Excellent. Okay, go ahead. Oh, can't say it. Pat, you got to wait now. Um, all right. It is 6:30 on Tuesday, September 16th. Welcome everyone to another fabulous meeting of Goo. Um, and I'm going to We do have a
quorum, so I'm going to quickly take role and make sure that folks can hear and be heard. Pat D'Angelus, present. Uh, Len Griezmer, present. Councelor Lord, present. Excellent. Thank you all so much for being here and we'll keep an
eye out for counselor atte um I know sometimes we Oh, okay. Sorry, I got thrown off for a second. Um my computer glitched and is showing Athena as both an attendee and a panelist and I got confused. All right. Um even though it
says attendee zero. I don't know what's going on. All right. So, we've got a packed agenda today. Um, but let's start off um with public comment other than for some reason whatever reason Athena is showing up in my public com my public
members of the public. That's weird. You're showing up as an attendee in mine. Yeah. What is up? Okay. I am and neither of you are showing up as attendees. You're both as pan panelists in mine. All right. Well, Zoom in it says zero attendees. So, yeah, I
think we're good. I think we're okay there. Um, Zoom is just trying to duplicate Athena and I, I guess. Um, we're all trying to duplicate Athena. Long without her. You don't want multiples of me, Pat. Come on. All right. So, the world would not be ready. All
right. Um, so we do not have any members of the public, so we will have no public comment currently. Um, and on the agenda today, we've got a couple uh proposals to discuss. Oh my gosh, my camera's off and no one told me. Sorry. Um we have a
couple proposals to discuss. Uh one from CRC, two from TSO. Um and then we are going to discuss the finance committee vacancy and the charter review committee vacancy before we get to the town manager evaluation process. Um so I
thought Pam was able to join us, but um I'm just going to make sure I didn't tell her a later time. One moment, please, if you don't mind. Um all right. All right. I did said let's see. Okay. Um, we are
Oh, she didn't get back to me. Okay. Well, let's start with the inclusionary zoning um discussion and I will pull it up on my computer so we can look through it. We did have a piece of feedback from KP Law via email um and that was Nar Venning.
Um because they did not have any comments in the document I don't think. Um so hang on I'm going to share my screen. One moment please. Oh my goodness the amount of screens. Okay.
All right. So Pam sent us a memo. Here it Oh. And in that moment I'm going to double check to make sure. Hello, councelor Ete. Can you hear us and can we hear you? Yes. Excellent.
Welcome. Thank you. All right. Mood. What? All right. Don't don't don't prescribe things to people. I can. Let them know I am the chair of this meeting. Yeah. I'm the oldest person in the meeting.
Yeah. I do what I want. Okay. point is u but not the shortest right Pat that's that's very important to you you're you are a tall person okay so this is the memo that we got from uh Pamuni regarding the inclusionary zoning
fees I want to just be very clear we are not reviewing the text of Pam's memo for clarity consistency and actionability we are just reviewing the proposed changes um so they are uh CRC and Pat you are on CRC correct so you be able to give us
some overview of this as well. But basically article 15 section 15.171 is um the section of the uh or sorry was created by the or initiated by the municipal
affordable housing trust and it has gone through the process CRC closed their public hearing on August 28th um and they're proposing to amend this section um of the bylaws and that is regarding essentially the amount My understanding
is the amount um that a developer would pay in lie of putting affordable units into their apartment building. So we have a policy that states that developers have to create a certain number of affordable units within their building. Um and this is kind of the
other option for them where they can instead pay a fee to the town. Um the recommendation is that the fee per unit the the changes that they're putting in say that the fee in lie of
value for each affordable unit shall be at least five times and no more than eight times the current median family income for Ammerst as determined by uh department of housing and urban development or successor agency. Um it's
a that's a a dark end of that sentence. Um precise payment amounts will be determined by the permit granting authority with consultation from the housing trust and may account for market conditions, total development cost uh and they added in cost of postponement
and delivery of affordable units and similar factors. So, I know that this was uh available to you to read, but just in case um this came about because the the fee had not been
changed in a number of years, Pat, am I correct? The the fee stayed the same for a long time and was far lower than it uh than its equated value um of of those units. Um Pat, anything that you'd like to add
here? Uh, not really. I think it's very it's pretty clear. I think where my concern has risen, which I didn't have when I was looking at this, there are a couple of different definitions of family median income.
Okay. And I believe that the HUD, the housing and urban development definition, but I have to do a double check on that. I was trying to find it would be okay because if I'm correct, it says it represents
the income of families with three or more earners in the area uh and all individuals living together in the household regardless of their relationship to each other. So that's the if that's the HUD definition, we're kind of okay. If it's
not, there is also something called a household median income, which is all the people that occupy a housing unit, whether it's a single person, roommates, families. The the other interpretation
of family median income is blood related and that was not what we want to do. So, um, so I, you know, I'm sorry I'm bringing this up now, uh, but I literally just started looking at this a
few minutes ago. Um, so this seems to me like a clarity question of what definition are we using, right? is this when I looked at the housing and urban development website um and I looked for median family income, this
was the initial number that came up, $119,000 for the median family income. Um and then it explains how they get that number. What is it saying about what the
composition of that family of uh that's hang on because Hey um I'm not I mean it's looking at persons and family and looks at kind of the average it seems like the right but that's again there's a
difference between family and household and I I could be Um cuz in 2023, okay, in Ammerst, yeah, median household income was 69420 and the median family income was
117,323, right? But a household could be one person. Yes. So median doesn't work because everything gets skewed. So we're not worried about AMI. But what I'm trying
to to figure out is are which when when we use this definition, are we including all members of a household even if they're un three unrelated people, which is what the household definition is,
household median or and then and then there are seems to be two definitions out there about what family median income is. one of them only as a family who are somehow cousins, aunts, uncles,
children, elders who are blood related. And yet there's also this thing where I have this note, but I don't that it's three or more earners in the air, you know, in the area. All right, hang on. And I I apologize for bringing it up,
but it seems important before you know I we so I I do hear you. I think I think this is a worthwhile discussion that I want to have. I don't think that the bylaw itself is on the face of it un I guess on the face
of it, it's maybe not unclear because it specifies the language and the location where to find that language. Um, if it just said, you know, family income or household income, it would be in my mind
confusing and vague. But because it says uh because it says median family income as determined, right? But my fe feeling is let's get the exact definition that HUD uses to check this. That's all.
I I hear you. I I just I'm Yeah. I want to make sure that that's not substantive about if we agree with what that number is. You know what I mean? Like like all I all we all I'm asking us to do is
understand what the definition is and somewhere, you know, and that would give me clarity. But perhaps since there is this confusion, we might ask the that we put the definition in there. That's
um uh Lynn, sorry. Go ahead. I would like to see the definition in there. Um be and um that's for clarity as to whether or not this is the right number to use. That's not our
business. That's council's business. But in order to take it to the council, they need to understand what the options are. So, hang on. I found it. Um Oh, excellent. Thank you, Alana. All right. You're much better at research, you know, finding all these little
glitchies. I might have h I might have it, but I'm No, you're fine. Let's see if I have it. So, methodology for calculating FY25 minute. I think part of the challenge is it seems like they update this every year. Yeah. Um, so we want to make sure that we're not putting in something that then the
council has to update every year. Um, but let's look here. Well, you don't have to. Oh, well, that's true. Are you So, it needs to be very clear when at the point at which the median family
income in this case is done. What point is that? is the point at which a permit is um rendered or when state that's number one. The other
it uses median family income opposed to median household income. But med so median median family income is two or more related persons. Where where are you seeing that? I'm not Oh, I saw that from before. Hang on. But
let me look. Um Oh, thank you. Family refers to the census definition of a family, which is a householder with one or more persons living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. The definition of family excludes one person households and multi-person households of unrelated
individuals. In its standard calculations, the Census Bureau publishes median family income estimates in table long number. So therefore, we are not including a single person who earns a lot or a little. We're not including student households or or
roommate households. Two roommates living together, they're not married, their incomes don't count. So is this what we want or do we want it to be broader or I think that's a CRC question. Yeah. To be honest with you. Yeah. Um, councelor councelor ete
it is a CRC and a town council question. Absolutely. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Anna, can you send me this link? No. Yeah. Yep. I can't see what it is and then I can fuss with it.
