Um, >> you're all set. >> All right. Oh, go ahead, Athena. >> Were you talking? Oh, okay. >> It was me. >> Okay. Well, um, I'll do a roll call. Uh, Lynn Griezmer, >> present.
>> Council Ryan, >> I'm here. >> Athena, just want to see you can hear and be heard. >> I'm here. Yes. Thank you. >> Yes. And Pamela Young, >> I'm here. >> All right. Okay. We are in session. Um,
so welcome everybody. Um, I just want to see if we can bring um, Ronnie Parker into the room for this conversation. The first item on the agenda is the um, HRC uh, commission charge. Oh, actually no, sorry. We have public comment. Um, I
don't know if there's anybody in the room. Okay. No, it was just Ronnie. >> Hi, Ronnie. How are you? >> Hi. >> Good to see you. I actually were at the same event yesterday. >> Yes, we were
>> supporting immigrants. >> Oh, nice. I didn't know that. Um well, we'll talk about it later. Um okay, so the Yes. So, we are revisiting the human rights commission uh charge um because um there was a couple of amendments um
that I proposed um based on what I had heard from from Ronnie um and she was had met with the human rights commission and they had discussed this together and come to an agreement on um the requested amendments. Um so I don't I can screen
share. Wait, can I screen share? Am I allowed to screen share? >> Yes, you are. >> Okay. Um, so I'm just going to go ahead and screen share um the proposed amendment so um everybody can see. So
this is um what was presented at council at the last council meeting. So um the charge um where it says the commission shall it's um numbered 1 through 7 and um and number one we were going to be
striking just the words to the DEI department for consideration. And then where it says number seven um we're replacing um this number seven that's highlighted here with the second version of number seven. And the
difference is the it's the addition of this sentence um which I'm just going to put in blue. And then um it is removing um the part where it says um mediate. Is
that right Ronnie? Did I get that right? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So I will just um I'm just going to highlight that there. And then I think I can also um go to the original version of the charge that we passed and make any changes in that document itself. Um
but I just wanted to remind folks what we had talked about um and then um go ahead and hear what um folks thoughts are um after having had the initial conversation at the council meeting.
>> Yes, Lynn, I see you have your hand up. Yeah, I I look forward to both Ronn's and Pamela's um uh thoughts. I have no problem with the first one. Okay. So, I don't know that how much time we have to spend on that. It's basically is we're
just basically saying it's beyond the DEI department. It's well beyond. So, I that's to me that's not an issue for me. The second thing is what is it you're trying to happen in the second change
that isn't already in the motion. That's all in in the charge. >> Yeah. Um Ronnie, if you could go ahead or Pamela maybe speak to that. Um, I think the idea was just to be inclusive
of informal ways of resolving conflict because it looked like all the written documentation was so formal. You know, it had to do with going to the state, going here, going there. And of course all those options I believe are used and Pamela can speak more to this but also
to keep open the option for just a conversation for example or to call upon certified mediators to help if we thought that would be useful. was just to keep that option open. Pamela,
and and also because of Pamela's time, I think was a big issue in like sort of the one-on-one conversations I had because of open meeting law. Um, and just to have more flexibility. Sorry, Pablo. Go ahead.
>> Sure. So um I I don't think that the DEI office was really involved in the crafting of the language um for the second version like we the the way in which the complaints are
currently uh I'm going to use adjudicate it which is far in more much more stronger than actually happens is uh and I think it might be helpful if you guys will allow me to say is like a a complaint come in
comes in and we typically they can be someone can call in, they can walk in or they can submit an online uh submission where they're required to to provide certain information and then and the
department staff, myself or Philip would have a conversation with the complainant um and describe to them the process. the um the process is actually I would argue is very informal because we don't really
have authority to have a formal process like we um we don't have the ability to subpoena people in. We can make a request of them to come in but there's no legal authority for anyone to
um to really respond to a complaint. Um the exception to that would be if there is a complaint against a town um staff member. Then of course um the town
manager would have the ability to have HR compel the person to be in conversation with um you know with the DEI office. Um the I think
I think that the language both version A and version B and this is my personal opinion not the opinion of the of the HRC both versions in sort of suggest to people that there's more than that we can do as a department than they uh you
know than we actually have the legal authority to do. So um I think what you have to decide upon is which of the versions you know uh you're you feel most comfortable with having knowing
that the HRC prefers uh the second version over the first version. >> Thanks. So, I I've actually um I found this is the bylaw, sorry, not the bylaw, the um human rights commission charge that we voted to recommend last time.
And so, you can see here um it sounds like we have agreement um about removing to the DEI department for consideration from number one. And so, we're really just talking about these two different versions of number seven. So, this is
the original here and then this is the the changed one here in red. Um, if that's helpful. Um, yeah, go ahead, Lynn. So, first of all, Pamela, I I'm regretting that we haven't had you at one of our meetings as we've gone
through this process, and I'm not clear why that is. Um, but you're here now. And so, um, and I'm I'm one of the few counselors, I think, that has had any serious
interaction with the Human Rights Commission. I can I will not go into detail. Um, I cannot go into detail. Um but one of the things that you said is
been concerning to all of us as we went through and that is what what can we legally do and what and but the other piece that I've always
been not clear on okay is to what extent does the actual commission know any details like names, where somebody lives or any detail at all
about the person that's come in and or is it all summarized in reports that then come to the Human Rights Commission? And then the other piece is then in fact
yeah let's just stay with that piece. So let me answer the first part of the question about legal authority and um so legal council meaning KP law and I are sort of in agreement that there's very
li limited legal authority for the commission to act on complaints. Um uh uh I would say that members of the commission feel very strongly that having the ability for people to members
of the public and others to have a form for raising complaints um they think you know they feel is very important. Um and if you were to sort of survey the the commonwealth you would see that some communities still have
and some do not. it it it you know cities and towns are sort of split are split on that. Um the second part of the question like what who knows what when a complaint comes in. >> Um it's my understanding that go decided
that the HRC will have the authority to write their own procedures and to establish their own procedures. Um there have there has not been any procedures that were previously established in
writing for the human rights commission. There was a practice in the human rights commission which we have maintained the last four years since I've been here of informing uh the chairs or co-chairs of
complaints as they come in and generally they are informed of the nature of the complaint um and you know sort of whether it's a an individual or a company or a town employee those sort of basic informations they're They're generally
not provided specific information about any complainant, but there have been some exceptions to that. Um, but as a rule, they're not provided that information. And that's done primarily to try to
maintain the confidentiality of the parties because uh being a public body, you they could not maintain uh confidentiality. information would be subject to the p you know the open meeting laws and
public records. So to to provide some limited shelter to the parties um the body as a whole has not been informed of specific information at the when the HRC is preparing their annual
report for uh town council. um DEI staff write a summary of the complaints that have come in and that summary too tends to be you know fairly generic. We received, you know, for example, 10
complaints. Three of them were against um businesses in town, four were against individual, you know, whatever the nature is. And then there's typically a very short um paragraph about each of the um about
each of the nature of each of the complaints and resolution. And again, I'm using resolution loosely. It's typically, you know, an individual um has been referred to another state
agency or a respondent was uh contacted but was not interested in um and participating in the process. Um, to my knowledge, I'm trying to, there
have not been recently any cases where both the respondent and the complainant agreed to enter into a conversation or a d discussion about a matter. That typically does not occur.
>> Okay. Um, council. Yeah. Right. So, as Pamelan noted, we in the current draft and in the proposed revised draft, we have left to the commission
um establishing procedures for complaint resolution. We decided perhaps not wisely, but we decided not to go into that. We felt that that was something the commission could determine for themselves.
