All right, there's Andy. Yeah, Andy said he'd be joining. All right, I am going to call this G meeting to order on September 23rd at 6:30 p.m. I will excuse me, just gulped myself
before this. Um, I'm going to call on each member of the committee to make sure that they can hear and be heard. Uh, Lynn Griezmer present. Hala Lord, Councelor Lord, excuse me, present. And I am present as well. All right. Well, thank you both. And I know
councelor Et will be joining us uh when he is able to and uh councelor D'Angelus will not be here today. So, I'm first going to see if we have any members of the public with us who would like to make public comment today. Uh if you'd like to make public comment, please
raise your hand and I will call on you and you can make public comment for up to two minutes. We have two attendees today. All right. So, I'm going to move on for public comment. Going once,
going twice. All right. Because Andy Steinberg is with us, I am going to move first to the um discussion on the transportation and parking commission and the proposed changes to the town council policy regarding control and
regulation of the public ways. I love when a policy title is so long that I need to breathe in the middle. Um, Athena, can I go ahead and bring Andy in? That would be great. Thank you. And Andy is joining us for the purposes of this record and for this body to
know. Andy is joining us as the chair of TSO where this proposal is coming from. Um, Andy, welcome. When you are ready, can we just make sure that we can hear you and you can hear us? You are muted, but I can There we go. Perfect.
Yes, I'm here. Awesome. Thank you so much. All right, so um I am sorry I'm just pulling up both both items. It was a bit packed in today. Um one moment, please. All right.
So to start to start off, Andy, as you know, we discussed this last week. You had brought this back to TSO. I I had filled you in on the discussion that go had last week. you brought that discussion back to TSO. Um, and in my
email, I have from you the results of TSO's discussion. Is there anything you'd like to say before we get started in on this? And as as we go through, I'm going to fill in what TSO had um had discussed. I don't think on this one I appreciated
the discussion last week. I did see the meeting later. Perfect. No, I I um between your uh what you provided to me and watching the meeting, I think I was fully aware and
it was a really good discussion. Jo's a a good body for discussing. Um all right, so I'm going to share my screen uh and we can start in on on this piece. Make sure I'm sharing the right document. Okay. So,
first off, um TSO had agreed to the change to for consistency. Sorry, I'm looking back. Um yeah, so TSO did vote to strike the language chair of the finance committee
or designate and council vice president. um which is aligned with what we had wanted to do for consistency. Um so that was good to know that this is this change is all okay with them. Um
sorry the discussion here we had discussed adding something um as so as to not limit the uh experience but we weren't sure as a committee whether that fell under the umbrella of clarity consistency or
actionability or whether that was something do members have strong feelings one way or another now on this piece Lynn. Um, did Andy Andy did, um, TSO discuss this?
I'm looking at which one it is because I it's the one that starts with three residents with interests. What we had talked about was possibly just adding the phrase or other relevant areas. um not discuss that as far as the uh
membership of the committee. Um it was solely about the one issue is all we discussed. Okay, that's fine. Okay. So that's really not clear, consistent, and actionable. It might you might want to put it in the report that
this was discussed but considered not clear, consistent and actionable just so that people know that it was an option to be discussed maybe at council. Just so you know, I think that if you remember the original charge that we
worked from came from the town manager and u that was we did not change that from the town manager's recommendation. The only difference that
we had was adding two counselors. Um, otherwise we did not touch that section of his proposal. Andy, just for clarity sake, but not for this committee. Um, did Paul's original
proposal not have the two counselors? That is correct. And did it have seven members? It was seven members and it did not have any counselors. And uh for policy reasons, which of course is
not what you're focusing on today, no. We felt that if it was going to make recommendations directly to the council and it was going to be taking on certain functions having to do with the public
way that it made sense. And then when we talk to people in Northampton who have had an active council for quite a number of years, um they have two counselors on it and we met with one of their
counselors um at a TSO meeting. All right. But that's actually for council discussion. Okay. Not for TSO. Thank you. So um All right. So we got through this
part and then the this was just to check in the public waste policy. Lauren was unsure what this refers to in terms of requests. Uh go did not necessarily have issue with this in terms of it being clear um because those requests are laid out in
the public ways policy uh or well requests for changes was just how I interpreted it. Um, but if there's anything Joel would like to add here, that would be the time to do it. Wait, maybe go back. I'm sorry. You're fine.
And the authority to Well, no matter what they people would ask for, it would be a change. So maybe for clarity, we should say to approve requests for changes related to the public way. Is that okay?
Mhm. Okay. Yeah. I think it would be different if you were suggesting for changes to the public way, but related to the public way. Makes sense. Related to the public way, right? Um Okay. So
Andy, you said that in terms of this question, the committee, the complaint procedure could replace Cclickfix or it could be a separate system for issues that are more than maintenance of the current roads. This would be a decision of the TPC. Cclick Fix addresses
complaints about roads as currently configured and regulated. It does not address issues such as the current requests to eliminate a parking place on Amity Street that the council discussed to provide better visibility. Does not include requests to change speed limits, requests for traffic calming measures, etc. Northampton has a system with a
special form that can be completed through the website. So basically, it's more expansive. It could replace Cclick Fix. It could may not. So that answers that question. Um,
we had other small things in here. Uh, and then this piece. Um, Andy wrote, "Regarding the concern about access to town staff, we need to recognize that Paul proposed the TPC include the police chief or designate, superintendent of public works or
designate, and planning director or designate as members." Maybe the section could be the TPC may seek information or advice from town staff and departments not represented on the TPC as approved by the town manager, which I think is an artful solution to this
um to this piece of text. Let me put it in here so we can see it. Oop, sorry. It would read like that and this would go away. This is the new piece. Yeah, like that. I think that was very good. Thank you,
Andy. Um, Elen. Yeah, finish this one and then I have something up at the top again. Okay. Okay. So, then the last piece was about reporting. Um,
and I did not get an answer to this question. Uh, I can't remember why we got stuck on this and why we couldn't just ask them to provide a written report um versus needing a charter change. Lynn, do you remember?
I I we don't need a charter change, but if we do do charter changes and we approve this body, then I believe for consistency sake, we should put it in just like we have the board of licensed commissioners. Is the human rights
commission in there too? No. And because there's a number of bodies now that we ask for annual ECAC is another one. There's a number of ask for annual written reports from. I would suggest striking it from the charter altogether unless like otherwise we're
going to have to con constantly be updating it. Um unless there's a legal reason. We don't need to get into that. But um no I think this is fine to leave it the way it is. Yep. Okay. Um, Andy, there was one other issue that I raised
in this morning's email to you. Oh, I'm sorry. What was that? um in the sections that were added under charge by um KP Law,
they were long paragraphs and um every time they she's um Lauren seemed to be using the words um pending application or request and
application does not appear anywhere else in the charge or in the um even the proposed amended uh council policy on the public ways. So
um application didn't make sense to uh us at the TSO level and the only thing that was in there and uh and hollow is of course also present is she's a member of both committees. Um we
were suggesting removing the word application or in the four places because it um doesn't make sense since application is undefined and it's unclear as to what was meant.
Mhm. Yeah. I'm just looking for the find them all. I got one, two, three. I found it four. Okay. I have a a general process question that I just wanted to name to this group. I
find that often the legal legal opinions really shouldn't be coming to go as much as they should be going back to the initial body. Um I would like to shift the timing of this process to have legal opinions go back to the the the initial
body that the thing is in. I think that's absolutely correct, Anna. Yeah, I totally agree. I don't know if there's a reason why it's to go, but we constantly are in this cycle of like the committee should be making that decision. Yeah. And as you as you know, we've had to
send things back because we felt like they weren't in our purview. So it seems to me that what we should do because this particularly arises with TSO and CRC and what they should do is when they think they are finished they should send
it to uh for legal review and then look at the requests one more time. Yep. I agree. Yeah. The one thing that I wanted to alert you to if you make that change and I I think that it is a good change for
the next council. Um at the last meeting we also approved what had been referred to us and is very much wanted by Chief Ting which is uh now um referred to as public defe uh urination and defecation
by law. And um it uh was developed in with with uh enthusiastic approval by the chief uh and uh councelor Hanniki who is the
sponsor. So it's um we we did uh check with both on the wording and uh I understand that um Athena has sent it on the KPU law immediately after the meeting. Um, since we're nearing the end
of the term and you want to make sure that the council gets two readings of a bylaw before it's adopted, um, I think it's very important that you not comp u do anything that would elongate the
schedule and risk that it doesn't get done by the end of the term. I I think Andy that we're trying to expedite the schedule because what tends to happen is that something will go to KP law and then come to G who looks at it at a meeting and then it has to say
oh this is more than what I can't think of any there are very few instances where we haven't needed further information from a committee um that then it has to go from go to the initial committee and then back to go. So, we're
trying to bypass that first. Goo looks at it, provides comments, sends it to the committee, go back and forth, and have it just come back to the initial committee before going to go. So, I I I think my intention would be to speed up the process. And if the committee looks
at it and says, "Great, no big changes, right off to go it goes." Um, but my my yeah, the hope here is to cut back on the time that it takes to pass to get these things back to the council. We can see
and stop the bouncing back and forth between two committees. Yeah. Right. Well, on this one, we can see what happens when KP Law replies and what the timing is and how much change they propose.
