probably be, it was kind of like okay maybe I wouldn't give them full or even like 3/4
partial. Right. So I think like just intentionally or setting the intention that like if we're scoring someone above a threshold that means this is going to be like full or high partial as opposed to um something lower than that. Not to
say that we can't do a full I I think like there are definitely maybe some projects that fall under or lower than that that because of the amount that they're asking for I would be inclined to say full. Like if they're asking for $500, I know that adds up of course, but I think like, you know, I'm more
inclined to fully fund a slightly lower scoring project if it is less of a financial commitment as opposed to saying, "Okay, 10,000. Here you go." >> Yeah, I think I know 15. >> Yeah. I I think >> I love that one, too. But it's like,
wow. It's like [laughter] >> Yeah. Um, I also think it might be helpful for us, uh, like we mentioned, like if we come maybe to our next meeting, um, and just identify like maybe three projects that we're like, yes, I really want to champion this. I
want to see this get, you know, high partial to full and then identifying maybe that we pair that down to like one per person or something like that in the course of the meeting. But I think just >> maybe like just doing some icebreaking
strategies. But I definitely I I agree with you. I think like >> identifying some kind of a threshold for scoring after we have scored all of them and then using that as a strategy just to kind of Yeah, cuz I think sometimes when we do the whole like going one by
one, I think it it's helpful and I think we should do that at some point especially at the end as we're finalizing numbers. um so we can feel good about it. But I think sometimes going one by one um we miss some of the context of why people pick things. Um so
that's my thought. Anyway, >> I got a idea and this may may not work. Whoever gave
let's say a 20 else did that's you champion or the highest or whoever gave that champion
That way is easy fast. [clears throat] >> That's it. >> Yeah. So, >> I think that that's an interesting idea. And I do I do have 120 personally that
also happens to be the one I would also champion. However, there are some others that like I would champion, but I like gave like a just for example like probably gave like you know fours or fives and everything else but like maybe like a three in the budget or something but like I would want to say like hey
this this seems like really good and cool for like the asking amount and the fact that it's in Ammerst and free and etc. So there there's some other as a slight tangent. I I was noticing that I I almost wished there was a separate category for like cuz you know the
accessibility and community benefit are like one thing I almost wished but I know you can't separate it gets too granular if you separate everything out but I found myself almost wishing there was a separate category for like cost of attendance because like some of these are like hey this would be really cool
but it's like 20 bucks a person versus like this is like oh and it's free and in downtown you know that that's something I found myself considering a lot you know Right. Oh yeah. I think what to scale down the number of categories. That was one of the things we did discuss.
>> Oh yeah. So I can understand that. >> No, that's so I think I agree with everything you all have said and I think that it's from my part I I still think it's really difficult for us to arrive at any specific numbers when not
everything has been scored, right? like we need to have all the scores done and then we can then we can um have a more substantive discussion about um the amount of money. But I I think like Jess before you joined I was mentioning how
like MCC had one of the webinars they mentioned like one way to do the we all score like to have a threshold above which you know it's like fully funding then they and then I don't think in our case it would we could do it that
precisely but that's what we were as context that's what we were talking about having like a threshold so maybe in our case as Evelyn pointed out it would you know could be something more like 17 or 18 as opposed to, >> you know, just just as as a number to throw up. And um and then the other
thing I was just going to say is that I don't know today if there's anything that um because we haven't all finished scoring, right? So, it's hard to know what the top top scores are in terms of grant applications.