And so we didn't go into that in any detail. So I'm my first question is to what degree if any is that uh process that the commission will engage in at some point where they will establish
procedures for complaint resolution according to the charge. Will that address could that address some of these these concerns or is that going to create even further complications? So that's my first question. What is the sort of um how's
that going to play out? This complaint resolution >> procedures process. >> Okay. All right. I thought it sounded like you had a second qu part to the question and I was waiting but I can answer that first part easily. So the uh
the HRC has already spent a lot of time with KP law and has um through that interaction a a draft I would say proposal for the complaint process. So
um the commission and KP law as I said had numerous conversations and KP law did propose a draft resolution process. Um so uh there is something that has been vetted that the commission could
adopt quite easily. Mhm. >> Would it address or does it address these concerns that we're hearing about um promising more than you can deliver and also getting uh the commission
involved in legal um or privacy or um uh you know open meeting law violations. >> So I I would the short answer to that is yes. Um I and I think earlier on you
were presented with two different versions of the change. One that came from the KP law and the other that came from the commission itself. And so there were only um and Ronnie please correct me if I'm
wrong, but there were probably fewer than four or five points of contention where they did not agree. So on most issues, the commission and KP law were in agreement and I believe that um KP
Law has created a version that would um meet the needs of the commission and yet still be within the parameters of the law. >> Okay. And Pamela, is that the version that we're that we are looking at right
now? >> Um, it is. Yeah, it's not. So, >> we'd have to go back and look. >> So, uh it's not, but I think um and perhaps this was uh perhaps this was an error early on in in my um tenure in the
town. The HRC has been working on revising their bylaws now for three and a half almost four years. And initially uh we identified you know we meaning the
department the DEI department identified some issues in the bylaw and we started the process of updating them and they they the issues resolved not only around like the language that we're discussing but also other language I um we probably
did sort of missed thinking through oh we should be really thinking about changing from a bylaw to a charge early on. And so the conversations real were initially were all about changing the
language of the bylaw assuming that that would be the mechanism for updating uh the HR the HRC process then um and I you know I think it was a wise decision to say oh this commission should be more in
line with other bodies now that the town has um a new form of government and So moving to a a charge does make sense. Some of the earlier conversations did not take that into consideration. Um and
as I as I said earlier like on 90% of the documents between the HRC version and the KP law version there's complete agreement and where there were some uh you know issues of contention um in the
initial document that was presented to you or um are presented to the town manager um there was an Excel spreadsheet that showed like this is the current version of the bylaw law. This is the language that the HRC would
prefer. This is the language that KP law would suggest. 90% of the time there is no change. There were only a few uh points where there was disagreement >> and was one of those points. Sorry, I
just wanted to clarify this this LA this number seven. Was that one of those points to Ronnie or Pamela? Do you remember? So, um the the the content of number seven is a point of
contention um because KP law um is not necessarily in favor of having an investigatory body. However, as good attorneys, you know, they have prepared
language that would allow the HRC to do what the commission stated was important to to them. >> Um, I'm just want to make sure Joy, Councelor Ryan, were you finished with your remarks before I pass?
I guess I'm I think the committee Jo and maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but I think the the thought was we're going to leave this, you know, this issue of complaint resolution and process and procedures. We're going to leave that to the commission to sort out
on its own. And sounds like according to Pamela, most of that has been sorted. and what hasn't been sorted, they're going to have to figure out in consultation with KP Law and with with Pamela um and anyone else relevant.
They're gonna have to sort that out. But we go um chose not to get involved in that. And um so we haven't weighed in on that at all. Um so I guess the question I have still is whether is that going to
is that from hearing Pamela it seems that there really isn't that much difference around procedure and that agreement if there is any disagreement agreement could be reached fairly easily in any way it's not going to be our concern we I mean at the moment at least
go is not getting involved in that we're leaving it to the commission and to Pamela and if necessary to KP law to weigh in again and just to vet the the procedures and that's that's in your court. Um that's where I think we left
it. Um we could go back as a committee and re-examine all that and and offer our opinions on it. Um but we chose not to. Um and at this stage I'm not sure that we would want to or could. So I guess the question if it's makes any
sense is do do you Pamela do you Ronnie believe that um you'll be able to find enough common ground to create a set of procedures based on what KP laws has provided you um and that you can you can do that it's not a problem. So before
you answer that, I counselor Ryan, I actually with quite serious embarrassment want to suggest that go missed a step. And the step they missed was they didn't
take this charge back to KP Law and to Pamela for review before we released it from the committee. And I because it came to us with the knowledge
that there were these conflicts in thought and you know and then in our exuberance to do what I think was the right thing to do which was to change this into a charge. But even then charges
um have every reason to be reviewed by legal counsel and we didn't do that. We talked to legal counsel early on but we never went back to them. So I will just respond and Ronnie please
jump in. I I do believe that there have been um a number of different conversations with KP law and that um the commission working with KP law can reach um agreement on a set of procedures because 90 95% of that work
has already been done like um >> yeah um I I guess so the question that I have and and um I I would also like to hear from you Ronnie is about this last sentence. Then because um we do have the
preceding sentences here um up until um you know where we get to the point where the word mediate appears right here. Um that's really not in question, right? Like we've already established that you know we don't have any amendments to that part. So I guess what the question
really is do um do we still want to recommend these amendments to remove the word mediate and then to add this final sentence and um I guess Ronnie if you could speak to that and and a bit about what you've talked about with the fellow commission members >> right um may I ask if there is another
commission member in the audience because I'm not really able to >> no then all right then I guess the Not the consensus, but the majority view is that if this is going to hold up the
charge, we get rid of this edit. >> If if it's going to hold >> if this last sentence is going to hold up the whole thing that we get rid of it and put mediation back where it was. I mean, just leave mediation out if we
can, but not add a sentence. Well, let me let me ask of you know Lynn and counselor Ryan, what is your opinion about adding this sentence and removing the word mediation or sorry medi mediate from? So it would be removing this word
mediate here that I'm highlighting and then adding this sentence. Do do you have strong opinions about uh doing that or not doing it? uh Lynn. So I my whole thought about this has now
been further educated if you will by the issue that has been raised by Pamela and that is the kind of business that
HRC would generally conduct or the kind of complaints they could would generally conduct particularly for instance you know somebody outside the town's employment brings a issue
with an organization outside the town's town's purview. There is nothing in open meeting law that allows that to be discussed in executive session.
And therefore you are exposing both the complaint, the person that is making the complaint and the organization andor person that you are making the complaint about is
subject to public record and to a meeting that has to be held in public. And I I just want to tell you I I mean maybe there are some people that would like to air their issues that way. I personally
wouldn't. Um, and I'm not clear that this is let me just say I there's nothing that I know of in open meeting law that protects that individual and all of the
documents related to that case from then becoming public record because it does not imply it's not having to deal with buying of land. It's not dealing with an employee situation and compensation.
It's none of the open meeting law um allowed uh events protect that and so it would have to be held in public and I don't like that. So there you
>> I so I I hear that. I'm just wondering I mean it sounds like the procedures that are already in place you Pamela you had mentioned that none of the personal information is given to the commission of the people involved. >> Yeah that's correct. So generally when a
complaint comes in um the information is gen is just shared with the chair and the co-chair and um most of the time that information is shared in its generic form right so we got a complaint
about X about Y and um you know we'll share what resolution we are able to provide um if there is one so I'm I'm um uh so I've just reread the last couple
of sentences again between the two version sevens and um and you know correct me if I'm wrong but I I think the second version um as Ronnie said >> is frozen. >> Can you hear me?
>> Yeah. >> Yes. Okay. All right. Um, the second version attempts to make a suggestion that in spite of the limitations sort of listed previously on the list that there
would be an effort um to some to come to um some resolution through discussion, mediation or negotiation. Um I I I would say that you know the legal the the lawyer side of me would say that
um the first version um has those same properties but they're implied rather than stated. I mean we're as a department we're always trying to provide the best resolution or advice to
whomever comes in as a complaint as a you know with a complaint and um and to seek different avenues to do so given our limitations. So there's not a huge difference between the between those two
statements. Um other than I would argue that last sentence in the second version is more explicit about an effort to provide some sort of resolution to uh
individuals who are making a complaint. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, councelor Ryan. >> And so my concern about that last sentence isn't that it creates um the impression that the commission can do
more than in fact it can do given all the various limitations we've been talking about so far this evening. >> And so um that's that's the problem. Um the commission is not they're not trained in
um you know mediation. and they're not trained negotiators. Um, and I what I heard I I went back and listened to the council discussion and listened to Ronnie's remarks there as well. And what I heard was this the sense that at least
maybe all the members of the commission, but certainly many of them would like to have more involvement in the complaint process and more options than just referring to some sort of state authority is what I remember Ronnie saying.
Um, and so there's that desire to to to have more engagement, more involvement, but it's being weighed against the the risks here. Lind mentioned some of them relate to open meeting law. Um, KP laws raised, some related to just the law in
general. Um, and so we're on the one hand wanting to protect the town and the commission. Um, and also honor their desire to um, do what they see as their work. And so we're kind of going back and forth. Um
I do feel that last sentence as it's written um creates the the impression which is not I think completely true that the commission can actually function as a full boore mediator negotiator.