Can I just ask another question? Um, and this is not actually a CR a go question, but if we does this bylaw only kick in if we're already at the
state required level of 10%. Hang on, let me pull up. Hang on, I got I got too many windows. One second. I don't remember them. So, Um, is that something that we will see in
this or is it um hang on let me look at the violence. If someone wants to play like the Jeopardy music, that's okay. Yeah. It's too bad Pam's not here, but I bet she doesn't know either, but I could be wrong.
You're fine. You're good. Okay. Where? Oh my gosh. Wait, no. I need to be in Am I in zoning bylaws or am I in general bylaws? Um, zoning, right? Zoning, I believe. Yeah, I think
that was that was my mistake. Okay. Too many BS. Okay, I have it. I got it. I just pulled paper copies. Oh my gosh. I'll race you. No, you'll be faster. Okay, so here we go. Um, let me share it
so everybody can read, not just me. All right. Uh, we are up here. Uh, I'll make it bigger. I'll make it bigger. I'll make it bigger. I got it. I found it. I know. I see everybody leaning in. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. All residential development resulting in new dwelling units above the number
already existing in development. What? All residential development resulting in new dwelling units above the number already existing in development. Can someone please explain that part of what are you reading? It's basically a grandfather clause.
That's annoyingly phrased, but okay. Thank you. I agree with you. Um uh but yes that okay, got it. So shall provide affordable housing units at the following rates. Um basically if you're nine or under then no. So it's 10 and up. Lynn, to answer
your question that this kicks in, right? But here's my issue. If we aren't meeting the minimum, why would we want to let somebody off the hook by paying money?
If we aren't meeting the minimum what at 10%. Oh, you mean of of dwellings in town? Yeah, it's it's a possibility and I would ask the trust that. But it's a possibility that the money could go for a larger
affordable housing development where instead of just uh two units or something like that or payment I'm gonna cul I was going to say I'm going to caution us to that is a really great question and it might be another good council
question. Mhm. Um, okay. Back to So, what I'm understanding from this request, if I could go on. Yep. Is basically the whole purpose of this
review was to update the price that people have to pay if they want to get out of building the affordable units. Yes, it was in in in the last the last bylaw it was four times the current
median family income as determined by HUD. Um and now they would like to change it to five times up at least five times no more than eight. And that is all dependent on this the
building factors and other things right? So in one year a developer could two developers could come along in different years. Mhm. But because of of flaring expenses or different things they might pay the sum that they would pay the housing trust
might be different or they would have Yeah. And that so they might only pay for five as opposed to eight where another year um the developer would pay eight times. Right. Right. things like development
cost. I am I have a question about this piece cost of postponement in the delivery of affordable units. Um where are you? I'm sorry. I'm uh in the memo from Pam on the at the the last bit of the this
is the CRC and planning board recommendation. So they say they added in as one of the factors to consider cost of postponement in the delivery of affordable units. Um, I'm not clear on what that means.
I would agree. And I'd love clarification from from our CRC folks. Um, yeah. And I'm going to say that I'm don't I'm not sure. What I think it means is if a a building is going to be uh developed and there is a post
postponement uh on on its constru when it's constructed and opened but I'm not sure if that's correct. So we really need Pam Rooney here. I apologize folks. No it's okay. I I have an idea too but councelor first and then I'll go. I was
wondering what you mentioned it was confusing. I wanted to get a sense from you of what you think it means. So at first I truly had no idea. Um and then now I'm thinking that wait hang on
I had it and then I lost it. Uh cost of postponement in the delivery of affordable units if it would take too long. So the the do the affordable units have to be the same type and kind as the rest of the units in the apartment? Yes.
It's great. Okay. So um what I'm Oh, sorry. So if they if they were to add the affordable units to the project, if it would delay the project so much, is that what that means?
I I we need somebody else to answer that. I'm sorry. No, it's okay. I'm going to add a comment. It's annoying. I'm mad at myself. Uh, committee not. So, here's the thing. We can leave
this blank with a question mark right now because we are meeting again next week. Um, we will have time to get through this and get it to the council uh for the council's next meeting. So, we're not delaying this by needing to ask questions. Okay. I will not be here next week.
Okay. Um but you know by then it'll have been clarified. So by yeah are there any other issues folks have with these changes other than the the lack of or the confusion here um regarding clarity consistency and actionability? Are there any other
issues that folks have with the with the changes that yeah about clarity consistency? Yeah. Councilor Ate in the final sentence it says precise payment
precise payment amount shall be determined by the permit granting authority with consultation. I was wondering is there a difference between with consultation and in consultation from the housing trust.
I would say that with consultation or in consultation means like deeply collaborative they come to the decision together with consultation means the housing trust sends them a recommendation but ultimately the permit granting authority is deciding but that's myation
um but consultation and recommendation are are two different words and I think that if it's the latter to avoid confusion this could be changed to with recommendation from um
because ultimately it sounds like CRC wants this decision to be the permit granting authorities but they want the housing trust to make to have input. I would I think it would be clearer for this to say with recommendation
provided. I agree. Okay, I'm going to And they can always choose not to provide one. True. Okay. Um any other
I I do have a question. Sure. and that is it's un maybe and this may not be CRC who decides whether it's going to be five or six or seven or eight authority
the part yeah that's this part precise payment amounts okay I got it all right thank you yeah hold on all right so it from the standpoint of CRC
we need to understand this postponement cost of postponement. Okay. Y from a standpoint of the council, we may have other questions. Got it. Absolutely. It seems like it. Okay. So, unless there's anything else right now,
I'm going to pause this and um I will go um back to Pam and ask for clarity on this. Does CRC have a meeting this week, Pat? No. No, I don't think so. It's next week. No, it's next week. What? On what day?
Uh, so it's after our meeting. That's okay. I will I'll ask Pam if there was clarity. Um, and we'll we'll go from there. Right. Okay. So, let's move on to the next piece. I am going to leave. Yep. I hope you feel better about Yeah.
Thank you. Thanks for helping us out. Yeah, sort of. Take care everyone. Bye. So, I'm trying to figure out the most logical path with these two. So, next up, we've got the Transportation
Wait, hang on. Okay. The Transportation and Parking Commission. Um, which coincides with changes to the public way. I Does anyone have strong feelings about which ones we do first? I think we need to um do the actual
commission first. That's where I was leaning, but I wasn't. And and the reason I do is because when we take it to the council, the council has to agree to go ahead with the commission before they change the policy. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, we're looking for
clarity, consistency, actionability. Um, I meant to pull up another committee charge to have next to me, so please bear with me for one moment while I pull this up. Okay. All right.
So, is Andy joining us? Um, I do not believe so. I I was not positive that we were going to get all the way through this. I think that he could join us next week, but not this week. Um,
I did not have clarity, consistency, or actionability notes on the top. The the tiniest tiniest one that I had was that sometimes we say none here, sometimes we say zero consistency. I don't think it's
like confusing, but um, that's that. All right. So, any other any issues from here? Uh, no. I'll take care of I'll I'll mention my other one here in the council opposition. Oh, okay.