Yeah. And a lot of it comes down to when the committees are meeting, which you know, like a lot of it's not necessarily a perfect formula. Yeah. Um Lynn, you said you go back up to the top uh for the membership
and it you know what we're we're we may be getting a recommendation for a d a planning a director of planning and economic development and so we should change that to be consistent. It can still be or designate.
So, have we gotten the official proposal for that? I don't want to change it prematurely. We approved um they're in the process of hiring. So, we approved that it be combined and I think that was part of last year's
budget or the budget that we're in now. So, that was all. Thank you. But because we still have this one thing where we have to volley between the
public ways policy, do you want to hold off on the motion? Yeah. Yep. Save this. Okay. So, we'll come back to this before the end, but let's There's so much more red on this one. I've been dreading it. I know.
All right. Here we go. Um, let me zoom in before I share. So, Andy, did your group did TSO look at this look at the legal review? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. And
but we did not discuss it because uh we un we were under the understanding that it was a uh opinion to go to your committee so that it was not discussed. Okay.
Um, all right. So, it looks like Lauren added in a little titling here. I just something that bugged me. I went back to the charter. There is no phrasing of keeper of the public way in
the charter. Um, and so this reference was confusing to me saying under section 2.14 of the Ammeris terminal charter, the town council is the keeper of the public way. It does say this piece, but it doesn't use the term keeper of the public way in the charter. Um, I know
this is nitpicky, but I I'm just sharing it because it bothered me that this said according to the charter, the town council is this and the charter doesn't say that. Lynn, I would edit it. I would say under section 2.14 of the Emerstone home world
charter, the town council shall control and regulate the public way. Let me make sure I'm in tracking mode. Sorry. Yeah. Uh, okay.
Of course, all the pieces in black on the uh version we have were from the original policy because we used edited from the original policy. Yeah, totally. Totally. Yep.
Which gets me to one quick point. I'm just going to say it once and be done with it. is um KP law did a lot of editing to the original policy in this review.
So it was not just editing commenting on changes proposed to create a transportation parking commission but they actually went back and uh reviewed the entire public waste policy.
Yeah. And I think that's where we are going to get in the in the meer a bit as go because we're not going to it's that clear consistency actionability piece. I think the question mark is do are we now
supposed to act on this as a council? Um assuming yes, but worth the question. And two is, you know, go is still limited to look at proposed changes to the public ways policy. Um, I guess the
question for me is, is TSO including the changes from KP law? Should we be looking at them or not, Lynn? Um I believe we have no choice but to go through it because right now we're still working under the old practice if
you will and um deter just label things and unfortunately it is then going to have to go back to uh TSO because we are not the people who are experts if you will
and how could this amount of text this is this is substantive. I I totally agree. Uh clarity, consistency, actionability stuff. This is a substantive to your point, Andy, you didn't ask for this review. Um but this is a substantive
change. Is there anything else as easy as the one we dealt with? Yeah, there's like a couple like type wait easy is the one we dealt with meaning like changes that KP law made
that you know that they would be clear, consistent and actionable. I I agree with that you that whole par that whole set of changes. I don't see how we can deal with that. I don't think we can. Um there is but then there's a lot there's
a big long comment here from Lauren. uh if it's intended that the TPC will hold a public hearing, this should read as follows. And then there's a lot like a proposed change. Um and again, there's options for
this change would mean XYZ. Keeping it as is would mean XYZ. So that's where it's that's that's TSO's responsibility to recommend to us. I'm going to be changing positions. Okay.
That's okay. On the agenda for the October 2 meeting, which is the next meeting of TSO and make it top item. I wonder, Lynn, if this is like getting down because you
wanted to we were supposed to do these on the um council meeting on the sixth. Is that when it is? Yep. Yep. Can we call like a mini go meeting at or something? No, cuz people are going to have things to say. It's not just going
to be what I was going to say is if we could go through this presuming that that TSO would accept the changes, but we can't because there's some decisions that have to be made versus just an accept or not accept. But I was going to say that we
could go through and look at it so that we know whether it's clear, consistent, and actionable. And then this is unhinged a quick meeting to
whether it's having all already. So in other words, what you're saying is we'll go through figure suggested language and we'll decide if it's clear, consistent, and actionable. And if t and if go I mean if tso doesn't
then change anything it could come to the council on the 6th we can't sorry go ahead Andy you're right we have to have another meeting did you sorry we have to have another meeting it can't
go so right my thought was like if we do it now. Like look at it now and then it goes back to TSO unless they make big changes. Could we do a go meeting sometime before
the 6th? Andy, your meeting's on Thursday at 10:30. He said it was the second. Uh but the next meeting is um it's too late to poll
the committee about a meeting this week because it's already past 48 hours before the meeting. So October 2 is next week. Well, the other option is
another option. There's several options here, but another option is we go through this. We say this has to be resolved by TSO and then we just agree it's not going to come to the council for first read until the 20th
unless the council agrees to schedule another meeting in in um October, which I hesitate to even ask. So, let's go back up to what? All the
way to the beginning and let's just make notes. This whole section B and C were added by legal counsel. Everything in red, yeah, was added by legal counsel. I'm just
going to resolve this because we dealt with it. Okay. Okay. So it maybe we should take the time look at it and see if there's anything that's not clear, consistent, and actionable in the recommendation. So
at least we know once we get it back where we stand. Yeah. Okay. I'm happy to do that for um for a little while. And I I think if G is going to look at this again, I would
we need to finish the town manager evaluation today. And so I also and we still need to go through the CRC um piece. So I think that I'm happy to take some time on this right now, but I I just want to make sure that I'm reserving most of the time to most of the rest of the time to the rest of our
uh Canada. In that case, then I think what we should say is B and C needs to go back to TSO. Yeah. Um yeah, it's fine.
All right. So, B and C go back to TSO. D has some minor changes. I to me they're more clear, consistent, and actionable issues. Yeah, I agree. Um, E, it looks to me like at least E1 is
pretty straightforward consistency. I had a I had a question of this. Okay. Clarity for me and and I'm open to being told first um
this led me to to ask the question of what is happening with the outdoor performing arts venue? Um and is that a the name that we're using? Is that the way that we're referring to it? Um,
should it be more generic so that we don't need to amend this policy if any future performing arts venues are designated? Also, it's not built yet. So, how is it like I I this threw me, the inclusion of reservations of the outdoor performing arts venue. I
I'd like to I would like to see it um become more generic. So something like including reservations of outdoor spaces for the purposes of performing arts or per for the purposes of it's it's not even structures. It could
be the common. Well, but I think that that it's including I think that they were specifying that I see. Okay, that's a common um located on
it. I don't need located on because we wouldn't deal with it unless except that it is located on public land. Right. Okay. Including reservations of outdoor structures. Okay. Um that's clear. That's just consistency and clarity.
Okay. I was trying to figure out what holiday structure would be up for more than three months. Um they've actually left um Mary Maple and some of the kinds of things that
have gone along with it uh up starting in December all the way into February. Interesting. So, um, what I was not clear about was does this mean once a week for 3 months or does
this mean steadily for 3 months? I was unclear on that whether that would be a short-term use or a medium or a long-term use. Um, the example being the farmers market, right? like they're using it longterm more than 3 months but only once a week
for more than 3 months. So I I wasn't clear. That was a clarity issue for me. The the if if you recall though the farmers market always comes to us. So even if it's only even if it's once a
week for five months, it still comes to us. So I don't I I don't know how that answers my question. Sorry. Maybe we wanted to say requests for temporary
and or regular long-term uses. Andy, did TSO discuss this at all? No. And you have to remember again that this is a section that was in the original policy. And
what we were trying to do was to transfer as little as, you know, make as few changes as possible, but try and make sure that we got the essential pieces that needed to be to the
transportation and parking commission assigned. Um but we weren't attempting to to edit the entire um existing policy. We felt that um it was best not to do
that because it's I don't understand why it was sent to you as a total draft, right? No, this is our existing policy in black. black has been the existing policy since
it was drafted by Evan Ross during the first council. Right. Right. And so I mean I'm just looking at reservations of the public way. You know Kendrick Park could easily be reserved in the same way. So even when
we say to town commons, do we consider Kendrick Park a commons? Uh, no. That's the thing. Kendrick Park is not a commons. And uh, so what's unique is that something that's referred
to as a commons is actually part of the public way. Whereas um, parks are under the jurisdiction of the town manager. If you recall the big crisis when uh
Larry Shepard, his town manager wanted to uh change the uh Boy Scout sale of Christmas trees and uh there was a big uproar. he could
do that without the select board because it or the um who was the at that point the keeper of the public way because it was a uh park. I see. Okay. So
I I struggle with this. I want to look back at the initial motion um because again what is within our scope what was out out of our scope and if KP law changed what's in our scope or what's out of our scope I I don't have a clear
answer. Um I'm looking I think Athena I'm looking to you a little bit on what we should do here in terms of what we should be looking at. Uh, I believe that the motion was referred to go was the changes to the public way policy, but
maybe I'm making that up and having a false memory. You mean should go look at the entire policy or the changes that KP Law proposed or just the changes that TSO proposed? Is that your question? Yeah, those are the three options. Like look at the whole thing, look at what
TSO and KP Law proposed or just look at what TSO proposed. Um I the council's motion was for go to review the amendments the proposed amendments for clarity consistency and
actionability. I think KP laws changes I mean I I don't know why you wouldn't consider KP laws changes if they're for clarity consistency and actionability. But we shouldn't go beyond that. You don't think? Um, I think you can I mean
once you once you open this up it's it's kind of the council's going to read the policy twice before it makes amendments and I feel like this is the time if there are changes for clarity consistency and actionability within the policy then you know go and do it.