Um, at the same time, clearly members of the commission would really like to be more hands-on, more engaged in trying to bring resolution in informal way to some of the the complaints that are brought um to the town. And I'm really having
trouble squaring that circle. Um, so if somebody's got a solution to how to do that, um, I mean, I have language where at least if you could put in language that recommendation includes
the recommendation to employ the services of an outside mediator and or negotiator. That kind of language would be introduced to clarify what recommendation uh, means earlier in the in item seven. >> Can you can you um repeat that one more time? just
>> well I'm just I guess I can and I will but um but it doesn't address what I heard repeatedly the other night in the council and I've heard before in in these meetings from Ronnie and I think from others in the commission which is a desire to have more engagement in this
process. Um what it says, what this language would say is that the commission in making a recommendation, one of the ways it could make a recommendation is to re recommend that um the the town employ the services of an outside mediator or negotiator.
Um so yeah, I can give you that language, but I'm not sure it really addresses the issue that that we're struggling with, and it doesn't really square the circle. And I hear Pamela suggesting that, you know, you can read that last sentence a couple of ways. You could read it
strictly in sort of the sense I do promising too much or you could read it sort of loosely and just say, "Well, you know, it's not really what it's saying that much. It's just we would like to have a say in this if we could, >> but we're not really we're really not trained negotiators. We're not trained mediators. Um we're not we don't have
powers of adjudication. Um, so yeah, I don't know if you want that sentence now or that phrase if that would help, but um I can offer it if you wish. >> Okay, let me uh let me just hear from Ronnie. >> Thank you. >> Hand up. Um, I think that the commission
does want that praise, but it's one of those things that, as you say, one could go back and forth on, but one thing to keep in mind is that when we say the commission wants to do this, the commission doesn't do anything. As Pamela has said, we have no involvement
for the most part except when there are exceptions. So, I have been and there haven't been many. Um, so it's not the commission when we say that we're seeking these options. We're really just seeking those options for Pamela and her
team. Um, I don't think anyone on the commission expects to actually be in the process of solving it. Although the commission members many members of the commission feel and I feel this a little bit too that when we say this is a human
rights commission process it's sort of a bit odd you might almost say this is a DEI complaints process because we don't really we have asked Pamela and her team and they have complied with our request
to tell us when a new complaint comes in but you know a whole year can go by and we hear nothing about it and then Pamela or Philip or somebody prepares a summary that goes in our annual report and then we may talk about it some but I think
the commission has discussed and understood understands the need for cons confidentiality and sort of the uh special situation that we're in and so people understand that
we don't need to know the details Um so the procedures that we have now which I just really want to mention because as Pamela has also said really for years many months anyway those
procedures have been vetted through a number of human rights commissioners as they've come and gone and KP law and I think we're sort of in a good place with what we have um visav KP law and Pamela and the members of the commission. So,
we do have a plan since we've been asked to own up to them ourselves as our procedures. We do have a plan during our annual retreat to go over that. But I don't expect any problems. And because it's taken so long, I don't remember
what these few issues were. Although I do know that Pamela had the matrix, I imagine we'll look at it with regard to the procedures that we have in place now. So, I don't see a problem there. I think people would like to have this option, but it's not everybody. And
um you know, it's sort of I'm I'm trying to represent a spectrum of points of view about this. And the reasoning to the best way that I can communicate it is simply to have this option other than the more formal options not for us and
not even for DEI because they're not certified mediators or I don't know if they are or not but partly to be able to draw on others who are certified mediators or who facilitators who can facilitate this discussion. I do
remember Pamela I hate to like contradict you. I don't want to contradict you, but I do remember that there were instances where people were I think there was one where there was a town employee who was complained against, but then when that employee
found out that there was a problem with what they had done, they immediately apologized and withdrew their action. So that's something to in my mind that's an example of something that got resolved uh through the through this process. And
so we want to be as open as we can to those kinds of informal resolutions before going to the state or before feeling like you came too late or it's that nothing can be done. Just to be able to talk about and express your complaint is something that I know a lot
of commissioners are really keen to have. >> Yeah. Um I'm going to call on Pamela and then I'm going to make a suggestion based on what is everyone has just said um of how we could uh actually change this. But um go ahead Pamela.
So um I I think what's missing from the discussion it are the pro the proposed um um resolution procedures and the
resolution procedures that KP law uh drafted include both an an informal and a formal process. So, I do think that the concerns raised would um have been addressed by KP Law in their draft um
resolution process. Um, one thing that has not occurred yet because we've of course been waiting for the bylaw or the charge to be completed is the publication of those procedures. So, um,
there has not, to my knowledge, ever been published procedures for the HRC and the proposed uh, procedures that KP Law has would be published and available
for folks to view on their website. And they include um certain things that you know I will say that I felt very strongly about and KP Law felt very strongly about like a statute of limitations. In my first year here, we
got a complaint from an um an individual who'd been a resident uh of um in the town and the issue had um you know been an issue like more than five years prior to the complaint coming in and um and so
I with agree with KP law that that you know it's just not it's not useful because there's nothing that I can do to assist this individual when the statute of limitations has already
passed. So, the proposed um complaint resolutions include a statute of limitations that align with the state statutes for filing these the types of complaints that we receive. Um and and
that's pretty firm. It states that it has to be in writing. It states that the person has to um you know identify themselves but yet to address some of the uh flexibility that the HRC
commission wanted there is an informal process that has uh more flexibility built into it. So I I I again I will just say like I think that what's explicit in the second
version of um of number seven is implicit in the first version of number seven. And when you couple that with the proposed complaint procedures that KP law has suggested that the HRC adopt
then uh um I think the needs would be would be met. >> Um thank you both. So, so what I was going to propose is that instead of adding this last sentence, we could um take up councelor Ryan's um suggestion
to add to this language about render recommendations and we can I can take that from you in a moment and then maybe add the word directly mediate. So, right here, um, because I think that coupled with the language that councelor Ryan
suggested, I think it makes it very clear that the commission will not directly mediate and that the pro that if there were to be any recommendations of mediation or negotiation, it would be handled by a referral to a professional.
Does that meet everyone's needs or approval? >> I'd like to see the other wording. Okay, George, can you I mean, councelor Ryan, can you please read that aloud? Yeah. What I'll suggest is um
in the second version that you're presenting in the amended version um after the first sentence, you could insert a sentence saying that this includes the recommendation to employ the
services of a qualified outside mediator or negotiator. So a separate sentence is what I'm thinking at the moment. Um after the first full sentence. So it says the commission may report, refer and render recommendations on certain issues
involving the town, including concerns as set forth in the complaint resolution procedures established by the commission. Period. This may include the recommendation to employ the services of a qualified outside mediator or negotiator. Period.
>> Okay, >> that's what I'm suggesting. >> Now, listen to Pamela. It may grow. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah. >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. I put it in the wrong place. >> Um I don't know if Can everybody see it? Does that look like what you said? And
I'll try to make it larger if I can. Let me see. This includes the recommendation to employ the services of an of a out of an outside qualified mediator or negotiator. >> Yeah, I got that. >> Actually, I was going to say this may include
>> um >> Yeah, this may >> which I think may very well be in the procedures that Pamela is referring to. I imagine maybe all this is there. Um I I'm certainly don't want to be adding anything that isn't either going to be covered or is covered in the procedures
that the commission will create. Um so but this was a thought. I don't think this is adding anything to what KP Law and the commission has so far crafted with their procedures document.
Um, but maybe it just makes clear to the public or to the council or to the commissioners themselves. Um, if it has that goal, then maybe it's worth it. Um, but that's that was the thought. And then the next sentence
reads, the commission the committee does not have the the commission does not have the authority to subpoena witnesses or take sworn testimony or the power to adjudicate or directly mediate is what you're suggesting. Okay. the resolution of disputes between individuals or
entities. >> Okay. >> Um Lynn, did you have a comment on that? >> No, I was trying to clarify that and then um both look to Pamela and Ryan and see is this acceptable.
Pamela. >> Yeah, I think that's a great compromise. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay, good. >> Okay. Um would Oh, Council Ryan, if you're speaking, you're on mute.