No, no. I just um Yeah, understood. Okay. So, um All right, we're on composition. I'm I'm not clear why there's still track changes from George and here. I'm assuming that I should accept these and
that we're looking at I thank you, but I don't know why. Okay. Um, sorry. I'm going to So, the legal stuff is
on the right. Um, yeah, I'm going to, as we're going through, I will uh I'm going to accept Georgia's and um not accept the legal ones. so that we have clarity on what
we're looking at. Okay. So, nine voting members, uh, police chief or designate, superintendent, planning director, uh, member of the commission on disabilities, two town counselors, I'm just going to
write two and put this in brackets for consistency because that's what we've been doing. And you should spell out the word vice president. Yeah. Um I had a question on this. We
um does adding to the job formally adding to the role of vice president necessitate a change given that this is not outlined anywhere else in our rules or the
charter as a duty of the vice president. I believe the charter says and other duties as assigned. Okay. I will I can check that while we're doing this. Okay. Um All right. So, in terms of clarity,
consistency, and actionability, I don't think I have any issues there. Um any anyone else with concerns around composition? No. Okay. All right. Let's go to
purpose. Uh oops. Sorry. So, under purpose, the transportation and parking commission shall promote a safe, equitable, accessible, and environmentally sustainable multimmodal transportation system that supports people and goods traveling safely,
conveniently, and efficiently throughout the town and connecting with other communities. To achieve this purpose, the TPC shall review and have the authority to approve requests related to public ways delegated to the TPC by the town council and review transportation concerns such
as proposed traffic and parking related bylaws and policies. Um, the comment from KP Law was there was they were not sure what requests we were talk they were talking about here. Any
thoughts on this one? Um, I'm sorry. I was looking at this. I can come back to that later. Let me go back and look at your sheet. Um, councelor ate. So, I'm assuming this would be referring
to requests made by constituents. Um, possibly. Yes, I think it's it it doesn't it's yes and also any other requests that are coming through for like reservations of the town common or
things like that I think. Right. So, they might be um they might be residents, they might be not. Okay. So just it needs to be a bit more clear who or what is
making the requests. Yeah, I I get where this is coming from. For me, it's clarified here. um basically saying like the requests that
have been delegated to this group as outlined in the transportation and parking but and it feels like we're going to get a unnecessarily in the weeds here if we try to spell all those
out but we could I mean we could if it's not clear if you're Yeah, Lynn I I think what we need to do is see to the extent is this spelled out in the um policy, okay, public ways policy. If it's
spelled out in the public ways policy, of which there's a lot of changes by the way, um the then it's taken care of, right? So, we might just for the moment put an asterisk there, check against public way
policy. Okay. Um, Lynn, I sorry. Um, I'm thinking about what you said before. I don't think that No, all the charter says it should
preside. Yeah. All the all the charter says is that the vice president presides in the absence of the council of the president. So um I think my question does stand about can we create something else that is
assigned to that role when that role is already predefined in a different way. Well it it does the the section of the charter I can go back to it um very quickly the section of the charter says uh election in terms practical the
method of election shall be consistent with the rules of the town council. the town council shall reio ignore it any time. Um, we can further define it in the rules. You ask a very good question cuz it's
it probably would be cleaner if it just said um another counselor. But I also have to say the chair of finance is not defined
either. Right. And technically the appointing authority is Paul. So couldn't Paul appoint whoever he wanted? Yes. So in both cases where whenever a
counselor is put on a committee he Paul always has followed the practice of asking the council for a recommendation. I would like to make sure we do that but it hasn't been in the charge this specifically.
I I would argue for taking it out honestly I um which what what would you take out? I would take out this the full piece in brackets because to be fair I would also argue against these two people. I think the chair of TSO would be a much more
appropriate person. Um but this is so dependent. We're adding to the burden of committee chairs. Adding to the burden of vice president is fine because that's a there's no written burden, but we already ask a lot of committee chairs. Um, and I think that to automatically
add something when they may not be the best person for the role in my mind complicates it. And I I don't think this is a go issue. Okay. Goo wise, I do not think that this is actionable given the way that the vice president role is defined and given
that the town manager is the appointing authority. I can I can argue either end. I I don't think it's actionable for either one because uh the chair of finance committee does not have a a description of their job and it doesn't
and if they did it doesn't say and other duties as assigned. Right. So I think I think it's not actionable and I think the appointing authority is the town manager and we would this is trying to take that away from him
and well and it it should be upon re the council position should be upon recommendation from the council. Mhm. I mean, we just went through this for two other I don't think we want to leave it to the
graciousness of the town manager. Yeah, I know. I'm trying to think if if we can we spell it out that much. Councelor Ete, um I think this is a fruitful discussion because it does point back to some of the
conversation and votes we've had in um previous meetings. I am usually in support of simplifying this kind of votes. So I would more likely be inclined towards having something like the chair of finance and vice president.
But I do agree that that role is not specified and so it doesn't need to be here. Perhaps we can leave that up to TSU to make the case for in council for why they would want
these particular offices on the council and then we can vote in that way. Maybe set a precedent but not something that is not actionable as it is right now. So I think we should take that off. Lynn.
Yeah, I will I will also add to that by saying we do have situations um I believe it's um BCG where somebody h in that case at least one of the members or no two no
more than two members of the finance committee can be on BCG. So in other words, if we're going to say finance committee, it should just see a member of the finance committee, not that. But I at this point I
CRC can make their argument. Um our TSO can make their argument. The issue that we're pointing out is this is not backed up in other parts of our documents. Yeah. And yes. Um, I just went to look at the DPW building, the public works
building committee charge, and it does not specify in that charge that the council shall recommend. It just says town counselor. Um, so Paul's followed that practice, but it's worth asking whether or not we need to add language saying recommended by the council council. I think we need I think we need to check
our rules. It might be in there. Councelor Lord. Thank you. Sorry, that was an accident. Oh, okay. No worries. Um, all right. So, for right now, we're taking this out and we
will have further discussion. Three residents with interests andor backgrounds related to transportation design, safety and equity, public transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation, or parking. Um, okay.
I um I have this may not be our business. Sam, we're catching each other all over the place with that today. So, you're I know. And it's it's interesting. Um yeah, I don't like definitive lists
and and so I would suggest in a council meeting that they say or other relevant backgrounds, you know, or something that basically opens a door for somebody to make the case that, you know, a person with I
don't know anyway makes a case is somebody else. There might be another person with some kind of expertise that would be perfectly appropriate here, but they don't fit in nicely to one of to any of these categories.
Um, when we did the ABRC charge, we wrote it as some of whom shall have experience with one or more of the following areas and then we then we had a list. Of course, that was the whole committee, so it's a little bit it's slightly different, but I do think that um
it Yeah, I guess I'm not sure if this is a clarity, consistency, or actionability or not, but I I generally agree that if we could add a or other relevant areas, um I think that that would make this stronger.
I don't think it is our business. I think it is the council's business. Okay, I'll leave it for now then. Yeah. All right, let's go to purpose. Oh, I'm sorry, council atte. So, as long as we have the notes.
All right, I'll make a I'll make a note. May not be clarity consisting, but discuss adding And I think it's similar that we should have a note up where we took out the others that why did we take that out?
I can't wait to see how you put that one. due to cons lack of a con or consistency due to references. Yeah. Good. Okay. Um All right. Purpose. purpose.
The Transportation and Parking Commission, TPC, shall promote a safe, equitable, accessible, and environmentally s Did we already read this? Uh environmentally sustainable, multimodal transportation system that supports people and goods traveling safely, conveniently, and efficiently through town and connecting with other
communities. To achieve this purpose, the TPC shall review and have the authority to approve, oh, I already read this. I'm sorry. uh approve requests related to the public way delegated to the TPC by the town council and review transportation concerns. So we didn't have any issues here, right?
No. Yes, we did. We want to make sure that all of this whoever who can raise requests is in our policy about public ways. Okay, thank you. All right, charge.
Um, just going to make this easier for us to read. Oh, okay. Oh. Oh. Oh. Okay. All right. So, the town council delegates decision m decision-making authority held by the
council under section 2.14 of the Amoris Home Charter to the TPC. Uh, and then uh okay, sorry. As specified in the town council policy regarding the control and regulation of public ways. Oh, it's just reduct redundant. Uh, and reserves the
right to at any time resend such delegation of authority in whole or in part. Council atte do we leave TPC as abbreviated or is it spelled out? Uh we can abbreviate it because we put
it up here in Yeah. Yep. Um so Lauren recommended I think just because it's redundant to delete that first bit and just go right to the second. I'm great with that. Does that make sense? Okay.