Okay. Thank you. I I do think that this is this the definitions for short-term and long-term events are really unclear to me. Um whether this is
less than 3 months means at one time it exists for less than 3 months or if less than 3 months means over the course of a year. Like what is our what is our frame? Obviously a festival or a concert happens once
therefore it is less than 3 months. But something like an ongoing every other week craft fair or whatever it might be, where does that fall? That I it falls under the long-term events because that is why the uh town
manager brings it to the council. So temporary long-term uses three months or longer including uh short uh including events that occur on that events that
let me just say something. It's events that occur on a that that happen on a recurring basis on a regular and recurring basis over longer than a three-month period. That is how we've been interpreting it.
Yes, that's I that's what I thought but I again based on this is it was not clear to me. Do you want to put a parenthesy? I do. Thank you. Yeah. I don't think you want the comma there. Yeah, thank you.
Point out that the uh TSO discussion never touched the question of uh the commons and use of the commons because that was something that really was never going to be considered by the transportation and parking commission
because it wasn't a transportation or parking issue. This is just one of those things that comes in because of that quirk in Massachusetts that if you have a common that is part of the public way. Well, the other piece is this is this
goes back to Anna's question and that is now that we've opened the policy and we've sent it to legal counsel, legal counsel has made some other suggestions and the suggestions that they've made are what I think of as clarity,
consistency, and actionability. So, um it would be kind of negligent on our part not to at least look at that. I want to I don't think you'll get any um change whatsoever from TSO on that issue
though. Yeah. I want to propose adding in this phrasing up here because it keeper of the public way is used so often in this document. It's going to just be confusing to not phrase it. So, I'm just I reframed this because the charter
doesn't say it, but we still use that phrasing. So, it would now read under section like that or blah blah blah blah blah making it the keeper of the public way. Um because that way there's reference to it and we don't have to change every single other one in here.
Um town council retains his authority as keeper of the public way. Short-term requests here. Sorry, I'm going to delete this. Okay. Um,
so I just there was an extra space. I don't know why I redid the whole thing. Oops. All right. Any issues in here? No. None there. Oh my gosh. Councelor Et is in the attendees and I don't know how long he's been there. I'm so sorry.
Could Athena, could you bring him in? Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't notice that either. Oh, it's okay. It swapped. There was there were six people but it was someone else and then it was um I think that the I'm just going to wait and make sure that he comes in and I can hear him.
I sent the prompt. Oh, thank you. Oh, here we go. Perfect. This is still consistent, right? We still call them lunch carts. Yes. Um, thank you. That's Athena said, "Yes."
Yeah. I'm so curious about that phrasing, but I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. All right. Uh, it's an MGL one. Ah, thank you. All right. So, none of this was changed.
This was the this was the piece that TSO changed. So permanent or other requests, requests for permanent parking changes, modification of fees or other requests related to parking not detailed above. For example, parking permit required, no
parking signs, parking meter fees, etc. The town council retains its authority as keeper of the public way, provided, however, that prior to council action, the TPC may hold a public hearing in each request and shall make a recommendation to the town council on the request. [Music]
and then this is well Lauren had a this is where Lauren had a big proposed change. So Lauren said if it's intended the the TPC will hold a public hearing on all permanent parking requests. In my opinion this should read as the town council retains its authority as keeper
of the public way provided however that prior to council action the TPC shall hold a public hearing on each request and make a recommendation to the town council on that request. So, she's mandating it. Um, basically saying if the text remains in its current form, it's not clear whether the TPC is
required to hold a public hearing on the request or if it's just authorized to hold a public hearing. This may make implementation of this provision difficult. In contrast, if it's intended that the town council may from time to time ask the TPC to hold a public hearing on a permanent parking request,
um the town c the sentence should be rewritten as the town council retains its authority as keeper of the public way provided, however, that the council may from time to time and prior to any council action thereon require the TPC to hold a public hearing. So basically, so can I I suggest that we uh go go with
her first recommendation as clear, consistent, and actionable. And if when this comes back to us, um the TSO has not made a different, you
know, recommendation, then we just have it done. We're done. I' Andy, I'd love to hear from you whether or not when TSO wrote this, the intention was that the TPC would be holding the public hearings or that the council would be requiring
it occasionally. I think I have to go back to make sure I the committee is clear about that because we so that we make sure that the language conforms with what the intent was. My assumption
throughout the discussion was is that if it was required or in the judgment of the TPC, a uh public hearing seemed appropriate under all circumstances. That that would
be when you would definitely have a hearing. If we're going to have a to have a hearing on everything might become burdensome if it is uh just because of the number of times
you're going to go through that process. I'm going to pause here just to make sure we can hear uh councelor et councelor are you with us? I am with you. Thank you so much for joining. I apologize for not seeing you sooner.
Um, yeah. I guess Lynn, to get at what you what I think you were saying was basically, can we say we're good with the changed language? Um, my question is, is that the only language that we would find clear, consistent, and
actionable? Uh, and I I I don't like the phrasing the council may from time to time. I don't either. I I don't think that that's very clear. I also, you know, Andy, I hear what you're saying about how
logistically it doesn't always make sense to hold a hearing. I think for me what I'm struggling with is should we be given criteria for that um or not. So I and that's not that's not
an US thing to do, but for me I think the the may means how do they know like that that's my question on clarity is how do they know whether they should or should not. Um and I would I would encourage clarifying language if that's the intention and
that the TPC be making a judgment call on this. Um, I would encourage us to have some clarity on what their determining factors are. And again, that would be a substantive change in my in my opinion.
I agree. Council, I just want to give you a quick update. Um, what's happening here is just for clarity, um, go was reviewing the we're looking at the changes to the public way policy. um TSO had only had
not looked at the full policy. They just made the amendments to incorporate the TPC in um and so when KP law went through it, KP Law went through the whole policy. And so now G it kind of opened up that can for go to
look at the full policy as well in terms of clarity, consistency, and actionability. But a lot of the changes that uh KP Law proposed really should go through TSO to even determine whether or not they should be pitched back to the council.
Um I hope I summarized that correctly. So basically we're in this kind of pushpull of let's look at this so that we're ready to quickly move on it as needed, but it likely won't be able to come back to the council for October 6th unless we do another go meeting, which I think folks are getting a little burnt
out on. um from this because we've had two in a row. Councelor Ate, go ahead. So, I think I followed most of the conversation and got a sense of the conundrum that you find yourself including
how time is a factor in the choices that you make. So, yes, that was a good summary. Thank you. Thank you. Um All right. So, I think that kind of sums up our our our concern with the word may, Andy, in terms of
if it's may, how do they know when to do it? If it's shall, that's clear. If it's on time to time, that's a different basket. Bucket. What's it? Can of worms. There we go. Sometimes it's a bucket of worms. But can of worms. Um, and that was the only change there.