>> I'm sorry. I should raise my hand. >> Oh, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, this still goes back to the council for a second reading >> and, um, after having a chance to digest it and think about it, if you have
concerns, qualifications, or whatever, that certainly could be taken up at the at the second reading. Um, so this is not the final word by any means, but I guess it's our best attempt to try and find some kind of middle ground or some kind of squaring of the circle if it's
possible. >> Okay. Um, great. Uh, would anybody like to move to recommend this version to the council? Oh, sorry, Pamela, you had a comment. Go ahead. Oh, I was just going to say I thought
that the new sentence was going into the second version. Um, that that was council right. It's going into the first version. >> It's going into the first. I'm going to remove that right now. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. >> Yeah. So, um Yeah. So, I guess I'm asking if anybody would like to move to
um send this version back to the council. So, that includes the changes in seven and the change in one. I would so move. >> Anybody like to second? Do Can I second it?
>> Yes, you can. But I >> I'm going to second it. >> You certainly. >> Okay. So, the motion is to recommend the version
um of the bylaw, I'm sorry, of the HRC charge um amended. Can I just Alina, can I just say amended at the GO meeting of 526? >> Yes, that's fine.
Okay. And then um councelor Ryan. Um okay. Um any other discussion? >> Okay. Um, I guess I'll go ahead and take a vote. Uh, councelor Ryan
>> I. >> Um, Lynn Griezmer >> I. >> And I'm an I. Yay. >> Um, and that would be Oh, two are absent, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Three. Yes. Two absent.
>> Got it. Okay. >> Let's see what our colleagues think. Yeah. And then I will just attach that updated version to the recommended motion language for council um Athena when we do the reports. >> Yep. If you send it to me as a separate
document, that would be easiest. >> Okay, I will do that. Okay. Well, I just want to thank um Pamela and Ronnie. Thank you for being here and helping us work through this. Uh Ronnie, did you have something you wanted to add? >> What about the bylaw portion?
When does that get processed? >> Um we yeah we read it at the at the council meeting and there will be a second reading at the next council meeting. >> So we had proposed a change to that. >> Yes the uh that is >> is that discussed here or should we take
it to the council? >> I I think any discussion would come to the council. >> Okay. All right then. Okay. Thank you for showing up on this lovely sunny day. >> Oh,
>> we appreciate it very much. >> Thank you. Councelor Ryan, did you want to say something before they go? >> I I wasn't aware of I I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of a proposed change to 3.3 the proposed bylaw. And is it is it a single
word or phrase or is it compliment? >> I'm sorry, Ronnie. >> A phrase I can tell you. >> I would be kind if you don't mind if the chair doesn't mind. >> Yeah. It is >> go ahead >> where it says no person shall be denied any rights guaranteed pursuant to local commonwealth or federal law we're adding
or local commonwealth federal or applicable international humanitarian law and that refers to laws that international conventions that the US has signed and ratified like the convention against torture
um covenant on civil and political rights and so on which come into play in our work with immigrants. >> Okay. Do folks feel like that's something that we should uh change now and recommend to the council or should
we amend if necessary in council? I mean, I'm happy to bring the amendment to council. >> The the biggest problem is it wasn't on our agenda. >> Ah, okay. We can't we can't talk about it. I but I appreciate you bringing it
up. >> At least here it is. Yeah. >> It this is one of the reasons why we try to have any amendments discussed during the first reading so that if there is any issues that the committee can then discuss them back at the committee level. >> We did add the we did add the bylaw to
the agenda. >> We did we did add it to the agenda. >> Well, it is on the agenda. Okay. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Then that's great. That's terrific. Then in that case, um, George, any concerns? >> Well, it's just I think there are ways
in which um you can get some kind of redress with local, state or federal laws. Um there, you know, they may not be successful these days. But um with
reference to this this fourth category, I guess the question arises just a practical question. How does one actually get redress? Um, conventions that are recognized internationally.
Um, I guess Ronnie would point out that some of these are recognized by the United States. So, there must be some mechanism for by which one could could pursue it in in American courts. Um so I guess the only that's the only question I I know at least in the abstract what
you can do or what that there are ways you can seek redress in the other categories but when you're talking about international law international conventions um just from a practical perspective how does one actually act on
that? How could the commission act on that? How could the commission help somebody act on that? Um yeah, Ronnie, do you um want to share about that? Yeah, thank you. >> So just last week we had this case of u Sudanese human rights lawyer and we
wrote who had been condemned to death. Um we well in short his story is that he went to Sudan to visit his grandmother. He was detained, jailed, sentenced to death. Um we wrote a letter requesting
clemency for him from the plenty potentiary shade dair for Uganda in New York and we cited some of these international conventions. Um so that would be an example of what
we would that what we could do. >> Good. Thank you. >> Um any other thoughts on that? Um, I yeah, I I feel inclined to bring this back to council and to make that
amendment on the floor. I don't think I mean, >> it has to be made. You should let the coun the council president know in advance. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, well, thank you
everybody. I appreciate it. Thank you for your time and and I know we >> Thank you, Pamela. and Ronnie for spending time with us. This has been informative. >> Yes, it has. >> Thank you all. >> You're welcome. Good night. >> Have a good night everybody. Um okay, so
I am going to move us on uh to the charter um review recommendations and um we have a document that was um made by Athena. Thank you so much Athena. Um I think when I open my Excel it's going to be that document. Okay.
And then if folks want to follow along with me, um you can also get this in the meeting packet and I just downloaded a copy of it. Um but this basically summarizes um all of the recommendations that uh came to go um from the council.
Um we have the language in column C um that the charter review committee proposed in green, additional proposals in blue, and then >> we're still looking at the human rights and human rights commission bylaw. It looks like you just haven't shared the window that you're looking at. Or I can
share it. Whatever you Whatever is easier. >> Oh, I think I can share it. Hold on. Let me >> um Can you see it now? >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. So, um yeah. So, that's column C with the proposed language green additional proposed language in
blue. I think that came from the council and then deletions in red. um the type of change um if there was a sort of like um consideration of one kind of change versus another that was in the type of change column. Um any legal notes from
KP Law about that and then the results of the council straw poll um in column F. So I just want to thank Athena again for taking the time to put this together. It's really helpful. Um so I went ahead and um with the help of
Athena we identified um what are some of the ones that we could um start talking about today given that they seemed um to have almost unanimous um support in a straw poll. Um and I think the one that
got the most was um number 15 which was a um about the town manager responsibilities related to town government and communications. Um, so I just wanted to um start there and see kind of what folks's thoughts are. Um,
the couple places that we were considering for that was either in the charter or the town manager goals and 12 counselors were leaning towards support um with amendments to the language. Also, I'm not sure if we have those amendments to the language that people
were thinking about or if that was up to us to come up with. Um, does any I don't know if any does anyone have any memory of that when we talked about this one? I can also make this bigger if that's helpful, >> please.
>> Okay. I think Amber, if there are amendments, um, we would request the president to send them to us or ask counselors to send them to us because, um, I don't have any. Um, I don't know if you or Lynn has any, but um, if there were some
that somehow got created or sent to the president when she put this all together, which the language suggests there are, um, we just need to see them or somebody needs to send them to us. Um >> I don't know that I thought that if we
had made amendments they would show up in blue. >> That would seem to be. Yeah. >> Yeah. Is that correct, Athena? If that we had if anything came from the council that it would have been there in blue. I'm thinking that yeah, >> go ahead.
>> Changes that were discussed at that point were added in blue. I'm just looking at because I pulled this information from the straw poll um that Mandy had put together. So, I'm looking
to see. Sorry, I have too many documents. Um that that was the way Mandy had indicated support. in the straw poll that I was looking at. Um, but there wasn't a proposed amendment language in there. I think it was just part of the council discussion at that time that
some counselors that counselor supported it um but with changes. So for this one there was reletter current sections and then there was an
alternative option to the the proposal which was a delete section 3.2V and replace with B. Um I can show you what I'm looking at. >> Yeah, let me let me stop sharing so you can show us. And and this would be in our rules or in
the charter. >> This is right now a proposal to amend the charter. Um, but there was a conver there was conversation about um just including it in the town manager goals,
but Mandy's notes were that 12 counselors were leaning towards supporting with amendments to language. And this is the this is what we're talking about. >> Okay. So it looks like the language is the
same. It's just that it just it describes what steps would need to be taken um in the charter um to make this part of the charter. >> I think that's right. Is it?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. under the the charter under uh town manager responsibilities. >> That would seem to be yes. >> Yeah. 3.2 is the administrative branch.