Um and then added in Lauren added in and reserves the right to at any time resend such delegation of authority in whole or in part which I think is a good good ad. Okay. Um Lauren added a paragraph here
in making decisions on matters brought to it pursuant to the town. Sorry, I'm trying to click where I her comment stopped showing. Okay, there we go. uh in making decisions on matters brought before it pursuant to the town council policy regarding the control and regulation of the public ways. The TPC shall make individual findings of fact
based upon the pending application or request and supporting documentation as well as any information, evidence or testimony provided by town employees or any other person. The TPC shall seek input from appropriate town staff prior to taking final action on any application or request.
My only irk here is we say town employees and then we say town staff. I just want us to pick one. Um employees. All right. I feel like we use staff, but Okay. Um Okay. From town to From time to time, the town
council may elect it to itself to make a final decision on an application or request, but nevertheless delegate to the TPC responsibility for conducting a related public hearing. Following following the public hearing, the TPC shall promptly provide to the town council detailed individual
findings of fact and related supporting evidence, information and/or testimony, as well as a recommendation to approve or disapprove the application or request. I'll raise my hand. Go ahead, Lyn. There needs to be a time specific by which they have to do that. You know,
within within seven working days, within two weeks, I don't care what. it, you know, leaving it as vague as um within two weeks of the within whatever I mean what reason
um okay so let's think about this they have a public hearing that might be different make a recommendation to approve or disapprove prove, right? Yeah. So, because when they send this report to us, it has to include both the all the factf finding stuff as well as their
recommendation. Um, I don't know if it specifies. Well, and the other piece that goes with this is um when you have a public hearing, sometimes you close the public
hearing, but you still don't make the decision. That's what I'm saying. Oh, okay. Yeah. No, that's what I mean is like it might be two separate meetings for for those two things. So, it's within within x number of days or whatever um
of concluding their action or recommend whatever it's it's it's got to be 14 should we say 14 days or I mean someone throw something out here. I'm trying to figure out how often committees would meet. Um some
committees meet bi-weekly. seems to be a a solid average, which is why 14 came out, but it could fall in a funky day. So, should we say 20? Okay. I hate that writing it and then putting the number after. I'm just going to name
that. And that is prompt enough. We don't need to say promptly. Um, I'm gonna name that this is not clear to me, but I don't the the phrase from time to time,
but I understand why it is used. It's making me uncomfortable in terms of clarity um and and actionability honestly. But I I am not sure what I would do instead because I understand why this is in here. Um, basically this
this is saying the town council might look at something that the TPC is doing a hearing on and say, "Hang on, this is big enough that we need to be the deciding body." Um, why don't you just get rid of from time to time? Yeah.
And say reserves the right to. Yeah. Council attempt. Ooh. Which one do you like more? I like I don't like from time to time, but I also like uh what you mentioned.
Um it's skip my mind. Wait, what did I just say? Yeah, the the town council may reserve the right. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. It's okay, you know.
Oh gosh. And then it would just say to make a final decision. I gotta say I am concerned with this and I'm trying and and tell me if I'm not okay I'm just going to delete this because Andy's thing keeps popping up.
Um tell me if this is not clarity, consistency or actionability. I am concerned that in cases like this where the town council reserves the right to make a final decision but delegates the responsibility for the hearing that the town council is not
doing due diligence. It is saying that the TPC shall provide detailed findings of fact. Is that I don't think this is clarity consistency as I'm saying it. So withdrawn. Are you you're questioning the delegation? I'm questioning the delegation of the
decision without the delegation of the hearing. Yeah. But I don't think that that that's not us falling under us. So I'm I think the two things we have done are absolutely within. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um that
big chunk of text I was a delete by Andy Steinberg. So I accepted that deletion because I couldn't hover over it without a big box popping up. All right. In addition, the TPC shall Are we good on this? Are we good to keep going? Okay. In addition, the TPC shall make recommendations on bylaw changes related
to transportation referred to it by the town council or recommended by the town manager. Support town staff in developing clear and consistent procedures for submittal of and response to comments, complaints, and requests related to parking or transportation infrastructure policies or regulations.
Um, I'm going to pause there just for a second. Is this insinuating that they will start over? Because I believe that we have a
procedure for submit 11 response to it's not necessarily I I guess I don't want trying to think if this is clarity. Okay, I do I actually do think this is clarity. We have an official system for submitting
comments, complaints, and requests relating to transportation infrastructure specifically, not all the other things. Is this saying that this group will start over
and redo Cclick fix? Am I misunderstanding? Council, it's supporting town staff. So, yeah, TPC isn't doing anything but just supporting staff. The question then is,
is staff or are staff right now interested in developing that in which if they aren't then there might be some clarity that needs to be made in the event that town
staff do need that support then CPC can provide it. Yeah. And we need to decide on the word staff or employee. I I think we tend to use staff because we It's fine with me. I don't care. Yeah, but I was trying to look back,
Lyn, on on other ones to see if um uh uh what we what we did, but I'll I'll look back up there. Okay. So, I will I'll let this go. Um, I do feel that this reads that there
is a presumption that we do not have clear procedures for submitting complaints or comments regarding infrastructure and I I think that we do. Um, and so I just I but it could be that the intention with
this body is to start those over anyway. So, and I know that it's supporting town staff, but I that's that's my qualm with it. So, it's unclear to me. Council. Yeah. Um, so I agree with you. The the what you're pointing to is the fact that
it almost seems an imperative that there is going to be a change, right? Yes. And since we already have some of these procedures, that change would
take over from what we have. So, right, if we could just again have a note to bring that up as something to discuss. All right. Um Okay. Hopefully that ah can't.
All right. Okay. Uh advise the town council and town manager on matters related to public bus and rail transit systems, alternative transportation systems, roadway systems, traffic circulation, traffic calming, vehicle parking, intermodal connections,
transportation and parking needs of the business community, village centers and neighborhoods, and connections to communities neighboring Ammerst. I mean, did they leave anything out, Lynn? are others as applicable.
Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Something that allows for an option that's not listed here. Thank you. How about as requested? Yes, fine. Just something that opens the
door. Yep. It needs a semicolon. Thank you. Foster public awareness on the safe use of public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. And wait, foster public awareness on the
safe use of public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and advocate and promote their use. Foster public awareness on adopted transportation safety and traffic comp Oh, I'm sorry, Lyn. I'm sorry. Go ahead. um foster public awareness on the safe
use of public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. There we go. Uh I'll bring up I'll bring up my issue in the council. Okay. It's it's it's around the issue of
electric bikes what we just experienced in uh district two with the fire. Yep. You going to try to ban them? No. No, just we need to do a really serious public awareness safety. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Controversial take. Okay.
Um foster public awareness on adopted transportation safety and traffic calming measures to educate drivers and other road users on these measures. Yeah. Okay. Criteria for decision- making
not capitalize that. Okay. Um criteria for decision-m recommendations of the town's transportation plan, climate action adaptation and resiliency plan, street complete streets policy and master plan,
town and downtown parking studies, guidance from the MASDOT. um and US Department of Transportation transportation engineering standards and regulations such as in the manual ununiform traffic control devices.
This feels like it needs to be a full sentence, but it's fine. Um it needs to also allow for future studies or whatever. So I however we want to word that. Yeah.
So that it's we don't have to wait in an hour later studies uh I do want to say I don't want to add a blanket in here. I do think we need to put guard rails on because
the reality is that you can find papers defending anything on anything. And so it's I think that it is important to say that it needs to be backed up by our town staff, but I'm I'm willing to I
that doesn't feel like it's it. Um and so I'm I'm hoping someone can help me find the middle there. Like it's we want to make sure it's reputable and we don't also want to limit it.
While you're noodling that, I am still struggling on this being labeled criteria for decision-m versus resources for decision-m. This is not a criteria. this list. Um yeah, and so I don't know this needs to be
called something else. Um resources to be considered in decision making. Okay. Now, is that a is that a CRC I mean a go responsibility? I don't know. But I think so criteria that's not the correct word. Like in my mind criteria
is has a definition meaning you have to meet all of these things and you're never that's that's not doesn't make sense. Um all right. How about instead of considered utilized?