And then this was the other shift for all other closures. So we're talking here about long-term closures. 14 greater than 14 consecutive or cumul this is consecutive or cumulative. That's how the other one should be phrased. All right. Sorry. Consecutive
or cumulative days but not permanent. Um, basically not greater than 180 days with expanding sidewalk, cafe, food and drink or other retail areas. Town council delegates the review and action authority to the town manager. For all other closures, the town council
designates to the TPC authority to re review all requests under this paragraph and make a recom Oh, and then KP Law said and make a recommendation to the council on such requests provided that the TPC shall in each instance first consult with the town engineer, police
chief, fire chief, and town manager and take any other action as may be required by applicable Mass General laws and regulations. So, um, Lauren wrote, "This language appears only in this sentence. It might be better to have it apply to all reviews
and recommendations performed by the dele deleges. See revision in text." Lynn, um, that's Oh, boy. Um, what Lauren is basically saying is this
is an overall phrase and I have to agree with her. And the other thing is um it I don't think TPC is taking
action. It's like making recommendations. it is taking action andor making recommendations. I will say that what Lauren added up at the top, I believe, I think what she was saying here
is that if we include this text here, compliance with state laws and regulations, that we don't need to include it everywhere else. But that if we do not include that part she added in up at the top, we should add it to every single
other paragraph. Um, sorry, I went too far. Lynn, go ahead. It it needs to go up at the top. Yep. Uh, and I this is really borderlining on
whether this is Goo's responsibility. Okay. But I at this point I think we should say we recommend that it goes to the top. Excuse me. All right.
Uh last or no? Yeah, last chunk of edits here. Other requests for permanent changes to the public way. All permanent changes to roads, sidewalks other than lay other
than layouts such as the placement of utility structures. Oh my god, this all got so messy. uh bus stop additions or deletions, crosswalk placements, street lighting, speed or truck limits, traffic calming measures. We don't we need to define that.
Um driver feedback signs, mini roundabouts, raised crosswalks, splitter islands, etc., and street amenities. Do we need to list every single option? bus shelters, benches, benches, electric vehicle and other charging stations, bike share stations, trash cans, bike
racks, etc. I think it's a way of making people aware that all of these are under there, right? Is it just saying this is what a request would be? Okay, yeah, got it. Um,
yeah, it's messy, but all right. The, uh, Lauren wanted to add in the town council delegates to the TPC the authority to review any changes involving the placement of utility structures and to make a recommendation to the town council with respect to the
same. Um, the T, this is so messy. The town council delegates to the TPC the authority to review and act upon such changes subject to funding. Okay. Subject to funding approval. All
right. Um, I guess I'm going to I'm going to pause here because we got through a couple. Are there questions on clarity, consistency, or actionability? All right. And I know that this stands
for rapidly something flashing beacons. Um, anyone know what their first star is? Hang on, I'll Google it. About rapidly roadway flashing beacons. I have no idea what that means.
It's a technical term, but basically you see them all over whenever there's a flashing. um beacon. They had a crosswalk. No, I knew what they were, Andy. I just it it only had the acronym and I didn't remember what the first R was. Um and I
wanted to spell it out because it's the first time that acronym is used and it's just randomly put in there. Um and so I wanted to I don't need that. I wanted to um spell it out. That's all. I couldn't
remember that it was rectangular rapidly flashing beacons. They are always rectangular apparently. Um, clarity, consistency or actionability on G [Music]
G1 I believe. A GA. No, G. How is this not one? Okay, because it's just it's just G. Sorry. This is just G. Any changes, Lynn? Um,
I'm going to hold for a moment. I need to think some more. Okay. Anyone else in the committee have any clarity, consistency on this word salad of a paragraph? Um, all right.
This this paragraph feels substantive unless it was somewhere else and I missed it. Um, has the review any changes about placement of utility structures been
anywhere else or is this the first time this appears? It's the first time I've seen it. Okay. So, that feels substantive to me. Um, and I think that that is referring to um it's actually an
important issue and uh Athena, if you can help with it too, it would be helpful. But uh I think that we got into this long discussion and actually alerted KP law at the time of referral that we
were uncertain about what are commonly known as poll hearings. Yeah. And uh whether poll hearings are um required to be decided by the council and whether the hearings have to be before the council.
And I think that the conclusion was is that the decision has to be made by the council, but that the hearing does not have to be before the council. That's that's my recollection too, Andy.
And uh so we were operating under that assumption. Then why doesn't it say delegates to the TPC the authority to hold a re a hearing and review?
It says delegates the authority to review. It doesn't say you hold hearings. I know it doesn't. But do if they have to hold a hearing, shouldn't it? If a hearing must be held for a poll
hearing, like if a poll hearing must be held and we we're and we are saying that all we can ask for is that the TBC hold the hearing, but the council make the decision. One, I don't believe that this is then correct.
Oh no, it's just review. Never mind. This feels again beyond us as well. We we looked at the statute, the state law on the subject. The state law is very definite that there has to
be a hearing and a decision um by the appropriate body. And uh so we were trying to get that clarified and the answer seemed to be as I stated that you
can ask TPC to hold the hearing. You could have asked TSO to hold the hearing previously. Um, but the the decision has to be voted on by the council. I'm going to just add a note here. When
this goes back to TSO, it was not clear to G what the kind of order of operations and responsibility. Andy TSO
TSO decided that it would like to delegate the hearings to TPC, didn't it? Yes. So that's that's the responsibility that TSO is suggesting, Anna, that the hearings be held by TPC and then a
recommendation made to the council with council action. I understand, but this isn't what that says in my mind. And so I'm that's what I'm trying to figure out. This was added by KP Law. Um, this this paragraph. So, I understand what TSO wants to have
happen. Um, well, you can change it to be what TSO is suggesting. So, are we saying the town council delegates to the TPC the authority to hold a hearing and
review any changes? That's what TSO wanted. Andy, correct me if I I'm wrong. That's what we were suggesting because we were feeling like the hearing itself is um something that's consuming a lot of uh council
time and the final authority to make the decision and therefore to establish the policy which has been a big issue. was an issue at the last meeting. U still belongs to the council. So the uh what
the council does um is going to give direction to TPC as to what it's looking for and what information it wants um in order to make the decision, but it doesn't have to have the hearing itself.
And if the council is uncomfortable with that when this is presented, then it's going to have to be changed at the council meeting. What I'm struggling with is the the pieces to me that clarify what
you just said were added by KP Law after TSO review. So, I'm trying to figure out where TSO thought that it put that information. So, I'm looking here maybe. um is the only place that it I I think
it could be. It doesn't refer to utilities specifically, but everything to me that talks about a hearing that could be utility related is in the KP law editions. So, uh is this where is this the paragraph for permanent or other requests where TSO was intending
utility polls to go? Well, the language that she was using had to do with um utility structures, I believe. Yes. And uh that was a matter of what KP Law was
writing when they understood that what it was that we were after. But we were we had quite frankly said we need clarity as to what the law is. and um Paul didn't want to ask KP law for a
separate a separate time so it got lumped together yeah the drafting I hear you I I think I'm still I'm I'm still feeling muddled on this and I'm I'm feeling stressed that it's
7:30 now and we know this is going back to TSO and we're spent we've spent an hour on it so I'm I'm getting a little uh uh a little back and forth on it um with myself. So, I'm proposing that we
there's one other um one other change below this that we can talk about very quickly, but this needs to go back to TSO and I need we need a cleaner version to look at where TSO has accepted or rejected the the substantive pieces that KP law has put
in. Um, it is unclear to me whether utility polls are going to go down here under other requests for permanent changes or utility structures, excuse me. I I'm unclear if it's going down here on page two, I guess this is, or up
at the top where hearings are otherwise discussed. I understand what Athena was saying that that was TSO's intent, but again, we should get something from TSO that they are they've been clear on. Um, so I I I'd love for TSO to look at those
two things and decide where the utility structure components are supposed to go. Um, and and Lynn H I mean not Lynn, Lauren, excuse me, Lames have uh has another comment here.
sub about subject to funding that I think needs to be discussed by TSO. Um it's not clear to me that she has satisfactorily addressed the issue whether the council can delegate this
authority for utility polls can delegate the hearing responsibility. Yeah. I mean, that was a concern that's been a concern of TSOS all along. And yet, in getting this opinion,
it's not clear to me that she at any point really focused on whether that was legal. It seems like she's saying Yeah. You're And you're saying specifically the hearing part? Yeah. Yeah. Um
it this was something as I recall, Andy, that Northampton's uh lawyer said they could not delegate. Did you read this part, Lyn? This was the big part of the big addition. For matters requiring a public hearing, the TPC shall record any public hearing. It
shall formally open the required hearing on any pending matter, take such verbal or written testimony, receive documents. When all testimony and documents have been provided, the TPC shall formally close the public hearing and not reopen it, and accept additional evidence absent a vote for such purposes. The TPC
shall deliberate the merits of the request and make specific factual findings in support of its decision. And my whole question is if Northampton for at least for the purposes of utilities [Music]
said they could not delegate that to a TPC then why why are we doing it here? I don't have an answer for you. I know.