>> You could put it in the manager goals, but um I I guess the thinking is along the lines that this is really pretty important and pretty fundamental. And the manager goals are crafted um at least in this particular section
by the actual delegated responsibilities to the manager. So having something in the goals for the manager that's not fairly explicitly in the actual charter and in his duties would seem to be a bit
odd. So I guess I would say that we probably should this should be a recommendation to um for the charter. And then it could be taken and put into the goals, which this committee, by the way, I believe actually drafts.
>> We do. >> So, um, but does that make sense to the rest of you? That it'd be odd to put this into the manager goals. Um, but when you go look at the the actual language for his job, you know, description, it's not there. Or maybe it
is there in 32V. I don't know. But >> I was Yeah, I was trying to >> It says Yeah, right. >> Does anyone have it handy that could pull it up? And >> yeah, I have it in front of me. And 32V just says the current language says communicate regularly with the public regarding local issues, proposal,
actions, and challenges. I don't even know what proposal means. I think it should be proposals. But >> yes, >> anyway, I just uh so the language itself, that's the existing language. This would replace it. um
with I think more actionable certainly I I don't know how one >> would you know communicate regularly with the public regarding challenges. >> Yeah, I I do think the language that is proposed is a lot is um a lot more
helpful than the language that's actually in there right now. >> Okay, I agree. Um, Lynn, do you have any thoughts on this on >> I think that the alternative is fine.
>> Okay. >> So, our recommendation would be to um basically following this language, adopt this language and suggest making this deletion and replacement. Right. >> I I do suggest that we collect these as a committee and when we're ready to
bring forward a a group of them, >> we bring them forward. We not do them one at a time. >> Yeah, I I tend to agree with that. Um I'm going to put a column if there we don't have one already. I can add a column for discussion to say that we've
addressed it and what our sense was. So, can I say that three of us were in favor of this change? to the >> proposed language and of yes and putting it in a charter >> I think so. >> Okay.
Okay. Um so I'm going to put three out of three present on um today is the 26. Wow, that was easier than I thought. Well, I took I did take the easy one to start with.
>> No, that's a that's a good strategy actually. And >> start with the ones where off a few of them. >> Exactly. So, what's the next one then? >> So, I I think if your if your intent is to be finished with that one and to recommend that, even if you're doing it as a big batch back to the council, then
the committee should vote to make that recommendation unless you're planning on revisiting them all. >> We have only three of us here. We might >> I don't care. >> All right. Um Okay. Does somebody want to move?
>> Well, I'm prepared to move that we um adopt the how do we want to put this? Adopt the I could read the language, but adopt the language >> as presented in the charter review committee recommendations referred to go with notes.
Um and to and now the screen is down. Um I forget what it says. replace uh V uh with so replace 2V with this language. >> Okay, I just pulled it up again. >> That's a terrible motion. I'm sorry.
>> Okay, wait. Is >> you're recommending that council pursue a deletion of section 3.2V and replacing it with the language proposed by the charter review committee? >> Yes. Yes. Thank you, >> um Athena, if you don't mind just saying
that one last time. And I'm going to type it into the motion sheet >> to recommend the town council pursue a charter change to delete section 3.2V and replace with
the language proposed by the charter review committee in recommendation 15. um in recommendation 15. Right. >> Yes. >> Right. >> And then >> so they the charter review committee had
proposed it as a as a new letter W in 3.2. Um and I don't know why um because there already is a W, but this would replace the current 3.2B to be with the new language that's proposed that's on the
screen, but it wouldn't be W. What's on the screen is showing as a W, but that would be the new letter V. Sorry, I keep uh I want to make sure that I put this on the screen. Can you see it the motion right now? >> Yep.
>> So, to delete section 3.2V and replace it with the language recommended by the Charter Review Committee and recommendation 15. >> Yep. Okay. And would anybody like to make the motion? >> Well, before we do, um,
nothing simple, I know, but what this does, what the current V arguably does ask the manager do to do is to do what our current manager does in large
part through his cup of Joe's. Current V says, "We want you to communicate regularly with the public. That's what we want you to do. We want you not just to be in your office um and doing your job, but we want you to take active steps to communicate regularly
with the public regarding local issues. Uh and then this sort of vague language about proposals, actions, and challenges. And if we take that out and replace it with the language that we're that I've just proposed that that the charter review committee has proposed,
it does remove something I think important that the current manager does do and I think we want him to do and I'm not sure that it is mentioned anywhere else. I I don't know this document well enough, but that's my only thought initially is that if we take this out
completely um that the the request or the the the job requirement that it communicate regularly with the public is not captured in the language that we're replacing it with. I don't think
so. The language we're replacing it with is more about, you know, whole communication strategy, you know, uh, coordination, messaging, department heads. It does say communicating regularly via
all available media avenues with residents, but again, it's allied with ensuring that all aspects of the town's website are kept up to date. So I again while I'm babbling maybe some of you can look at this and see does it include clearly
enough this idea of by the way we want you to comm you you to communicate regularly with residents. >> When you say all media avenues I think you are including a lot of things and future things we don't even know about.
So it says communicating regularly via all available media avenues with residents. Okay, you could argue that that fairly clearly captures what the current V states and actually says it better. Athena has a hand up.
>> Yeah, Athena. I think if if I were um reading this from the town manager's perspective, I would be asking what is it that the council is trying to get me to do with this change that I'm
not currently doing? And I don't know that that's very clear with the change that's I mean we have a communications manager who's working on updates to the website but the website is managed by you know right now um
a dozen or so different staff members who maintain different pages and so on and um and uh Sam our communications manager does social media and press releases and we do cup So,
you know, are are any of you able to say like what is it that the council wants to see that's not being done? Because I that it's not clear to me from this change what's being sought and I think
the so that's my my first question. And the second is um that the one thing going through the charter review process that became clear to me was that it seems like there needs to be
maybe an an avenue for people to find information that's not currently available, but it wasn't identified. So, it's something that maybe deserves more thought, but I'm not sure that this achieves >> what's intended there or or the the missing link in our communication
strategy. I'm not sure that this will achieve connecting what needs connected. I I just want to I mean I so I don't I'm trying to remember all the discussions that we had about this in council and I I think one of the things I think this captures that the current charter
language doesn't capture is the idea of having a comprehensive communication strategy even if that's something that maybe we already have. It's kind of like saying it more concretely and that within that strategy should be the following components. um you know the announcements and messages from
department heads all all media avenues and then it includes the website specifically and then it also includes um continually saying like how can we improve like maybe this needs some word smithing because now that I'm looking at it maybe that's it doesn't it's not well
said but I I think that's what I see as as different like we're asking for a comprehensive strategy that includes the following things and again some of those things may be things that are already being done, but we're just kind of saying it more explicitly and and that we want to make sure that we keep
inquiring about how we can do better and asking residents for input about how we can do better. Um, Lynn, >> one of the things to keep in mind is that present town manager may do this, but we write charters for the future.
And so, um, this is an area in which I think our present town manager actually has pretty much met the goal. Uh, not that we all can improve. Okay. But, you know, if and when we hire a new town
manager, we want them to realize this is part of it. So, I I have no problem with it. >> Councelor Ryan, >> the same. I think this is something that uh applies to down managers of the
future as well as the present. I think the present one probably could tick off most of the boxes here. Um but um he would also admit that that he and his staff could do better. So it's not a criticism. Um it's it's just saying that communication is really important. The
communications comprehensive strategy is really important. Um, and we hear charter review committee and I think some of us as counselors occasionally hear people's frustrations and um, you know, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's I think it's important that
people do say what they find don't doesn't work. Um, because that's the way we get better. And I think that's the view that I think staff has. I think it's the view that Paul has. Um, so I I don't have a problem with this.