That way it still has the like you got to consult these things versus just think about consulting them. Okay. I still don't like the way that this is written. Um, but I I my brain's not coming up
with anything else right now. How about as agreed to by the committee or something like that? Oh, wait. It's a commission by the what's it called? By the commissioner name TPD. TP T
TPC. Okay. Planning Department, Department of Public Works, including the town engineer, public safety departments, finance department, and parking administration shall advise the commission as needed and or requested.
Um, we don't want the commission to assume they can make full requests of all town staff. That's something that we've been trying really to make sure that our commissions know that they have to go through Paul
um so that we don't inundate our town staff. This to me reads as the commission can request any of these. You know, I wonder if they took this from the board of license commissioners.
probably because I mean I to be honest with you if we if we can model the board of license commissioners I think it's fabulous. I agree with you and the scope of this commission is so much
broader broader and hard to define. Yeah, it touches so many more people that will be involved. Um, hang on. I'm going to pull it up. Yeah, this does say shall advise when
requested. Mhm. Um I mean they can always say, you know, we're not available or something like that, but my my sense has been the Bord of License Commissioners has um
first of all, they're staffed and the staff person basically is the filter to anything else. And um so it's not Paul in that case. It's the staff person. And I'm sure they have to check with Paul or check with somebody if it's appropriate
to bring somebody in. But I can leave this. I just I know that there's been confusion with other committees on how accessible how much access they can have to um request things of town staff and and I
think that we I do think that we should be consistent in what our expectation is for committees. I would agree. Um, and I think that I think that this committee is one that has the potential to need a lot from staff.
Um, and I I wouldn't want this committee to become a burden and or an unmanageable challenge. Um, so I'm just trying to think about how to phrase this so that it's not interpreted as a
if you you command them to come in that they come in, you know, right? Um, I mean, we can leave it in and and see if it becomes a problem, but I do that is that's my that's my concern. I don't think it's a bad issue to have
discussed in front of the council. All right. Because some of the council committees have been right some of the violators. Not me. Okay. Um, do you concern re insinuating
the US staff time whenever they want some sort of check and balance here? All right. Um, reports. The transportation and parking commission shall make an annual report
to the town council or provide an interimm report as may be requested at any time and will provide written recommendations to the town manager and town council as requested. We have been adding in shall make a written annual report.
requested or as otherwise outlined in this charge. Right. And wait a minute. Sorry. This last piece will provide written recommendations to the town manager and town council as requested and as otherwise written in this chart. Like we we say that they have to give us written
reports on other things too. Yes. Um, and and one of the interesting things here is one of the charter changes if this goes through is this group should be added to
the group of five that we get annual reports from. You can just make a little note about that. And I think that's the kind of charter change that doesn't require anything but council action. possible
need for charter change to add one. Okay. Um All right. So, I'm going to say that we should not vote on this yet. Um, let's wait until our next meeting and
get thoughts from Andy uh on this and um anything before we move on to the public ways? No. Okay. I also think we need to review this consistent with the public ways policy.
Absolutely. Um, so I will our track changes will be placed in our packet for next week so that you can review them. Um, so I will but I will also send this document out so you can have it and review what we've been
discussing um and look at the public ways. Okay. Um so it is 7:40 uh just about. We do have to discuss the
town manager evaluation process. Um and we do have um we have other items that I I would really like to discuss given that Andy was not able to join us today. Are folks okay if we push the public ways discussion to the next meeting so that we can go to the other items on the
agenda today? Yes. Bit more timely. Okay. Um, so I'm fine with that. I'm going to do that. I will email out any opposition to that. I heard from Lynn. Sorry. Any opposition to that? Anyone's like, I really want to talk about public ways today or I'm going to
be real bummed. Okay. Excellent. So, um, I would like to move us then, hang on, let me pull it up. Um, to the next item on our agenda, which is the discussion of the current committee vacancies.
Um, so we we mixed up we made it we dropped a ball and I want to pick it back up again when we did not fill the uh one when when we had an applicant remove themselves from
consideration uh after the finance committee process um we did not go back and start over with that person uh not with that person with that position. So, we have been sitting with a um empty spot and we have a member whose term is
up on um on finance up or is almost up. I can't remember. I have to look. Passed. It's passed. Um I did not know that this term had passed. I apologize. I didn't really have a system for keeping tabs on committee membership uh expirations. Um, I do think that
that's something where we should figure out a a better process um for notifying notifying go um of vacancies because to be honest I space that we hadn't filled the other finance spot. Um it hadn't been on my radar. So uh we need to
approve a bulletin board posting for the vacancies on finance. Um and sorry I'm trying to pull up our actual uh items here. So, I believe that we can use the same
posting that we've used in the past. Let me find the sample of that and just change the dates. Um, Athena, if I'm incorrect, please let me know. Uh, putting a lot of faith in Outlook search features right now, which is never good.
Okay. All right. Um so here is the old one for finance. We would need to update the term um expiration. There we go. That's the
word. So it's a appointment. These are two-year terms. Yeah. Yeah. So it would it be a term ending June 30th 202 seven seven um and it would begin
immediately so my question is with the one that we did not fill um are we backdating it or can we have them start immediately and do the same expiration date as Yes. Like
I think we can have them start immediately but bring them consistent with the term. What do you mean it back? They can start immediately but have them end either have them end in 2027.
Mhm. Or have them end in 2028 but have them start immediately. Bern Bernie was very clear. He Yeah. I I heard I heard that. Um, okay. So, we're seeking two we've got
two vacancies. Terms both terms would begin immediately and end June 30th, 2027. Is that correct? Because you said it's two-year terms. Um,
we only have one vacancy. No, Bernie is leaving. Yeah. And we never filled the other vacancy. We had two spots earlier. We have Tom Porter and Oh, I forgot. We have Joe Joseph.
So, we have two ongoing committee members. We need to check on Tom Porter's term. Yeah. When did we appoint Hang on. Stand by. All right. So, Tom Porter ends next year. He's got a
year. Okay. Yep. And then Bernie's the only vacancy. Okay. So, yeah. So, you're right. I don't know why I thought when we were interviewing for Joe's spot that there were um two vacancies at that point.
There were Bernie Bernie's term finished this last June. Ah, that's what it is. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm going to blame I'm going to blame No, no, no, no. You're okay. I I was mixing up the math. All right. So, just one vacancy. So, basically, this posting
would be the same except we would remove this paragraph would not be in it and this would read uh ending June 30th, 2027. We include more information on the finance committee. If you're interested in volunteering to serve, please fill
out a calf. If you have questions and all the charter stuff, we have had people who have reached out. Um I believe they have seen that it was vacant and so they have submitted calfs. I believe that per our our rule, we will
have to ask them to resubmit that same form. Um but we do have some folks in the in the pool who have indicated interest at least two for this role. Yeah, I I think I um Yeah, two is what I remember.
Yep. Um re two recent submissions very sometime in the last three or four months. Sometime in the last like three or four weeks. Yeah. All right. So that's finance. Um, so is there a motion to approve the bulletin board posting
for the finance committee non- voting uh non- voting resident member vacancy on So moved. Second. Is there a second? Thank you. All right. I'm going to call the vote. Um, councelor atte. Lynn.
Hi. I am an I. And councelor Lord. Oh, we may have lost her. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that, please? No, you're good. We're um voting to approve the posting on the bulletin board for the um vacancy on the finance committee.
Yes. Perfect. Yes. Thank you very much. Okay. I will send this language to Athena. So you have it and done. Um All right. Thank you all very much.