Okay, Andy, I I'm sure this has been a relaxing experience for you. Um I I will send this to you. This document that we've been discussing, it was um it it's in it's on the screen now. This is
a is a public document and it'll be in our packet for our next meeting with all these notes. um because I think you'll be able to see where we've added questions in um as per our discussion. Uh but I I would like to we need to move
to the other we got to get this town manager evaluation done. Um so I I'm happy for any other closing thoughts but otherwise I think this really needs to go back to TSO um for future for further discussion and a bit more honing in uh
on it. Okay. Um, I appreciate it and understand exactly what you're trying to do. Um, and I will uh talk with Athena tomorrow about whether we should go back to KP Loft to make sure that we have clarity
about Lynn's question on the uh utility polls and utility structures as to whether uh that hearing function can be delegated just to make sure that we understand what the question is and she
understands what the question is. Yes. Okay. Um All right. Well, thank you for that. I appreciate it. Uh and I will send these along so that you have them to enjoy and read at your leisure.
Okay. Thank you. And uh thank you so much for joining us. I It's been very helpful to have you uh have you with us. So, thank you. Appreciate it. Um Lynn, go ahead. Oh, you're muted.
unmute. Uh I'd just like to make a note for our carryover memo that the consideration should be given to the issue we raised earlier and that is at what point does legal review happen. Okay.
Is that a written policy somewhere or is it just practice? It's I don't know. I think so. Okay. But it needs to be clarified and this is not the first time we've had
this problem where we keep bouncing back and forth between go and some committee. So it needs to be clarified. We're not going to do it in this council. I don't think just making a note. Um, I think that would be a change in
the in the go charge because the go review the charge says this may include consultation with the town attorney and that's not included in any other committee charge. Would we just take it out of the G charge or do we add it to every other charge? It seems to me that we need to
think about adding it into um probably all the other charges. I could even imagine a finance committee needing Oh yeah. to absolutely consult. I in fact I can imagine as we went through rules of procedure changes
we may want to consult. So it does seem to me that all committees should, but the real issue is at what point does something as major as this go to legal counsel before it comes to go and stays with the committee that has
spend spending the time on it. That's the real issue. And uh you you were very clear about that. Yeah. Hopefully we can always be getting better. There you go.
Um, all right. We need to finish one darn thing tonight. We need to finish the uh inclusionary zoning and the town manager evaluation. So, let's go to inclusionary zoning. Um, and man, do I hate backtoback weeks of go meetings
because I don't uh remember to do the things that I needed to do. That's on me. So, pretty simple changes here. The only lack of clarity we had was what cost of postponement in the delivery of affordable units meant. Um that was our
only comment here and I think that we can muddle this through. I'm I'm fairly certain that we can figure out what this means as a body. Um and so we can add some clarity as needed. But the um piece here,
I wanted to just go through the memo just to make sure that we've got a lot of clarity here. Um I think this is part of it. addition of total project costs. Yeah.
Um okay. I'm so curious how they got at eight, not 10 as their deciding factor. Um, all right. So, the only change we made here was recommendation provided instead of
consultation. Yes. Um, and then we just had this question if if there's any language that we want to do to to add in to clarify what this means to avoid confusion like that. We h similar to what we had
Basically, this means the longer the affordable units take to be built, what are the added costs of that project of of that delay, right?
I'd leave it the way it is. Okay. I think once I like sat and looked at it, it made sense. It's just on on the face, I didn't understand it. With that, is there a motion to find the proposed amendments to article 15,
section 15.171 as provided and amended, clear, consistent, and actionable? So moved. Is there a second? I will second it. Um, I'm going to go ahead and call Hang on. And I got to
write it down or I forget. All right, I'm going to go ahead and call the vote. Councelor Ete I. Councelor Lord I. I am an I. Lynn I. And with one absent, the motion passes.
Four in favor, zero opposed, one absent. Same as theirs. How fun. Okay. So, Lynn, I will send this to you. Thank you. It will be on the agenda for the sixth. Amazing. We got something out of discussion. Okay.
All right. Let's move now to the town manager evaluation. Um, I do want to note this will likely take the remainder of our meeting, but this really needs to get to the council on the 6th. Um so if we are not able to get to the other items they will be taken up at our next
meeting. These include the vacancies um for finance and charter and my apologies to both of those committees. Uh the time manager evaluation process really needs to get done um by go so it can go to the council. So
um all right. All right. I'm just trying to do stuff now because otherwise I forget to do it later. So where we left off, we had been discussing this. This is something G has been discussing for a long time. Um this is not a new
discussion to us. Um, and we are looking through this process to determine what we want to put forward to the council um, for the town manager evaluation this year as well as what we want to put
forward to the c to the staff and to the public and to committee chairs. Um, and I'm trying to find my document. Sorry, one moment. Where is it? Oh my gosh. Are there any
anything people Is there anything people people would like to share as I pull up this talk? Lynn. Yeah. I'm going to suggest that we focus that the only serious change this year
be on this document for the council. And that gives us a year to try it, okay, with before we jump in and say, "Okay, now let's use it or use something
like it for um the public or for the staff. And while I'm not happy with what we have for the staff, I'm just feeling the tension of being up
against the timeline. And I would rather we spend tonight working on the options that people can check and see if we feel the wording is what we really want.
And then we basically propose that we continue as we have in the past for the other um bodies which basically let I can describe that to you. It basically includes
a video and a letter and or an email that provides a link to the town manage manager's goals. And then um that's for the public and for committees. And for the staff, it's the
um staff survey that we've used in the past. And I I just am afraid that we'll throw something at the public and at staff that we haven't fully tested as a council.
That's my thinking. I would argue that we never really tested the first version to see if it worked either. I I will argue that too. But I you know I hear what you're saying.
I think that there is a quicker decision for I think that there's a middle ground. I agree that we're not going to come up with a thorough process for the public and for staff today. Um and I'm I am comfortable. I recognize that these things take a long time, especially when
you're working in the system that we work in. um and that we will likely need we will be continuing to make changes to this and maybe that is the focus for the coming year. However, I do think that there are some shifts we can make especially to the public participation
piece um to align it better with what we are asking for for from the council so that it can help to feed counselor's responses a bit more. So in for example I would propose that instead of asking the public point blank here are the
goals tell us everything you think we would limit it the same way that we limit the counselors to say here are the goals please pick the top three strengths and the top three areas of growth and we ask them for those same um those same reflections. We could provide
them with the goals to provide feedback on in ter on individually, but I think and and I'm open to that, but I I do think that we should focus the feedback a little bit more to say what are I'm trying to I'm looking at the the verbiage that we use. Um, so far we say,
please share three areas of strength in the town manager's performance over the past year. Please share three areas for improvement that you've observed. I think that if we can focus it, it would make what feedback we do get a little bit more helpful. I'm interested in other thoughts.
Councelor Lord. Councelor Ete I think I'm I would lean more towards test running it with the council this year and then seeing where we go
moving forward. Like I mentioned in the council, part of the strength of this document as it is is it returns back to the charter and also the goals. But those are things
that counselors keep at the forefront of their thinking in a way that staff and the public do not. So I think it would be there may be middle ground but if not can be found I would lean towards um
test running it with the council right now. Okay councelor Lord. Um yeah I'm sorry I think test running it with the council would be good because once you've done it I think you did ask
us all to do it. Um I think I can't remember with the council but then you could see how the calculations come in and and that type of thing but that's a lot of work as well. So I want to acknowledge that Lynn. Yeah. How about
in the in what we send out to the public and to committees, instead of just giving a link to the goals, we at least pro provide a broad summary in the actual letter so that
they're more drawn to to the goals. I mean, we could also provide the whole set of goals in the letter as an attachment, but I'm just thinking that, you know, we have uh whatever the number is and say, you know, the town council has established goals like the
following. More detail can be found here. Please tell us where you think there's been strength and where there's been whatever. So, in other words, we give them a little more in the letter that draws them to want to
comment. I don't know. I I I'm hearing what you're saying and I I'd love for it to be more comprehensive. I'd love I'd love to be able to send out a community survey on something like this, but we're not going to do that.
I know. Um, I'm just trying to pull up. Sorry. One moment. I mean, maybe find what it is that we say in the past, but um I Yeah, I mean
I can try to find it the same. Um, okay. Sorry material. Uh no sorry. So let me let me try to find the letter and or the email draft um and
assume I have the ability to pull something up. I am. And then Lyn, I have another question for you about the staff one. When when you're done. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry.
No, you're fine. You're okay. What? So I I I think I did I found one the one you sent to town committees and boards. Okay. And they're very similar. Um, so there is a video message and it says to
members of town committees, boards, and commissions, the town council is beginning its annual evaluation of the town manager. We specifically invite all members of town committees, boards, and commissions as well as town staff and the general public to submit written comments by midnight Thursday 30 or
Thursday, October 31st. The town council conducts this annual evaluation to assess the town manager's performance, identify areas for improvement, and set future goals in line with the town council goals for the town manager. At the conclusion of this process, the town council develops new town manager performance goals for the coming year.