>> Okay. Um, do we want to then vote to recommend this today? >> Made the motion. >> Oh, no one's made the motion yet. Does anyone want to make the motion? >> Well, I'm I'm willing to make the motion and and of course, it was Athena actually put it into comprehensible
form, but um Athena's motion is one that I'm willing to make. Um, so yes. >> Okay. Uh, so Councelor Ryan has made the motion. Um, I'm going to put it up on the screen again, uh, just in case so
folks can see it. >> Um, would anybody like to second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. >> Oops. Okay. And then we're going to um go to a vote. So, um, Lyn Grace
>> I, >> Councelor Ryan, >> I >> and I am an I. So, that passes 300 Z, right? That's right. Oh, no, sorry. Two absent. The last one is absences, right? >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay, got it. Okay, perfect. Um, all right. So, that would bring us to our next recommendation. Um, so I'm going to have to stop sharing and then reopen the other document.
Um, so the next recommendation is the recommendation that I recommend is the number 21. Um, and this one is concerning public dialogues. Yeah, >> who basically is expanding the option to
having a public dialogue with the school committee and library trustees as well. And this is the language that was recommended and we discussed putting it in the charter or the rules of the council. Um although I don't know when
Athena and I spoke about this ahead of time I kind of thought that um it would have to go in the charter other if it just went into the town council rules I don't see how it would impact the school committee and the library trustees necessarily. >> Um and it sounded like 11 counselors
were supporting editing the current charter to section 8.1 to include portions of the language. only one counselor was leaning towards opposing it. Um,
additional amendments renumber the remaining sections, but they they have that in the charter rules. >> Sections in section 8. Okay, that's that's right. Got it. Yeah, I think just to make it consistent internally.
Yeah. Athena, do you have any other comments on this one or am I Did I misstate what we talked about? Sorry, it's been a few days. >> That's okay. It was a long weekend. Um the what we had talked about was that
there was in terms of the conversation between putting this in the charter or the rules, there's currently a public dialogue provision in the council rules. Um but that doesn't apply to any other multiple member body.
So, if the council wants to kind of I think the way I put it when we were talking was you know kind of force those other elected bodies to adopt this as a rule kind of then you could put it in the charter. Um
but it's currently in the council rules. Those rules just don't apply to the school committee and library trustees. And and additionally, there's nothing stopping the school committee or library trustees from holding a public dialogue session like the council does. The council kind of comes up with new types
of meetings to have sometimes retreats and so on that aren't defined in the charter, but there's nothing stopping them from having that kind of dialogue as long as it's noticed properly and so on. This is just formalizing that and kind of creating a public awareness that
this is an option for those bodies to have this kind of meeting. Um, councelor Ryan. >> So, I guess the language the pivotal word is may >> because I think it would be strange to say the least if one elected body were
to compel two other separately elected bodies to do something. In fact, I'm not sure we can do that. Um, so that would be my first thought. Um, however noble this may be, it does seem strange that we elected uh under one set of under one
format are or would through the charter compel two other bodies that are also elected just as we are um to do something. But the language is presented simply says may hold public dialogue session and so it's advisory to them and
I guess also in a way for the council um and then the council if it wanted to act on this would then make a change to its rules. Is that how this would play out? >> In order for the council to to sort of force these other elected
bodies to adopt a rule that says you can have this public dialogue session, then you make the change in the charter. >> Well, I think that's my question. Yeah, I >> the council currently has a rule 5.3 is public dialogue. The council is allowed to do this. The other bodies are allowed
to do this, but the other bodies haven't adopted rules and they haven't adopted rules um speaking about a public dialogue at all. Only the council has done that. >> Yeah. I mean, it does say in the legal
opinion that it's not a major amendment and that each public body identified in the proposed amend amendment currently has the authority to hold such a session under the open meeting law. Mhm. >> So, um, yeah, I mean, I guess part of me is just wondering if we are going to make a change to the charter and
thinking about, you know, the process of sort of educating the public, especially if we're going to be going to the ballot that, you know, to to have this go through that entire process may just feel like an unnecessary addition when we have other changes that are, you know, perhaps more substantial that we
want to educate the public about. But maybe um maybe there's another way to lift up the availability of the public dialogue session. One option this committee might consider, if you don't mind me jumping in, I'm sorry I'm not raising my hand,
um is um actually communicating with any of those other elected bodies about this provision because I don't think that that kind of collaboration between the council or even the charter review committee has happened between the school committee and library trustees
about how they find their their process and if this would be beneficial. I think um the council's been kind of, you know, bitten before about mandating things without getting input
from those that are affected. So, it might be wise to do that before you u make a motion. >> Yeah. Uh councelor Ryan. >> So, I guess I'm still confused. I don't read this as mandating anything. So, somebody clarify for me. The
language says may >> Yeah. It >> doesn't mandate. So, um, what? Yeah. Go ahead. >> So, right now the library trustees and the school committee could both as the council have done has done write a rule
for themselves that says we're having a public dialogue session. Here's how we do it and here's the process and procedure and so on. They have not done that. So this is in a way the council saying librarians library trustees and
school committee you have a rule by by making this change in the charter we're essentially writing a rule for you that you have these public dialogue sessions. They're perfectly within their rights to do that on their own. But this is the council saying you are going to
do you are going to have this and kind of a making that a rule for them essentially. >> It's not may it doesn't say you have to. >> Yeah. I I I don't see that. >> No, it's not forcing them to have a public dialogue.
>> Right. Right. It's it's adding to the um it's giving the option for the library trustees and the school committee of holding public dialogue sessions just as the council's done in their own rules. So, what I'm saying is that the library trustees and the school
committee could say, "We want to have a public dialogue session, but we want to write our own rule about how we vote to hold one or what that looks like or who's involved or whether it's joint with other bodies or whatever. um rather
than the council writing a rule into the charter essentially for us. >> It's not saying that anybody has to have a public dialogue session, but it's it's kind of like writing a rule for them that you're going to have public
dialogue sessions. this is how you're going to hold them and this is the process to um yeah I mean I guess what I'm kind of stuck on is that it it says in the legal opinion that they can already they already have the authority to hold such
a session under open meeting law. >> Yeah. So it doesn't feel like making this change to the charter is really making a significant change for them. This body could say, "Let's reach out to the chairs or the
bodies and ask them if it would be helpful to have this written into the charter or if it would be helpful or if they would prefer to write it into their own rules. Or this body could just pass on the recommendation altogether and vote to recommend the town the council
table it. Um are there any others that we think they need consultation? I'm sorry George I spoke out of turn. >> Before we get to that just remind me what the vote was initially the council
straw po vote was. >> Yeah. So I was just going to call our attention to that. It's according to this table the 11 counselors were supported. >> Yeah. >> So we would be kind of going against the recommendation of the the counselors on this. I think what's driving it is just
this notion that across the board we would like the charter to endorse this the idea of at least the possibility of public dialogue and in many formats as possible.
>> We're not mandating it but we're encouraging it. And in that sense then we would include the school committee and the library um and hope that they would um you know take up our encourage
our suggestion but they are not required to um I mean we could change it from may to shall and um then that would be a whole another question but I think the reason 11 counselors supported it I'm guessing
but for me would um in response to the sense that people feel like they don't have a chance to have their voices heard. This is yet another mechanism that could be employed um to do that. So
it doesn't seem to be causing any harm. And um the language is very broad. It just says something. Well, I mean, I add it up on my screen, too, but it just says essentially um convening bodies and their respective management and staff as determined by
the manager, school superintendent, andor library director shall welcome all interested individuals for an informal dialogue session. That's that's it. That doesn't specify anything else. So, um, yeah.
>> Yeah. I'm just wondering I'm just bringing it back to the the question of process if we're going to have to send this stuff to to um a ballot or if it's going to be a special act. And I can't remember what we said about this particular change,
>> but if it is on the ballot, I'm just again thinking about, you know, being mindful about how many things we put on the ballot and how the voter education that we'll have to do to for folks to vote on these changes and I does anyone remember if we could do this
by special act? >> Yes, you can. It's um it's on the screen here in that Okay, let me let me >> in that column. It's not a major amendment. Oh, okay. It's down there already. Yeah. Councelor Ryan. >> No, I was just Yeah, I was going to point that out. Yeah.
>> Okay. Yeah. So, it says it. Um, >> yeah. I mean, I guess given given that I would be inclined to recommend it, especially given the fact that it says may. It doesn't say shall.
Just giving them the opportunities. >> And it's not restrictive. I mean there are no real I mean the only rule is that the respective authority of a particular body shall invite all interested parties. That's it.