Um Athena I I'm sure you are listening so you know what I'm sending you but uh text voted by Jo. Okay, that one's that. All right, so we will
begin this process once again. Um last time Pat uh Pat took the lead on this. If anyone is interested in taking the lead on this um that would be amazing. That looks like reaching out to folks who have submitted calfs. Uh that looks and asking them to resubmit if they've
uh applied in the past two years. Looks like coordinating the solicitation of statements of interest. Um and it looks like uh navigating the logistics of interviews. In the past, I've tried to put together a calendar to make that a little bit easier. Um but coordinating
with the applicants about when interviews are uh takes a little bit of time. So, it's been helpful. So, I'm not going to ask for a decision right now. There's a lot of other things we need to do, but I would love for folks to mull over if this is something you'd be interested in taking the lead on coordinating. Um, it would be very, very
helpful. So, with that done, at our likely not at our next meeting, but probably the meeting after this, we will be reviewing the selection guidance and interview questions for the finance committee. Um
and at that point hopefully we can start talking about a calendar as well and we have to decide if the pool is sufficient. Yeah. And and that's really a um Yeah. Yeah. That is part of the
process. Yes. Okay. So let's go on to the charter review committee. Um, and we did get another calf, which is very exciting. Someone sent in a calf
for all the things, which is always great. Um, sorry. Tabs, tabs, tabs. Okay. All right. So um I'm just confirming. Yeah, charter
review committee. Okay, so we do have a new submission to the charter review committee. I had a question. Let me back up. Um I had a I had a question for this committee and if this committee tells me I should ask Athena this question later, I can do that. Um, I had a request by a
member of the public for the dates that people withdrew from consideration, which is fine, but also the reasons why people uh pulled themselves from consideration like withdrew basically withdrew their calf. Um, and I was not sure given that calfs are private are
not public information whether the reasons individuals gave for withdrawing their calf was public information or not. Does anyone have I I will tell you since I managed the first round for the charter review
committee sometimes frankly it was just nobody they didn't respond at all and in other instances they just said I'm not interested. I personally think that we don't have the authority to publish
anything beyond you know so many people withdrew. I don't think I anything else would be borderlining on public u exposing public record. That was where I was leaning as well of
I can share the date but the personal reasons why people withdrew or is felt personal to me but I also was trying to avoid the paperwork. If it became a public records request then I may as well just forward the email. But if it's not appropriate then I I don't
know. I was struggling with the with whether or not if it's public records request, what they can do is um request emails associated with it. Um but but then they they have to be redacted. That that's what I was wondering was
like no they have to be redacted so that if somebody said g you know my mother took ill that you redact that whatever. Okay. I will um I'll respond back to that individual council atte
who do the I'm trying to see how I can phrase the question when we have had people withdraw calves there doesn't need to be a reason given no there does not need to be reason okay so that's the first thing then the
second is um where would the communication go to on the withdrawal. This is in reference to email communication for example that could be
part of such a request. Um it has to be specific. So, I'm I'm wondering does the Joel chair or whoever is handling some of these um
processes, do they get to communicate with those who withdraw calfs? How does that work? Um, in this case, I had reached out to folks who had submitted the calfs a long time ago and asked them if they were still interested when we started reviewing the pool again because
it had been a long time. Um, and both of these individuals had submitted for multiple committees. And so I reached out to ask, you know, as we're continuing this process and and relooking at it, it was it was once we got two more calfs in, um, basically I reached back out and said, "Hello, are
you still interested?" and both individuals were indicated that they were not. Um, that was the Does that answer your question? It it it kind of Yes, it it does.
Okay. Um, all right. So, we have Just want to double check one thing. Sorry. Um, I thought that we had gotten two, but
I'm realizing I think we just got one more. I think we got one more. Um, I didn't know we got any. We did. Yep, we did. So, I'm just looking up the district because I wanted to update my um I want to confirm that I'm be really
embarrassing if I wrote it and I was wrong. So, I'm just going to double check. One moment, please. All right. I was right. Okay, good. All right. I wanted to double check cuz it's my district and so I just wanted to make
sure I was correct that it was my district. All righty. Um, so we have a third calf. This is our current pool. I will remind this committee we did not uh last time we talked we
um trying to remember if we we we never did any sort of formal decision as to whether or not we were going to continue to move forward or we were going to recommend to the council to not fill the seat on charter. Um, and so I'm continuing to bring this forward as a
determination of the sufficiency of pool unless this committee decides it would like to have that conversation again. Council atte um charter commission the charter review right that comes before the council on the
um 6th of October and it is a request uh for an extension to January 6th, which is the day that the new council gets sworn in. Oh, they get sworn in and get a get a report to read.
That's fun. Okay. Was that all council? Sorry, I I I'm sorry. It's the day after. It's the day after. We get sworn in on the 5th. The new council gets sworn in on the 5th. All right. Yeah. I bring that up cuz I do think we
may we we're pushing the can down the road, but I don't think it is necessary to fill that position at this point. Any other any other thoughts? Otherwise, I will entertain I will make a a motion to find
the pool sufficient and if there's a second, we'll vote on it. Um, I let me also say we did receive a letter signed by four members of the charter commission saying they didn't think it was uh necessary to fill that position
at this time. In fact, they basically said don't. And uh that was signed I believe the day after they finished their all day retreat and um which is basically
now shaping their next round of reports. It was sent the evening of their retreat. Oh, okay. So it was right after Yeah. I go ahead. If we want to go ahead with
interviews, fine. I would you like to elaborate? Well, it just seems so strange to add somebody to a committee that's this far along in their work.
But I also am very um conscientious of the criticism uh about not having filled this position. And I think that the um
and that's all I can say. So once we find the pool sufficient um before we solicit statements of interest, before we develop interview questions and before we hold interviews, we need to adopt selection guidance for filling
this vacancy. We did hear from the charter review uh charter review committee regarding some of the needs that they're having and I think that we can use those notes to look at our selection guidance but I
think Lynn that the selection guidance and interview questions became they are always very important but I think that they became much more specific now uh that we are f looking to fill a vacancy in a body that's been meeting for for a
long time. Um that's been doing one project and meeting for a long time, right? So So I I think that it's made those two pieces even more important. Um what I don't know is if I don't know that this would happen.
I'm truly speaking hypothetically. I'm I just tried to pull up our um our appointment process. I don't know if we can fail a search. Um
it our policy says the the policy on appointment says committee recommend or sorry after the interviews or at the next meeting of the uh of the recommending committee the committee shall discuss applicants and make its recommendation to the town council. The recommending committee shall seek to minimize the time between
interviews and council vote. Oh, it does say the committee may choose not to make a recommendation. Sorry. Thank you. I was reading the wrong piece. So we I I do think that it's important to make sure that we are if we are putting someone on this committee that we are putting someone in who's not going to
disrupt the work of the that's not going to disrupt the workflows too much right like I think Bernie was talking my professional world I deal a lot with that like norming storming performing stuff um Bernie was talking about bringing a new person in and that there's no way for that not to be
disruptive that's not necessarily a bad thing it's just you're changing that ecosystem. So, it is going to be shifted. It's that's disruption. It's going to happen no matter who is put on that committee. I think that it's important for this body to look at our selection guidance
and interview questions so that we can put someone on the committee that's not going to cause a disruption to the point of significant delay of the committee's work. Um, we're not trying to slow them down. We are not trying to weigh them and we need to make sure that
the folks and this isn't to say they don't but we need to make sure that the folks who are interviewing understand that they are jumping on a moving train um and that they have a lot to do to to make sure they're caught up and to kind of help the work of the committee as as soon as humanly possible.
I'm monologuing and all I mean is we need to be really cautious and careful as we look at selection guidance and interview questions. That's that's really what I'm getting at at the end of the day. Um, I would like us So, I will I'll pull that up again.
I will make a motion to find this pool sufficient. Um, if you support finding the pool sufficient and moving on with the interview process, you can vote I. If you do not support that, you can vote nay or no or whatever
affirmative or negative you would like to share. Uh, I move to find the charter review committee applicant pool sufficient. Is there a second? Second. Oh, okay. Coming in hot. All right. Um,
I'm going to call the vote. Can we have some discussion? Yeah. Oh, of course. Thank you. Okay. The the reason I didn't move to a second is I I'm not sure how I feel about this pool. There's nothing about this pool
that isn't duplicative of the existing candidate, the existing members. They already have uh we already voted this pool is not sufficient once before when we had just two people. Uh and because they basically mimicked the
criteria of the existing group and if the additional candidate um doesn't add anything um if you will to the balance of the committee.