Um, but it sounds to me like we're in agreement just about the principles of um how we want to go about this. And then Jess, just make sure I heard you correctly. You said that we don't necessarily need to have a date set as
long as we know how they're planning to do this, right? Yeah, I I agree with that. Yeah. >> Yeah, that was just what I was personally thinking. And another thing, well, I guess two other things that I was considering when I was reading apps that I'm not sure if everyone was. One
of them was like accessibility in terms of like location. Like some of the summer camps sounded really interesting, but are also like 45 minute commute each way
>> and like thing things like that. Um, so like the benefit to Ammerst residents in terms of like are they actually going to use the program itself realistically? And then the other thing was
um oh the alternative funding where the question of like if we we don't meet the full grant need, how will you supplement the funding? I've I was definitely looking at that and considering that and
like the actual amount itself of projects like there were some that I was like this is a project that seems like a high score to me but they have so much like so many other relationships that they
seem to be leveraging >> that it's kind of like why would we put the funding here? I don't know. >> Right. even or like they're going to be hey this seems like they're going to be fine if we don't give them this amount like not not to say it like that but
kind of did say it like that actually like in that sense >> yeah to your point I think it's also the same as um certain events or organizations that do the set program year after year after year after year
they're very well established and then you know and in terms of our wanting to diversify what we support or you know like certain groups that we want to support then to what extent we want to prior prioritize those types of applications as a whole right especially
since many of them are going to fall under a similar category too so I think those are things that we're all thinking about I'm sure and then you know hey maybe that would come up and sorry Angela you want to say something >> no so I um I'm going to do some
background digging on whether or not people submitted those final wrap-up up parts of their applications and I will touch base with our accounting office to see which organizations returned funding. Um, at this point would it be helpful or I just looked at the master
spreadsheet. I never added a bucket or a row for the type of applicant. So I haven't categorized people according to like music instruction or musical theater or drama. Is that helpful at
this point or not helpful at this point? >> Maybe not yet. >> Okay. >> Almost. I that's would be I would be inclined to say. What does everyone else think? >> I think um last year it became a lot more helpful as we were kind of doing
final deliberations just because we are like okay we funded like five orchestras like let's let's fund this instead. But I also I'm noting that I feel like there's a larger diversity of events because I I really feel like we had like
>> 30 music ensembles last year and like 30 plays and like it it became like okay like do we want to say in in in lie of kind of supporting things that are outside of that like let's let's try to limit how many music events we're we're
doing or we're fully funding and things like that. Um so I think it might become more helpful later. Um I was also going to say uh I had a thought I also putting this in the space I think we should come
maybe to our whenever we do like uh start deliberating I think it also would be helpful additional to coming ready to like champion projects. I also think we should think
about like what projects we don't want to move forward with and getting that out of the way as well and having an idea of like okay we're we're not like we can revisit of course but I think maybe having an idea of like okay we this one is clearly not not doing what
it needs to let's let's clear this out. Um, and I think that again like that that'll kind of like brush away some of the the extra noise in in our grant application cycle. >> I I agree. I've already got a couple of
each, but I don't know how much time we have left. Like Whitney said, I was like I was like, hm. So it sounds like we could um like at the when we start doing the detailed deliberations we can pick out the groups that like we all
pretty much agree need to have a very substantial amount of the request funded if not the whole thing right there that kind of top basket of top and then the ones that we would we know probably I mean for sure we would deny right we
would have those and And the in the middle is when we have to try to make the numbers all balance. >> Maybe separate into full, partial, and no. [snorts] >> Yeah. Maybe a threshold
for the nose or also help that any 10 is a no. >> I agree with that. Below a 10 you said is a no. I agree with that.
>> I think that's solid. Yeah. >> Yeah, >> I agree with that. It'll help. It'll help start ping it down. Good idea, Cody. >> Yeah, >> that'll be super fast. >> Yeah, to start like >> we just have to look at what we gave
them. Yeah, >> I like that idea. [snorts] we we could probably figure out what that number is because for people who've already finished scoring like you know it's if we didn't have that in mind um
but yes I take your point it's we could have um you know if it's an application gets four points or five points or below then you know that's obviously um not something we'd want to support but yeah I I think to the point to the
point of like the upper threshold old needs to be we need to confirm that also the lower one probably. Um >> so I've been taking notes this whole time and I'm happy to clean them up and watch the video of this meeting again
and and submit minutes for this meeting. Um, but it sounds like we have really good strong jumping off points so that we can do a detailed agenda for the next meeting and and really plow through a majority of your applicants.
>> Yeah. >> Like setting upper like like lower limits to initially cut off for no, upper limits to cut off for strongly considered to really quickly sort some >> to really start cuz I like that. Yeah, because I think once we have all the scores in, it'll be easier to establish
that those thresholds. >> Absolutely. >> Um, >> can we uh can we quickly uh do we have a set time for our meeting? I know we talked about it last meeting, but I just want to make sure like are we
saying we want all of as or as many as possible grant applications done by our next meeting? If so, when will that be or when are we thinking? >> I'm hearing that Thursdays are not good for people. Um I Monday Mondays at 5:30
work great for me, but not for everyone obviously because Bill's not here. Um I can send out another doodle poll if you want or we can hash it out right now. Um, Mondays
are awesome for me, but yeah, Bill was not here. So um I said Sunday do pull and give a deadline. >> Are Tuesdays and Wednesdays still good
for people or no? >> What? Wednesdays good for me? Uh although I agree with I agree with doodle. I like I like chatting with y'all but I love doodle polls. Ever since I used the first one, I was like, "Whoa, why did nobody think of this? Whoever invented Jud was genius." I was
like, >> the other, sorry, the other thing I was just gonna mention is that we we are really running up against a very tight >> Yeah. >> because right Cody, you know this that the denial letters need to go out um
with a twoe grace period for people to appeal. So that I think in the past has always landed us at making a final decision at latest mid December. >> Yeah.
>> I would ask to me next week. >> Yeah. Next week. Yeah. That's why I'm trying think of a
deadline for D. But keep in mind every or will be traveling cook
this week. I hate to put a deadline of day four, but kind of got to
>> Well, since there are five of us here already, do you think we could just pick a couple of times now since we're all here and then we can just double check with them with Bill? I mean, even while the doodle goes out, just because the rest of this group, I think, everyone's gonna be doing different things, right?