>> Yeah. >> So um it's a tool added to the toolbox. Um and it may never be used. I've got a few of those tools in my toolbox that I bought a long time ago that looks like at this point they're not could ever be
used. But still, this is a good tool I think. So, I would recommend that we go ahead with it, especially since 11 of our colleagues thought it was a good idea. >> Um, I just have a question regarding this column where it says including portions of the language regarding
public dialogues. Is should we interpret that to say that they that folks did not support the full language that was in green? Hm. I don't know. >> Yeah, I can't
>> sure there if it mean if they sent it to us intending that we should edit it in any way. >> Oh, we can certainly edit it, but I was that from the council discussion or was it from the uh charter review committee? That was a note from the council
discussion from the stuple. >> And one of the things to remember is we can clump questions on the ballot so that if you know there's three or four or five things that deal with increased community engagement or communication,
we can put them all together so that you don't have to vote on individual ones. >> This one's not a major amendment. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So this would be the special act >> could be >> path. Yeah. Okay. Um I mean I don't I don't know if
we should vote on it on recommending it today or we should just put it in for maybe I don't know. I was just thinking maybe go back to that, see if there's any other language or tweaks to the language that people wanted, but or folks if folks are comfortable recommending it the way it is, that's
fine. I'm comfortable with the language as it's presented. Um, and I guess if anyone has objections from other counselors, they could speak up. But again, I'm also I think it the language
it. The other reason I think is just the opportunity for residents to speak directly to their elected officials and town staff. And um I always think that's a good thing um in my experience
>> when staff have an opportunity to directly interact with community members asking them questions and having a dialogue back and forth. um even on contentious issues where people are frustrated um in the end I think it's
always it seems always to be positive because people feel like they're being heard and they also begin to understand some of the challenges the staff faces in doing some of the things that they think are easily done. So I think that's another reason that 11 colleagues
thought this was a good idea was that it would at least possibly encourage more dialogue between staff and the public and between elected officials and the public. >> All right. Well, does anyone want to
make a motion to recommend this? >> I move to recommend it. >> Okay. Let me put the motion on the sheet. Going to have to give me just one moment to change my screen share. Okay. So, we are moving to
um adopt sorry to recommend uh charter review committee um recommendation. We don't want to recommend the
recommendation. Let's see. Let's see. To recommend the town pursue I'm just copying the same language. A charter charter change as per recommendation
number 21 in the charter review mission report. Is that correct? >> It's charter review committee committee. Got it. >> I'm >> I know that sounds nitpicky, but >> there's the the charter commission is a
different animal. >> It's different for a different animal. >> Okay. Um motion was made by Lynn Chris. Second. >> I was seconded. Okay. Um, so let's have a vote. Um,
councelor Ryan, >> before we vote, may I have just just a moment? Um, if you beg your indulgence. >> Yes. >> Um, we're starting to acquire a fair number of terms, um, public forum, public meeting, public
dialogue session. Um, I think we should go ahead with this, but at some point I think it would be helpful, at least for me, to sit down and and just list all the various terms we have now for various kinds of gatherings. This also
affects the transportation and parking commission um in the language it uses um because one of the things that we are keen on is that when proposals for changes take place that they get a full you know vetting at the committee and
the public is invited to be present. Um and uh and in some cases we would definitely have some kind of public meeting. So, we have public forums, public dialogues, public meetings. I'm beginning to lose track. So,
>> um I'm not saying that that this is a reason for us not to move this forward, but at some point I'm I'm saying to myself, at least I'd like to make a list of all these terms and how they're variously used.
>> Anyway, that's just a thought. I'm sorry. >> I vote I. Okay. >> Yeah, I was going to say a listening session is also one that's come up. >> Exactly. We we're getting a number of terms and um I think we want to just try
to be clear on on what they are and um this is now a new one. >> Yeah, I agree. the the rules have these different types of meetings and the charter refers to it has uh definitions
of of public forum >> that state that it needs to be at least half the meeting time. So between the charter and the rules it exists it's just not maybe all not all in one place. Um but for the transportation and parking commission they could devise
their own language. to come up. You are tasked harder with coming up with your room rules. >> We will and hopefully we'll not come up with yet a new term, but um anyway. Yeah. So, I vote I. >> Okay. Um Lynn Griezmer
>> I. >> And I am an I. So, we have passed another recommendation. Congratulations. Okay. Uh should we do one more? We're on a roll. Uh, we still have time. Yes.
>> All right. Let's look back at the chart. I'm going to switch my screen again. >> Okay. All right. So, the next one that had that I highlighted that I think had a lot of support um was
Oh, maybe this wasn't. This one is Oh, Athena. I think we flagged this one because it seemed fairly simple, but maybe it's not because it's it was seven to four. This I'm talking about the hybrid and remote meeting ones. >> Yeah, nothing is simple.
>> Yes. Nothing is simple. Um but we could talk about it. I think the seven favored including a portion in the charter, four lean toward including it in the rules and then one oppose and then one leading
toward um I'm actually leaning toward including it in the rules, but maybe I said something else originally. >> I think >> I'm sorry, Amber. Which number are we looking at here? >> We're looking at recommendation number eight. >> Eight. Thank you.
>> And it says a hybrid of remote meetings. Thank you. >> Yeah. Announce the number of participants and ensure that public speakers can be visible. Um I I do remember we had a long conversation about public speakers being visible and the pros and cons of that.
Um and then we talked about it being included in the rules versus in the charter. Uh councelor Ryan, >> I I think this is fine. I think rules is definitely where it should be. It should not be in the charter. Um, who knows
what technology will come about in the next five or 10 years. Maybe it'll all be AI will be ruling everything. But, um, I think it should be in the rules. Um, I we hear this fairly commonly. People, you know, are frustrated. They don't know how many other, you know, they don't know who's there. And at least this would suggest we can change
it if we want to, but the charter it would be much too cumbersome. So, I think it should be in the rules. And um with visibility it's I think it's always a matter of what the individual is comfortable with and it's pos you just make it there you make it available to
them but if they choose not to show themselves that's their their decision. Um but obviously if they come into a public meeting their name at least is there. Um but um they I don't think we would compel anyone to uh share their screen or to show themselves if they
don't wish to but the idea that at some point a chair would um just say we have this you know this evening or this you know we for instance today we have no public present. So, at some point that would be mentioned um in case anyone wanted to to
know. Um >> yeah. >> So, the green is the actual amendment. Athena has her hand up. >> Yes, Athena. Um go ahead. >> So, um George, what you said was that people have the option of turning their
cameras on and that's not currently our process. So currently what we do in council and other board and committee meetings is that when you look at the participant window you can see the participants as a panelist.
Um but attendees can't see the list of attendees and attendees when they come to make public comment are given permission to unmute but not to turn their cameras on and not to share screen and so on. That's you get that when you promote someone to as a panelist. and
then remove them. And we've tried this in the past. Um I have a lot of hesitation. The IT department also advises against doing it this way by doing it in the way of bringing people in as panelists to provide public
comment so they can turn their camera on and then removing them back to attendees when they're finished. both because it takes um what feels like a long time in meetings for them to join and and leave because they have to rejoin the meeting
as a panelist and then and then as they exit back to attendees it is there's another like little gap. So getting people in and out in a timely fashion is slower. There's also not a method of preventing a panelist from doing whatever they want when they come into a
meeting. So, if you can imagine an attendee being allowed to unmute and say whatever they like for 3 minutes could be, you know, shocking or or horrific depending on how, you know, nasty somebody wants to
be in public comment. It's a matter of free speech. So, like our chairs often read before public comment, there's not much we can do to prevent that kind of speech during meetings as long as it doesn't cross over those lines that are identified. Um, but if they come in as a
panelist and they're able to turn on their screen and share screen and put whatever they want in their Zoom window and so on, that can be much more upsetting and it would be much harder to shut down because we've moved the line of where free speech exists.
for that participant. Now, so >> you know, for just public comment, people can come and say what they like, but then if you're allowing people to also share their screen and put videos on their Zoom window and all these other things, then that creates like much
murkier situation in terms of what we might be able to prevent. >> Okay? and it takes away a lot of the guardrails during the meeting and um I know there are you know difference of opinion about that but that's the the
caution that I'm going to share. Um, okay, Lynn, >> I um I feel strongly about this one. Uh, and maybe it's because um we live through the Zoom bombing days. And that
is that um first of all, it I don't think there's any reason to be reading names or showing the names of the people in the audience. the person speaks, yes, they show their name, but I don't see why we have to insist that they show their video or even provide them with the opportunity for all the reasons that
Athena just said. >> And I understand why people have said this, but it's because they want a council meeting to become like, you know, a book club meeting. Well, we aren't. We are a governing body that
needs to have our ability to see each other and deliberate um and provide public comment at an appropriate time and that's it. Um, I just I just have a question follow-up question for Athena about um
what's possible on Zoom because my understanding is that if we do allow somebody to be visible that that doesn't necessarily mean that we give them permission to screen share. Is that right? The way our settings are by default now
is and this is um you know across the board for council and council committees and the way we do for other boards and committees in town is that um the members are invited as panelists and they are allowed to do screen sharing
and so on because often oh councelor lore just joined can we just confirm that >> oh yeah um councelor >> can hear and be heard >> yes can you hear us and can you say thing. Counselor Lord. Um, Counselor Lord, can you hear us?