This establishes the criteria for next year's evaluation. During the evaluation process, the council gathers feedback from various stakeholders, including town employees, board and committee members, and the broad broader community to gain a well-rounded perspective on the town manager's effectiveness. This
comprehensive evaluation process underscores the town council's commitment to effective governance governance and community engagement. You link to the town manager's performance goals and the town manager self-evaluation.
Um they are you say that they'll be read by the town council and the town manager but they are personnel documents and are exempt from public disclosure disclosure. The forms become part of the personnel file and then you say comments may be submitted via email online or by
mail. So the prompt is really um invites you to provide written feedback. Um, right. And and I I think it sounds like this body would like to
keep that the way it is. Um, I I just will reiterate, I think it's too broad for us to get anything useful. And I I think that we could put some more specific requests in um that would
lead to useful feedback cuz again seeking feedback that you don't use is just a harmful activity. Um that that's my concern with that piece. Um but again if we want to just keep that as is this year and just say submit
written feedback um that's if that's what this body decides. The second piece that I what I do not know um is when we look at the staff feedback I am unclear where the items
evaluated by staff come from. Uh, and that is concerning to me um because they're pieces that we are not using as a body in our evaluation. So, we're asking them for feedback on things that we're not evaluating him on um
specifically. So, for example, the question is the town manager creates an environment that makes a good place to work. Time manager cultivates an enthusiastic and optimistic attitude, treats staff in a professional manner, advocates for staff, recognizes and acknowledges individual and departmental
successes, encourages, accepts, makes productive use of feedback and suggest. I mean, there's a lot of these, right? Um, but these are not these are not things that are on our evaluation. So, how are we using those? Um, so
I think that's a very good point. Um, what I would rather do is briefly look at the responsibilities of the town manager as outlined in the charter, have the same style, but if if we could look right now and flag the ones that pertain
to to folks that are staff and send out the same survey. That that's what I would prefer to do. I again if we if we don't have the time we don't have the time but I I worry that we're sending out something that's not
even what we're asking like what not what we're evaluating on. Well, the other option is that um so I see what you're you're suggesting that basically the public and committees
give us feedback on performance goals. The staff give us feedback on what's in the charter. I think the public and committees could give us feedback on both. I I mean I think
I think that what we're asking my understanding is that what we're asking staff about is the piece of the town manager's job that we may not see is the way that he works with the staff in the town. the public. There are elements of
the charter that the public may have thoughts and feelings on um of the of the town manager's job as defined by the charter. I think that giving the public the goals and the charter as a reference point is
helpful, but as to not change the process too much this year, I think that what I'm proposing is that we say here are the town manager's performance goals. Here is the the town manager responsibilities as outlined in the charter. Please provide written feedback
on the top three areas of success and the top three areas of growth in your mind just to focus it in a little bit. Some the I mean looking at the responses we get, some of them are four pages long, some of them are a sentence, some of them say nothing. So this would be for staff. No, I'm so sorry. I was talking about
the public first. Staff is harder for me to solve. um that the public one feels simple to me um because it's it's asking for more of that qualitative feedback for staff. We've had a much more thorough process.
It's just that I don't think the questions we're asking are the right questions. Mhm. Mhm. I do think that it would be problematic to go to the same type of just give us qualitative answers when staff have had what appears to be a robust feedback
mechanism for years. Right? So, I'm more inclined to stop pushing on changing the staff one. However, I do want to note I don't think we are not asking them the right questions.
But I don't think that one is as easy to pull back or change it as rapidly because there is something there. The public, we don't have anything there. I don't know if that clarified why what I'm trying to say. At the end of the day, I'd rather leave the staff one, but
prioritize it for the next go and change the public one. Okay, let me when does go next meet meet next? Hang on the number of windows that I
have open right now. Um Jo meets again on October 14th. And then we our next council meeting is the 20th after that. I mean No,
I have to go. I have to take a break for just a moment and go actually get my phone because somehow or another my computer's calendar is screwed up. I'll be right back. No problem. Councelor Lord or Councelor,
I think I I monologued for a while and I'd love to just to hear some other thoughts. I know that you all both went through this evaluation process last year. Um, I can't put the documents up on the screen that we got from the public or from staff because they're not
public documents. But, um, I just I'm curious if you had any other thoughts about any shifts that we could make this year or if you are feeling still in that like let's not change either. I'm still in the let's keep it as it is
and learn from what the council does. So my question with that is what will we learn because those processes are not the same as what the council does. Sure.
Um, I think 3 years ago when I would have had a hard time figuring out how to it was public, but I would have had a hard time figuring out how to
evaluate the town manager. I simply didn't know enough. and the the templates, the the prey to fill in that document didn't
give me the encouragement that I could actually do a good job of that evaluation. And so I think with what the council does and where even we will have challenges of knowing
what the town manager is doing that can make it easier to craft something for next year in terms of going back to what you've said the questions that we ask not being
really in one sense related to useful and also not being used. I think what I'm getting from you is we have gotten into a routine of asking questions, but we have not taken the
time to ask from the public the kind of questions that we can actually use from them. And so, um, I think sharpening what we have next year based on what feedback we get this year will
help with sharpening the questions for um the public next year. Yeah, I hear you. I I agree with you on that from the perspective of the staff evaluation. I think if we had anything
that went to the public, I'd agree with you. But because the one for the public is so blank, I'm kind of where I'm sticking where my my brain is sticking is like why not just put something in that gives us something more useful. But um but no, but I hear I hear what you're saying, Lyn. I'm uh welcome back.
Um so we don't meet again till the 14th. I know I just said that. Okay. I I'm just looking at it in relationship to council meetings and I'm like well it's it's still the just the one council meeting that is between on the
4th. Right. So it's So what we could do what we could do No, we can't do that. Uh last year you wanted the staff and
public evaluations back on the 31st of October. Um is that still your plan for this year? It's just about what you have to do in order for the council to have their reading period. And then
once they have their reading period, um they they have to have time to evaluate. Then they have to then I have to have time to summarize and then they have to have their reading period. The reading period has to take place
by the end of by the second meeting in November in order for us to um have opportunity in future meetings to um set compensation and finalize the
valuation. So there we're we're we're up against it. Absolutely. Okay. Um okay. Okay. Let me let me see if I can try this. Okay.
We go with the evaluation the way we have it for counselors. Okay. for the public and committees in the actual letter in addition to
providing a link to the goals and a link to the part of the charter that talks about responsibilities. Okay, I actually include the basic major goal
areas. Okay. As a way of teasing. Okay. and ask them to um provide feedback on which on which and on which you know on which
goals that we they feel we have had major grow major accomplishment and which goals need more more improvement or some whatever the language. Okay.
Wow. And that and anyway, that's that's one option. I don't like it, but it's an option for the staff. We do a similar, you know, pointing out here's the charter
and then the also the issue of and here's the goals. Um, I'm trying to see if I can, um, I'm just looking for the staff evaluation.
I can hang on. I had it up. For some reason, my computer doesn't want to open anything. I am about as frustrated as you could possibly be. Uh 114204 was when you sent it to the council. Can you pull it up?
I can't because it's a personel I believe it's a personnel document. Ah, you're right. I was trying to just pull up the form. I can look at the I can I can try. Let me try one more time.
Hold on. Okay, I I have it. Hold on. It finally decided open. Uh, no, I don't have it. So basically the it's got a number of
questions regarding communication, regarding answering questions, providing opportunities for prof professional development, all of that kind of stuff. Uh, and then there's a couple questions that are, if you work closely with the town manager, does the town manager translate town council goals into
actionable plans for departments, keep you informed about issues related to your department, include you in decision- making that significantly impacts your department, uh, and share timely positive and negative feedback. Again, these are still all open. Um
59 there are uh let's see like 29ish people that answer that uh that answer the if you work closely and 45ish people that answer the other questions. So there's there are folks that self- select but we don't know that
the people answering those questions necessarily do work closely or not. Um and then we uh add a please share any additional comments. um and we receive those comments. So I don't I agree with the committee members that it is more
than we are able to do before our deadline to shift the entire staff survey, but I would like in our carryover memo for that to be a priority because I I think that it needs to be done. I I will die on the hill and lose the vote to change the public one um to
at least focus it just like the tiniest bit of focusing it. Um, but I I I it's I don't think it's realistic for us to tackle that tonight. We still have to talk about the evaluation going to the council. Um,
but I think Lyn, to your point, if you in your email say these are the this is the town manager's responsibility as defined by the charter. This is the town manager's goals. Please bear these in mind as you complete your evaluation. Right. Right. Let's let's go. Let me see
if I can draft those and bring them to the council for the sixth. Okay. What I've done in the past is I put together a comprehensive packet with the timeline and all of the instruments we were going to use and and the preview letters. Okay.