Yeah. >> As long as he does the special I can run the mean if none of those times work
for him. So, >> I know last year we like especially around this crunch time we were meeting twice a week. >> I mean, do we want to tentatively just put Mondays and Wednesdays down? Monday's 5:30. Uh I think we had seven
for Wednesdays and then if we don't need to meet or we can't meet >> we can say okay like >> we can drop the hold >> that yeah >> I will I will say
>> Wednesdays I'm only available from 7 to 8 because I that that is my busy day. I have all of my classes and and my two other jobs. Um so that is yeah >> um that is the only time I'm available but I have a more open availability
Monday and Tuesday. Um so yeah those are my thoughts but I know that Wednesdays were hard also for the rest of the committee. So >> yeah I can I can only do I can do Monday Wednesday start from 5 to 6 or 5:30 to
6:30 only. no later. Um due to an obligation, afternoon evening obligations and then Thursdays are a little more open for me. Um >> um >> I'm only making the suggestions because I know Angela needs to post what is it
48 hours or something business. >> Yeah. >> So >> yeah. So that's why if we at least have some dates we can just put down you know that for her to announce but we don't have to use them if it doesn't work >> I can do most nights I [snorts]
will flag Monday the six [snorts] I have a day board me but
I work awesome for me >> for you just >> um I should be able to do Wednesday or Thursday night. Yeah. So correct me if I'm wrong. I'm here
Monday and Thursdays are good for folks. Uh yes, for me Monday, Wednesday can only for me can only go until 6:30. Thursday
is like good in general for me. >> I think I think I could probably try Wait, you said up until 6:30, correct? >> That that's that. Yeah, just on Mondays, Wednesdays.
>> Uh Thursday is all cool. >> I think the earliest I can hop on on a Wednesday is probably 6:30, but what we maybe like getting a little bit creative if most folks can meet during that time
and we need to hop off or hop on to maintain quorum like maybe we can do a little tango there. um just to be a little >> but yeah um otherwise yeah this time Monday works um also maybe it could be like you know again as we're running up
on to that deadline maybe we have a special two-hour meeting or or something like that just to get through um >> in crunch I can be more flex flexible especially so >> sorry what >> oh I I can I can be more flexible during like a super crunch deadline of course
like >> Oh yeah I I meant more for like a Oh, wait. Is Is the 6:30 also on Mondays? >> Yeah, it's on It's on It's on both days. If we're like crunching up against the dead, I can I can arrange for that. Of course. Like
>> that's understandable though. >> Be helpful during a crunch period. >> Are are are Tuesdays terrible for folks? >> No. >> It can go until 7 on on a Tuesday. >> That might also be an option. I don't
have anything on Tuesdays. >> I can go until 7 or 7:30 Tuesday. >> Yeah, I I end class 5:15, so I'm cool for a 5:30 moment. Um, and also classes end very soon, so um I'll have time.
>> Yeah, same here. >> Yeah. What's a reasonable deadline for folks for finishing the >> end of day? >> Next Monday. >> I don't know. End of day. Next Monday. >> Yeah,
>> I can certainly try. >> Yeah, >> I will I'll I'll do my best to complete, but if not, I think maybe at least 80%. So that by the time we get to the last part, you know. >> Yeah. >> Gotcha. >> Yeah. I'm only at like 45, so I'm like
got to go. >> Um, sorry. Can we um Can we set a meeting maybe for Wednesday of next week and with the aim of people trying to finish the spread the scoring sheet by Monday >> because that way we could really talk
substantively >> that works >> for everybody here or no? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Do like 5:30 that works. 5. Yeah. 5:30.
>> So, Wednesday, December 3rd, 5:30 p.m. >> Yeah. >> Um, yeah. >> For us, you said next Wednesday 5:30. If If so, I agree with that. Sweet. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And hopefully we'll have full set of
scores to work with by then. >> Thank you so much. Yep. >> Yeah. >> And Angela, you said you pull you'll pull the blank spreadsheet, right? So, we have a more accurate average in the
Thank you. Okay. >> Yeah, I'll pull Joe. I'm not Joe's. Joe, you're scoring. I'll pull um >> Mr. Kim's scores out because uh I think we're moving in the direction of sending him up. You haven't shown up in forever,
so we're finding someone to replace you. Oh well. >> And why he got brought up was his account. But we got each.
Oh yeah. >> Say lovey [sighs] [gasps] is from >> I don't think we got nicipated for listen for
hours. Um therefore we can't drink >> one. >> Thank you. >> Enjoy the holiday. >> Happy Thanksgiving.
>> Happy Thanksgiving. >> Thanks everyone. Byebye. Safe travels.