I'm just going to shoot her a text. Um, but we can continue. Um, okay. Yeah. I'm sorry, Athena. Can you just continue with what you were saying about the current practice? So right now our settings are default
that um members of the board or committee that's meeting can do screen sharing and so that would be the same if a member of the public were joining to give public comment and then they were pro promoted as a panelist they would have all the all the um permissions that
any other panelist does. There's not a way that I'm aware of right now of creating like two different kind of classes of panelists where some can share their screen and mute and unmute and others can't. That's why we use the the attendee function and the
allow to unmute button for public comment so that we don't we don't create that situation where we have a bunch of panelists and some are able to screen share and um and we have to like change permissions for each individual member during meetings and stuff.
>> I see. >> Yeah. I just I guess I Yeah, I just wondered if there was a way to just allow it for for um some people who are panelists and not others. Like if somebody came to give a presentation if we could give them permission to screen share or maybe there's a way I I usually
am used to working in the meeting format, but I was just wondering if there's a way in the webinar format where um maybe you give them co-host abilities if they're going to be sharing screen and then if they're not going to be sharing screen, they don't become a co-host. So, they wouldn't those permissions wouldn't exist unless you
were a host or a co-host. I'm I'm I think you're So, what you're saying is that we would make we would make all the members co-hosts so that they could share screens and so on during meetings and then and then members of the public would be panelists
but with restricted access. Yeah, I'm just I guess I'm just wondering if that's possible. Um because um that might be a way to allow people to just show their face while speaking, but they wouldn't be able to screen share anything objectionable.
The thing that that gives me a lot of pause here is that I can So, you know how I use the camera in the town room and that's the camera that's my name during council meetings?
That's a virtual camera in the computer in the town room that's pointed at the camera in the town room. So, anybody who is allowed to turn their camera on can point a virtual camera at whatever they would like to have playing as their
camera. >> So, I could have a video of puppies >> Yeah. >> playing as my video. or I could have a video of something horrendously offensive playing as my video if you chose to bring me in as a panelist and I
was allowed to turn my camera on. So that's, you know, it's it's I I I tend to think about worst case scenario because I remember as Lynn said how traumatic it was in those early days of Zoom bombing when we had people coming into board and committee meetings doing
really offensive things. And so I've felt really strongly about maintaining the parameters that we've set for council meetings because we have manage to avoid a lot of those situations. >> Yes. Um I'm going to just make one more
try with counselor Lord and then I'm going to pass it to Councelor Ryan. Um councelor Lord, can you speak? Can you hear us? >> I can. You hear me? >> Yes. >> Now? >> Yes. >> Can you Oh, good. Okay. Okay. So, I'll keep I'll keep it on this setting. >> Okay. Thank you. Yes, we're uh
discussing the charter review committee recommendations. We're looking at recommendation number eight about hybrid or remote meetings. Announce the number of participants and ensure that public speakers can be visible. Um >> um I'm going to pass it to Councelor Ryan.
>> Thank you. So, um, we have a number of guard rails in place and I'm hearing, um, quite clearly that there's some concern about removing them or making them less effective. Um, so I'm
wondering what's left if we if we take that away. The only thing that I can see that's left is that the suggestion that chairs in meetings at some point in the course of a meeting um acknowledge the number of people present. Um which seems
like you know that could probably just be done by you know just by suggestion. I'm not sure we have to go through a certainly doesn't belong in a charter I don't think. Um, so I don't see any way this should be in the charter. A, and B, hearing what Athena, the concern she's
raised, um, I'm beginning to think that we probably shouldn't remove these guard rails. Um, and then I'm left just with what seems like a reasonable but not very exciting proposal that people at some point let people let the public know that we have 15 people present
today or in this case none. Yes, I think you are correct that if we remove the part that that we're concerned about, then they would just keep that first sentence. Um, uh, Lynn,
>> yeah, I I just want to reflect on the fact again, our job is to have meetings and conduct business. It's not like it's a book club or for that matter even a training session. Uh and the way that we've dealt with people for instance
wanting to make presentations because we have to have things in the folder in advance, we've asked that they provide them to the chair and to Athena or whomever and that because they have to be posted and so I agree. I think the
only thing that's left is you know if the chair remembers to announce the number of people Yeah. I mean, I would I would tend to suggest that we um make that a rule change. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. Council rule change. Athena. >> Um if you are going to consider this as a rule change, I would like I have a couple of proposed um remote or hybrid rules that I wanted to the committee to consider. So, if you would
if you would um not mind tableabling this until I can bring those and then we can the committee could consider some remote or hybrid meeting procedures as a group of rule changes. >> Yes. Um we'll table to consider
>> I appreciate it. >> A series of additional remote hybrid rule changes. And just so it's not a secret or anything, I'm I'm just looking to formalize some of the procedures that we've established for remote and hybrid meetings, you know,
confirming that people can hear and be heard. Although it's required, it's not formalized in any of our rules or procedures. So just kind of writing those up and formalizing them. And we could do this al together. Okay. Um that sounds good. Um, so we're
going to table that one for now. And, um, I think it's actually good timing because, um, I would like to bring us to the part of the meeting where we, um, approve the minutes. Can we go ahead and and do that before we >> I make a motion to approve the minutes
of whatever they are. >> Um, >> one is 428 2026. The other is 512 2026. >> Okay. Can we do those both in one motion? >> No. >> Okay. So, the motion is to approve the minutes
of go and the dates were 428 and what was the other? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um so, um the motion was made by Lynn Griezner and then anyone would like to second.
>> I can second. >> Okay. Okay. So, we're going to vote on approving the minutes of go of 428 26 and 51226. Um, Councelor Ryan, >> I >> Lynn Griemer
>> I, >> uh, Councelor Lord, she's saying nodding her head with a thumbs up. And I will also vote to approve. Um so the minutes are approved four
uh to 0 to one absent. Um okay. So I think that was the last item on our agenda. So um are there any topics unanticipated by the chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting? >> Athena.
>> Athena, do you have something? Um, it's it's not unanticipated, but there was one rule that um I'm sorry, not a rule, a charter recommendation, charter change recommendation that came to go as a rule change. The council voted to refer to go
as a rule change that was term limits. So, if you'd like that written as a rule that the committee can consider, then I can write it up as a rule for your next meeting. >> It would be a rule versus a charter change. the the council referred
referred it to go as a rule change, not as a charter change. They referred to go term limits. >> Um for president and vice president. >> Oh, that one right. >> Yeah. Um, so that came to go as a rule change
and right now it's in the form of a charter amendment and if you if the committee would like to consider it as a rule change at the next meeting then I can write it up as a rule so that the committee can take it up at their next meeting. >> Yeah,
>> I would I would endorse a rule there. Yes, I would appreciate that language. >> Yeah, thank you. That would be helpful. All right. Um, anyone I guess we could adjourn five minutes early. Does anybody want to move to adjurnn? >> There's nothing wrong with adjourning
early. That's not this. Right. >> I move to adjourn. >> Okay. So, Lynn moves to adjourn. Anybody want to second? >> I will second. >> Okay, we're on a roll. Um, and we'll go to a vote. I'll start with
Councelor Lord. if she can be heard. Councelor Lord, we're voting to adjourn. >> I >> Okay. Lynn Gremer, >> I >> I >> And I am an I. So, we are adjourned.
Thank you everybody. >> Nice job. >> Thank you. Good night. >> All right. See you soon. Yep. Goodbye.