So, I'm I'm torn. I I just want to be very clear. I'm torn. Can you specify what you mean by balance? Yeah. I mean, the president committee has three females and five males.
Of the five males, I believe only one is bipac. I believe all the rest are white
and they rage reign in they range in age from probably 19 or 20 years old to 79. So it you know there it's doesn't the pool
doesn't add from based on just the surface of this. It it and that's all I can do. Okay. It just doesn't add anything to the diversity of the committee. So that's that's my dilemma. And and yet
a a threeperson pool is definitely sufficient. that plus where they are in the process and the fact that four of them have said please don't fill this. I hear you. Thank you. Counselor Lord.
Um yes. Thank you. I'm about to make a comment. Sorry about that. Um I understand that the there's not a diversity but from half and half the people have sorry I'm kind of working but half the people double duty half the
people said um no they don't want it other half were like oh it would be nice to have an extra body so not to like dehumanize but I'm thinking this person they've already done most of their discussions now it's putting together all the accumulation of what they've collected and their work so I'm thinking
of it um less in terms of diverse thoughts of how to get out to people and get all this stuff even though I think they're going to bring it back to the people. Um, so that's why I'm voting towards it. I'm thinking, oh, it's an extra person to do the work. And I know there's thoughts about chemistry and imbalance, but if you need an extra body
to here, file this or type up these or compile, that's why I'm leaning towards like voting for moving forward with this. Thanks. And and yeah, thank you. Any other discussion before
we move to a vote? Councilor atte isn't someone that is going to add substantively to the charter review as it is, but it's going to do some of that neg. that is
going to I think change how we think of the questions if we decide to move forward. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I think we we need to make sure we're committing really good time and effort on the guidance and the questions.
Um, any other discussion? Otherwise, I'm going to move to call the vote. Councelor Lard. Uh, we're voting if the pool is the vote of I. Thank you, councelor atte.
Uh, sorry. I'm sorry. Councelor, could you repeat your vote? I Lyn I uh and I am an I as well. Okay. So the pool is sufficient. Thank you very much
to our final applicant. Um and I will uh at our next meeting tentatively I hope to bring the selection guidance and interview questions to us. I will also um reach out to the chair with that
guidance. I'm um I've sent it to him before, but I will send it again. Um you should reach to the full committee. Yeah, I was going to say I actually I found it so worthwhile to actually have a discussion with the committee that I
wish we could uh do that again, but I understand that they've got a lot on their plates right now, so I'm happy to uh happy to do that. I'm Okay, never mind. Uh, I was going to talk more about how how we need to as a council contribute more to their um work, but
that's not on the agenda. Okay. So, next up here, sorry, I'm just organizing all my tabs. Um, the town manager evaluation process. Thank you all for um backing me up on Monday and presenting it to the council.
I wanted to just review the notes that I heard and make sure that I didn't miss anything. um and and get your your insights into the discussion that we had yesterday. Generally, uh I did not synthesize the data that I gathered yesterday. So, I'm just going to kind of go through um
councelor Hegner liked the format and uh we wanted and wanted to make sure that there was a place the town manager could indicate uh that sorry, where we could indicate that the town manager could not meet a goal due to circumstances beyond his control, essentially saying he's not at fault. Um I will say I thought that
we had done that in the way that we wrote it and so clearly that was not um that that was not clear to others. So, um, when we look at our NAS are not able to judge or not enough information. Um, I want to I think we should talk about
the phrasing of that. Uh, and and I'm happy to draft up some alternatives uh as as to how to shift it to make sure that folks are saying like in the goals we say goal was dep prioritized by the council. Um, and
maybe that language needs to change to goal was not feasible this year or something like that. Um, we talked a lot about the aspects of the town manager's role that we do not see. Um, and so something I'd like to think about with this committee is how to ask
those questions of the town manager. There is all that is written in terms of his job is to complete a self evaluation. um if there's a way that we want to structure that differently so that we
can get that information. It does not have to be in a written report. I honestly I think when I think about how much time he has to spend on everything else and I think about what we get through town manager reports that we're supposed to be reading every time we come to a
meeting that and I think about what we're supposed to be watching. I believe that it is our responsibility as counselors to learn this information. I would like to figure out a way to make the self-evaluation less daunting for Paul. He hasn't said it's daunting, but based on how long it is, um I'm daunted.
So, I I want to make sure that we're getting a self-ealuation that helps us. And personally, I would love to create an opportunity for us to have a conversation with the town manager at a meeting and ask questions about, you
know, hey, this item on the on the um town manager's job, can you tell us about it? Like I I would welcome the opportunity to have an open more of an open conversation with Paul. Um not sharing our reflections, but just kind of a Q&A about the year.
That was my thought. I'm not wedded to it, but I do not want to extend his self-evaluation. Um, I think it's long enough. Any thoughts on this piece about the how
to how to know the things that we don't currently know or see. No thoughts. Okay, I'll keep Oh. Oh, all the thoughts. Counselor. Yeah, we don't know the things that we don't see. I'm not even sure that um the
town manager does either, which is I think one of the beauties of this evaluation because it will be an educational process. like it already is for me because in reading the town manager
um reports now I'm paying attention to those that are explicitly part of what we have requested him to do those that fall under the charter and those that in some
way seem to hover like a shadow within it you know so um it it is an education And from the first whatever we end up getting it will also be helpful in creating a template for what will be the
goals. So um I think we should give ourselves a little bit of grace here um and see it is already an improvement over the previous year and so we could see how that could tie into other things going forward.
Thank you. I appreciate that take. Um, Lynn, I I'm still very concerned that in adding all of the criteria that are in the
charter, although I'm I'm torn, I like seeing it there. I've always felt that something about him performing his responsibilities as described in the charter should be part of the evaluation. But I if I were him, I would then feel
the need to speak to every one of those a through whatever you and provide evidence. And that is ownorous. And so
I I mean I've tried to think about ways to get all of that out there and maybe I don't know I've thought about everything like ask counselors to pick
five that they're going to rate on or something like that. just anything that allows counselors to not feel like first of all they have to rate every one of them because I can't even rate every one of them and
you know and I meet with the town manager once a week and I just can't and and even if I had an inkling of what how I would it wouldn't be sufficient to do a
reading. So that's what's really puzzling me. And yet to ask him, you know, how many contracts did you sign? And then what does that tell us? We don't know if
that's good or bad. How are we going to get around that? Yeah, that that that's where I'm stuck. And I I really I so much prefer the idea that we brought forward this
uh part of his job. Um but I'm I'm just stuck and and I have to tell you the clock is ticking, gang. I know. Just so we start this process October one. I
know. I know. This needs to be done in our next two meetings. Um, so I'm wondering if there's a way to remove any judgment for counselors in selecting the I don't know the answer to this
question, therefore I'm not providing a reading. Um, we put it in there for a reason. That reason being that we don't know all of these things. Like we don't see all of these things.
And I still would love to give Paul the opportunity like give us the opportunity to ask those questions if there are some that were like I think but I'm not sure. Say, hey Paul, did you miss any contracts this year? Like it doesn't
matter how many he signed. It's more of did you sign them? Um, and what I am very uncomfortable with and what I will die on the hill of is I do not want to lump them together. Um, I'm very concerned. When the idea was
brought up about we need to clump these um, and just say performed the duties in the charter, I'm going to tell you that is not going to be best practice. um given how many there are, we are going to end up with he did a lot of it or kind of worse of I
don't know at all so I'm not going to fill anything out. So I how do we feel about the idea of a unable to judge but somehow convincing the council that it's okay to put that
one and that you shouldn't guess? Um, I don't know. And Paul and I are going to meet to talk about this, um, to talk about the self-evaluation as well, and I'll get his take on it. But I, there's got to be a way to
learn this information without a 20page self-evaluation. Um, are we going to invite him to our meeting? Yeah, I'm going to invite him to our next meeting. Um I I keep forgetting that's on me.