So, let's make a decision on the public. Um, it sounds like this body does not want to change the responses we get from the public. And I don't I I have tried to convince you, but I I don't think I
have. So, um, no, but we wanted to provide them with a little more. We want to include the town manager responsibilities for the charter and the goals, right? But still leave it fully open after that. council ate
I think what you said is we don't want to change the you mentioned you don't want to change the public's answers but I think we it was more the questions the answers will change uh sorry I I meant to say we didn't want
to change what we were asking the public yes so we aren't just going to send it I sorry it's so insane to me that I I'm struggling to to understand why folks want to stick with it. To be honest, we are sending an email that says, "Email
us your thoughts on the town manager's performance to the public and we are expecting helpful feedback back." All right. Okay. I I I did my best for the record. I I did try. Councilor, so I would return then.
What would be the best case that you would push for given the time line that we have? Given the timeline that we have, I would like to ask the public, what are three areas of strength from the town manager's performance over the past year? And what are three areas for
improvement in the town manager's performance over the past year? I feel that that would give us at least a bit more focused response that would allow us to utilize the responses in both our evaluations and our goal setting versus an open answer where folks may not
tailor their responses to future goals or even the performance. They may focus in on one issue or whatever it is. Counselor Lord. Oh, I I do really like the three and three and maybe we could have a any other feedback you'd want to give. So
then there's also an open I don't know if that is helpful but I like the the focus and also having one focus but more focus when so one of the possibilities is we provide a form
and they fill in the form three and but I want to be clear about we want to say areas of strength and areas for improvement is that it. That was what that's what we're asking the council. Um, let me just pull it up
so quick. Okay. Just so it's identical to what we're asking the council. I got it. I I think I can I can conceptualize this. So, these would be the three questions. We can we can take out a word limit.
That's fine. Um, these would be the three questions asked to the public. Please share three areas of strength in the town manager's performance over the past year. Please share three areas for improvement you observed in the town manager's performance from the over the past year. Are there any other comments you'd like to make regarding the town
manager's performance? Right. But yes, but before you get rid of all that for the one that goes to the it um Oh, this is a separate document. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And we would just attach that to the
letter. Yeah, it could be a unless you I mean if you wanted to make a form that would compile everything in one place for you, which would make it easier. Um and let me see what I can do. Okay. I I don't know how they put it on engage amorous typically, but I would
believe that is a form. Um so if it's it's either a form or it's a link to a form, right? Councilor Atte, how do you feel about this? I uh I also don't want to feel like I'm pushing the committee in this direction if they really do want to keep it the same.
I don't think you're pushing the committee. We are being No, I'm I don't feel pushed. I just feel lack of time. That's all. Um some um three and three sounds fine.
There's also room to express some other thoughts. So that's um helpful. So let's see where that goes. Okay, counselor Lord. And I know this is semantics, but we
could also say up to three. There might be, you know, less than three areas of needs improvement or something. Yeah, I don't know if that matters, but so you know Okay. No, that's that's a really good note. And I think we can also make it like
it's a text box so that they don't have to um Yeah, Lynn. Yeah, there's a also a way in which we could just have the goals have two box two boxes one is you know and they they
can check all of them at high level and you know as you know commendable or whatever I'm not I'm using the wrong words. Just all the goals, two buck, two rows. Wait, wait, wait. Sorry. Are you talking You're talking about the council evaluation now. No, I'm actually talking about the
public. We could actually give them a form. It could have the goals and in one, you know, this is one that we feel he's whatever the word is we're using and here's where needs improvement.
Okay. Sorry, I'm trying to wrap my head around because are you saying recreate the the goals portion of the town council evaluation for the public or for the action items or are you talking about the overall goal statement?
Let me pull up the one for the council. Yeah, please do. So this is the goal portion and we've agreed to take these numbers out or that was the discussion that we're having.
I I worry that we're looking at our can of worms again a little bit with this just cuz there's so many and we're I hear what you're trying to do and I hope that that's the direction this goes.
I I don't I take back what I suggested. So, all right. So, just just let's wrap up public and then we're going to go real quick to this for the council. So, because Lynn, I have a solution to the problem you were naming last time. So, for the public and committee chairs,
they get their email. Uh the email includes a link to the town manager uh responsibilities as outlined in the charter. It's basically linking them to the town council evaluation, but it's an outline of the town manager evaluations as defined in the charter. It links to the goals and action items as voted by
the council. And then it says, "Please click on this form." The form says, "Please share up to three areas of strength in the town manager performance in the past year." Next question. Please share up to three areas for improvement you observed in the town manager's performance. Third question, are there any other comments you'd like to make
regarding the town manager's performance? Click submit. It goes back to Lynn. That is the public process right now. Lynn, yeah, I I hate to say it, but I would just assume say please list areas of
strength and not say three and please list areas for improvement and not list how many. Okay, but you know provide it. It's an open form space. It's still going to be
incredibly time consuming to evaluate what they give back. Yeah. I I think people tend to thrive under a little more structure. Um
but if you would like to Okay, councelor Ete. Um Lynn, why I'm wondering why this this would create more work than listing three. Don't you think?
Yeah. I just don't like the three as kind of the measure. I mean, what if they what if somebody says, you know, I think that they've either done well in all of these or they've done a lot in
each of these and somebody else and and somebody else says, I think all of these need improvement. I'm still not sure what that tells us, but anyway, that's a whole different issue because the public isn't looking. They're using the goals and the town manager job description as a reference point, but they may have something
completely separate from that that they'd like to tell us about. So, they are not looking in the way that we are at the individual action items. They can look at them, but but they're they're just providing comment broadly.
So, then let's say please share your observed up to three areas of strength and up to three areas. So, let's do the Let's go back. It's up two, three areas. Yeah, I know. I just didn't Okay.
Okay, fine. That's good. All right. All right. Public done. Yeah. Um, sorry. No, you're fine. Okay. So, seven
minutes. We can do this. All right, with the town manager evaluation, Lynn, one of the questions that came up last time was you were like, "How do I report this out?" And I was thinking about it and I think that you reported out as a stacked bar graph.
You reported out as a this is 100% of the council. This percentage said that he the goal was met or expected progress was made. This percentage said the goal was partially met or partial progress was made. this percentage said goal was unfinished. As a body, we need to have
the conversation as to whether or not that means he has had a satisfactory performance over the course of the year. Um, look at these two as success. If
most of them are here, that was exceptional or best. This was good. this was unsatis this was needs improvement this is unsatisfactory or no this is ignore sorry so I think in my mind that that would be kind of the way to look at this
I was thrown by the removal of numbers too um but as I was mulling this when I I would put the numbers back in I I just I I'm going to use them anyway
okay atte I think Lyn, you might be able to use them, but in using them in your writing, you'll explain how they'll be useful in a way that those who
are focusing on the numbers may not be as successful as you will be. I think the numbers can be confusing and I wouldn't suggest that we have the numbers even if you're going to use
them. Yeah, I hear you. I you we can leave the numbers out. Can I just suggest that um Yeah. Why is the last word Why does Why is the goal in the last of
the sentences not capitalized? It's really strange. I don't know. Oh, because initially these were numbers starting the sentence and a that's why. Got it. Okay, don't worry about it. Le let's just quickly Okay, there's the
goals. That's Let's leave the Is there any change to what we want the words to say under the goals? The words in green. Yes. Um this was mentioned the goal was depprioritized by the council was
mentioned as not being a thorough enough option for the kind of like I can't provide an evaluation on this metric. Um so I would like us to discuss that particular piece really briefly. Um
it was mentioned that sorry just my notes are a mess. Uh it was people were concerned that not applica not applicable or dep prioritized meant zero and I had just tried to clarify that that would not
count towards the average. Um, and the Sorry. Um, go ahead, Len. I'm just trying to find Well, you could provide another option. Of course, it also doesn't get a weight.
Okay. Go to prioritized by the council. Insufficient. I I don't I whatever it is you would say where the person doesn't feel they have enough information to answer it. Now I would actually make those two. You
can choose. Yeah, score is not the word I want to use. Uh I want to I just want to clarify when we send this to the council that that me neither of these would be weighted. Uh, councelor et,
how do we determine when a goal is dep prioritized by the council? So, this is I put this in here specifically because I felt that the council needs to know that we need to be dep prioritizing goals if they are no
longer possible. Right now, we have not formally dep prioritized any of our action items despite the fact that we've created a list that is absolutely untenable to do in a year. So I believe that the council should be looking at our goals. When something changes, we
need to be taking that out. Um we have not formally done that, but I believe that it should be part of the formal process. Uh for an example would be like if we had a goal that said um I'll say successfully receive this
federal money that we were supposed to receive and then we lost the federal grant. Paul has no control over that. So, we would depp prioritize that goal saying this is no longer relevant. Um, I I put this in because the goals are
voted formally by the council. We can't just take them off of the goal list without a vote from the council. Um, but isn't the place to have that conversation when we establish goals for the future? it would be, but if this is
the I I think there are still goals in here that we haven't pushed to the forefront. So, yeah, we could change this for now. Um, but I do think that there needs to be a way to say we haven't been pushing this goal. Um,
or our priorities change. So, yeah, you're right that I shouldn't put aspirational processes in here. Um, and how do you evaluate something that we simply didn't push for?