Okay. I mean, usually we've met with the town manager on this and also on goals, more specifically on goals. Yeah. Um okay, I'm going to I'll keep moving forward and I'll I'll keep thinking on this, but please uh if if folks could
put some brain cells on this in the next week. um this particular problem of it sounds like the the key issue is that the council does not see every aspect of the town manager's performance on the items defined in the charter and the question is how do we um fairly evaluate
him on that without creating too ownorous of a process for him. Uh I guess that's that. All right. Um, one of the other themes that emerged was the discussion about numbers versus just
words. I'll share personally, I would love to get rid of the numbers. I think that it leads folks to uh feeling like it's a rating and not a uh or a rating like a grade. Um, kind of just what Paul said, right? It's um yeah,
[Music] you can still quantify this uh by saying, you know, 50% of the people said that he met most if not all. Um and because we're not allowing for mid-range
scores, uh we don't need numbers. We're not saying you you can't pick halfway between, right? You got to pick one or the other. So, um, how does the committee feel about eliminating the numbers, having it just be I can pull up my screen to show you. Um,
so it would just be instead of four, it would just read like this. Sorry. And I was going to change this to say minimal. Oh, I'm sorry. council. Um, I'm in favor of removing numbers,
but I also had a question which more or less I think you've answered with your illustration here. Is it going to be the case that the survey will be an online survey? Yes, that answers my question. Yes.
Um, I sent the committee a link a while ago and I can send another link. Um, and I I I would love concrete confirmation that I am allowed to send this link to the council to review what this looks like as an actual form. Um, it's the responses just come to me.
They're not coming to anybody else. That's okay, right? They don't even need to respond. They can just go through it. They don't need to respond, but if they want to, they can test it, but like they don't need to. Um, but it's just coming to me and the public has seen this
content of it. I That's a really good question and I would like a I don't know. Not going to lie, I'm going to be real frustrated if I if I we can't do this as a um form. Lynn, what uh what was your
comment? Sorry. Well, being the person that's had to summarize all of this, um, I'm still going to be stuck with saying things like five counselors said met, if not all. Right.
Okay. and then coming up with a rating that is which by the way is marginally defensible because there's 13 counselors. Why do you have to come up with a rating?
Well, a percentage or something. I mean I I mean you've all seen it and I mean I can say things like that, but how do you then come up with a summary statement? I want to back up though. Why do you
have to come up with a percentage? It's just the logical next step after numbers. You don't have to. You can still say five. you can still but at some point if you want to come up with a a statement you're going to say
something like you know on 21 of the criteria uh counselors you know 10 counselors said not applicable or can't rate or whatever.
I I'm just trying to figure out how how I'm gonna try to synize this and and believe me, I've worked with complicated data sets. Yeah, absolutely. No, I you know, this is not it's not like,
you know, I Yeah. Anyway, yeah, it's I I'll I'll end up using uh saying how many counselors did this and then the then the next question is how do I get that to another
level of summary? And I'll just have to work on it. And I tell you right now, I this thing is just staring me in the face, right? It's something like x number of counselors stated that Paul exceeded expectations
on e on the majority of goals, right? Or something like that. Is that what you mean? I'm looking at last year's um memo. Yeah. Okay. And how do you say that by you know, so there's if seven counselors put your put your statements up again.
Hang on. If seven counselors say met most if not all or met some but not all. Mhm. First of all, that's not even a 50% cut off. Okay.
And so does he only get rated high on the met if not all? What do you mean by rated high? So in other words, like you're adding in another rating system and that's what's confusing. Okay. That there's 13 counselors. Y
in order to say he has met or exceeded his goals, which is what we've said in the past. Mhm. It seems to me that a majority of counselors would have to check the first box, the first circle.
Mhm. Okay. I would I would agree with that. I think that if we want to look at the distributions here, we can. I do think that an acceptable year is going to be the top two, but and and I say that
because I I believe that we have given an unrealistic amount to do. Um so so in my mind that's Yeah. But 40% is not even 50. I I I know that.
So, I'm trying to, you know, to me the only thing that allows you to say he's met that goal is the top one. Yes, I agree with that. I I am saying that if you look at the aggregate, if
you look at everyone's together, I don't think that if we have some here, some goals here and some goals here on average, right? that that means an unsuccessful year overall. Um I I agree that completing a goal or meeting it meeting
that benchmark whatever it is would require most people select this top one but I don't think that that's different than in the past where it's been satisfac where was it satisfactory commendable satisfactory needs improvement unsatisfactory unable to
judge um I I think that this is you know Honestly, and this this makes no sense to me because again, it's a judgment versus a checkbox. And that's for me part of the inherent problem with this that old those are check boxes to begin with.
No, I'm saying this this is a judgment whether it was commendable or satisfactory. They should be a checkbox. It should be it was complete or not complete. Um it's see the way we've worded it it is you
know and and I don't have any problem with the fact that some goals are met um if not all what if we you know and in other words I'm just not able to articulate
um you know maybe maybe if I did 13 mock responses I'd have a better way to think about this. Okay. Um I'm happy to fill out a couple blank ones too for or a couple like
random ones too. uh and and get you the results to look at. I think I think it would be important that only and these are mock responses. Oh yeah. I'm not I so it's not I and I I would really like
to get um a legal opinion on that because in the past I'm the only one that ever receives individual council responses. I would like to specify when I said I would like to share this with the council, it was truly to see the formatting. I would
request that people not be filling it out and you would send out a separate we'd make a copy of this that you would send out. This would not be the exact one that you send out to counselors. I will not have access to the results of the council when you send this out for real.
Oh, I know that that I'm not even questioning Anna. I that was not it. Okay. Okay. Even thinking about a mock one. Yeah. I I would need to specify that folks are not to share true opinion in it. It's truly to look at the formatting.
Yeah. Um Councelor Lord, it might have been another accidental one. Um Councelor Lord, feel free to interrupt me. Lyn, I think the other piece of this is remember that we are not tied to a specific way of writing
the memo. Um, and so I I think that we have we have latitude to do that differently as well and to match the results that we get from the evaluation in the memo. So, um, I I would try to
ease any stress of trying to create something that looks the same as what you've created before. Um because there is no those parameters aren't on us. We can we can redo how we think about this memo.
Um I'm going to go to counselor Lord, but I also have time and so I will I want to leave us with next steps on this. Councelor Lord. Oh, I think you froze. Councelor Lord, I'm sorry. Yeah. All right, Councelor Lord, if you un Oh,
she's gone. Okay. Um, it is 8:29 and we're going to be done at 8:30. So, here's where I'd like to leave us. Um, everyone was at the council meeting on Monday and has heard this feedback. I would love for folks to think about if
there are things you'd like to change, what those would be. Um, please come with those to our next meeting. We're going to run a tight ship at this next meeting because we need to get this to the council for the for the 6th. Um we will also need to decide at this next meeting how we're going to share this
with uh staff and the public. Um what that looks like. It could be as simple as here's the job description, here are the goals, give us your top three and bottom three, just like we're doing for the qualitative with um with the counselors if we wanted to at least give
a little bit more parameter um for folks. It's 8:30. Um any questions on what you need to do for next week? Okay, excellent. Um thank you all. I know that was
jam-packed. We will start next week off with the uh public ways. We have to vote all three items out. So, I'll hopefully have some feedback from Andy and Pam for our next meeting and then we will finish the uh town manager evaluation. We will
likely not have time to get to the selection guidance and interview questions. I will put it on the agenda just in case we magically finish things on time. But just FYI in advance, we likely will not get to those based on what we need to do for the evaluation to get it done. Okay. Any questions or
other items folks need to bring forward before we make a motion to adjourn? Lynn, please remind people to bring their calendars because I think we're going to have to start scheduling some additional meetings. Okay. Thank you. Um All right. Bring your calendars next
week and I will remind Pat and uh councelor Lord of that. Is there a motion to adjourn? Thank you. Is there a second? Excellent. Um all right, I'm going to call the vote. Councelor I Lynn I and I am an I. Thank you all so much and
have a happy rest of your night. Thank you. Bye.