But when we set the goals, we push for them. I know. I mean, it seems to me that if we're going to depprioritize something, it's a different process. It is, but I I think that it needs to be a process. Well, then, Right. But is is this the
place it needs to be? I don't know where else it goes but yeah uh I hear you. So there is another issue that you can you that could come up and that is u something like resources were insufficient
to achieve this goal. So we could create we could add the option of goal was unfinished at no fault of the town manager um due to unforeseen like something like that was was what people discussed right basically I phrase that nicely but
um was not complete due to external forces that's not the external factors that I like that better thank you Not
uh town not at fault. Someone help me. Someone fix this for me. I can fix it for you. I am wondering will we be aware of those external factors? Cuz if not then we return to not enough
information to evaluate. These are worth the same. Neither of these are weighted. So in some senses it doesn't matter which of these two you choose. It's more just
for our own edification. Um, I think it does because what I've been pushing is the part of learning about what the town manager does and learning how much
oversight the council can give. So if we are aware of those external factors then it becomes easier to push in the direction that you've described of dep prioritization. But if we aren't then we
are at the point of not enough information to evaluate. So that helps with the data. But then what that means is with five options it becomes a bit harder to
figure out how the evaluation should go right even yeah I I I think I understand even though both of those are weighted zero like not not changing the average we're starting to get messy in terms of the
number of options and it's helpful to differentiate for our own knowledge moving forward whether it was because we don't know uh or it's because of something else at play. Yeah. Yeah. Then what are your thoughts? Yeah, I I agree with councelor Ete and I
think we should just get rid of that fourth bullet and just not enough information. But I think I want to make sure we keep it in mind as we set goals for next year. Is there a way to capture this piece in
this bullet? Because sometimes, like council said, we have the information. We just know that it wasn't the town manager's fault. Well, we could say not enough information to evaluate or And but you need to say beyond the
control of the town manager. That's the right wording. Thank you. I could for the life of me. Um all right. Not manger manager. Hi. I always do that every time. Well, I can't write TM
because it auto corrects to the little thing uh the trademark sign. It drives me bonkers. Okay. So, these are our four for goals. Yes. Laura, do you have any thoughts on this? I know we uh Sorry, I'm just going to delete the other one so I don't forget. We'll do all of that later.
Yeah, I'm just making sure I don't forget. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'm made in agreement with y'all. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Let's talk about the let's talk about the last the the other piece
here. So, these are the charter uh job responsibilities. Um this was the discussion that we had at council. The realization I had was just a math one that that should be 41. Um
similarly we removed the numbers here. We said met most if not all and this should say aspects of this expectation. In my mind like grammatically this is a little confusing but um the idea of it is that
most or all of it was done some but not all minimal did not. So why don't you just say met or exceeded and take out the percentages
because then it's wishy-washy. But okay, I hear you. So is this as expectation? I think the the question mark for me is did not meet this expectation would apply for all of the other all of these
three bullets because but I think you do need a middle ground. I agree. But that I think that well I would take out minimally and just say did not meet this expectation or minim leave minimally in and take out did not meet.
What if he just didn't do anything? Say minimally and or did not meet. Can I say did not meet or minimally met? Yes. So, we've got I think we're going to get a lot of these.
We're going to get a lot of met some but not all. Yep. Not able to judge. not enough information. Why aren't we just using that? Because there was the option of we have the information, but it's not his fault.
Oh, that's right. Okay. So, this is the wording we would use. We would change the thing above, right? So basically, it's a 321 ranking, which I don't like.
I know. I know. I My worry is that we've once again put ourselves into I I totally hear you. Position where we're not getting anything useful. Um because we're all going to end up in the middle. That That is why I like a four level ranking. Um,
but I I hear you that the the middle without the percentages, the middle two are confusing. I'm looking back at the comments on this. Um, and most of the comments were really about how do I do
this when I don't know if the town manager has done it. Um, people weren't necessarily talking about uh I'm I'm trying to look, not that these comments that we're having right now are not valid, but these were not raised
as concerns by the council. But see, that's because most of them are administrative and and we are not we do not oversee him on his dayto-day administration of the
town. Mhm. So other members, how do you feel about the you read the item from the charter and you select met and or exceeded this expectation in the past year, met some but not all of this expectation in the
past year, did not meet or minimally met this expectation, or not able to judge/ not enough information. What about it? Do you like it more or less than the met most if not all and or exceeded met some
but not all minimally met or did not meet? Your two options are on the screen thinking through. So what I'm thinking about is like we get 13 responses back. This four options is a lot.
um four options and a do not know. Four options is a lot but allows for more differentiation. So is that differentiation something we're able to identify? I don't think so. I think that the the differentiation and the percentages just don't have meaning.
Okay. Councelor Councelor Lord, how do you which do you prefer four or three? I'm trying to remember from my data class whether even number or odd number in
terms of people. So I'm getting stuck in the weeds. Um but even so well because odd gives folks a clear middle whereas even forces them to the top or the bottom. Um but that said Lynn's point of those two
middle numbers have to be different enough for folks to know which way to go. Uh, and and we're not sure that our two middle middle options are different enough, which is why we kind of combined them. So, I don't know if that clarified
it. It did. My gut was thinking the the top one with the only But Yep. I'm flexible. I am too at at this point. Councilor Ate, I was about to make a a joke about flexibility, but I won't. It's too late
for that. Um, I I I think the So, when I looked at the percentages, I it's there's a lot of disparity. Mhm. you know, and a gap. And so I I'm
not just fine. I think we should go with removing the percentages. And perhaps while filling this out, we can reflect really on what it means to meet and exceed or to meet some. It will be a judgment call. Um, and without
numbers that might be harder to do, but I think the answer that will each counselor can bring will be clearer once it's submitted. What if I say satisfactorially met?
Um because I think that what I don't want this to read is 100% perfect because then everyone's going to fall here. But but if we say satisfactorily met
andor exceeded, it adds a little bit of the wiggle. I like that. That that would make me comfortable voting for this option. Do do folks feel okay about this?
These four. Sorry. Lynn said, "You like this?" I like this. Council atte'll [Laughter] let you go at some point soon. I promise. Go ahead, Council Ae. What are your thoughts?
It's good. It is good. Is it Is it meeting some but not all of your needs? Well, that is precisely it. Being good has the broadness of satisfactory or exceeding at the same
time. I think I I like it. I I um we are gathering data and so again once this is compiled there'll be things that we will learn from it. So I'm
comfortable with is with it as it is. So, I will just trying to get everything else off our screen so you can see. Oh my god. All right. Ignore the rest of your screen. So, I'm going to take this, move it up here.
This is the evaluation metric that will be used. So, what we now have and what I am going to make a motion to approve is I move that goo recommend. What? Yeah, I was going to recommend it. Got it. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
It's okay. Uh I move that goo recommend to the town council the updated town manager evaluation process uh as shown on the screen and discussed at the September 23rd go meeting. Is there a second? Second.
I'm gonna go ahead and call the vote. Uh Lynn, would you repeat the motion that G recommend the town the adoption of the town manager evaluate to the town council the adoption of the town manager evaluation process as shown on the
screen and discussed at the September 23rd go meeting. Okay, it's not called anything. I don't know what to um Lynn, how do you vote? I councelor ete I
councelor Lord I and I am an I as well. So what will happen now is that this text will go to the council Lynn. I will update the form the microphone. What will happen now is you're going to send me all of this and I will put
together a packet with the calendar. Well, hang on one second. Um what I'd like to do because the council has to adopt it on Monday. Um, I' I'd like to send you the form version of this so that counselors can see it at the meeting. Um,
that's fine. As long as I can put it into a packet with everything else, I will download it as a PDF for you. Okay. Uh, I really need it in Word. So the the point I will send you the word version but the point of this is
that the counselors are filling it out on the forms right version and I think it's important for the counselors to see what that looks like um so that they know what they're filling out so I can send you both if that sounds good. Yeah.
Okay. With that um we are we're we're calling it y'all. Uh, it do I have a motion to adjurnn at 8:46 p.m. And I'm very sorry for keeping you late. So moved. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. There we go. Um, all right. I'm going to go ahead and call
the vote. Councelor Lord I. Councelor Atte I. Councelor Griezmer I. And I am an I. Thank you all so so much for your work on this project and all of it. Uh, have a lovely evening. Thank you.
Thanks.