Excellent. Hi everyone. Um welcome to the uh >> welcome to the um [laughter] December 4th meeting of the charter review committee. Um I'm going to try to keep
you all on Zoom here. Um there we go. Uh escape. Sorry, my computer is glitching. But we'll go through the members. Uh Meg, you're here. >> Present.
>> Myself, I'm here. Andy >> here. >> Erica >> here. >> Um great. Bernie >> here. >> And Raphael is going to join us in about 15 minutes. Uh,
>> Ken, >> I'm here and I just got a text from Marcus. I think he's wanting to be let in. >> He has been. >> Excellent. You're here as well. So, we have a quum. We're just waiting on Raphael. So, I'll get us started then.
Um, did folks see Do we have minutes from the 13th? >> Could you remind me which is if you know which was the meeting I was supposed to do and haven't yet. Uh, yours is the 13th May. >> Okay. Not there yet. I'll >> get him there by next week. >> Raphael's is the 20th, but he's not here
yet, and I haven't gotten any emails, so I'm presuming he has not done them. Um, Marcus, you're the 26th. Uh, I saw that you sent them to me. Have folks had a chance to review those? >> Uh, no, because I only sent them to you and Athena. >> I'll put them out next week.
>> So, we'll push those out for the next week's meeting. And then um we have we do have some minutes to get caught up on next week. And our minute taker for tonight is Ken. Is that all right, Ken? >> Sounds good. >> Great. Um >> actually, sorry, just a second. I can
help Meg. Um I just use AI to transcribe. Okay. >> The meeting pretty simple process. >> That's great. Um >> yeah, show me how to do it. I think could be used and um and I I when I have
done minutes AI is very helpful. So >> okay, thank you Marcus. I might have to come over. [clears throat] >> That sounds good. We can meet with the harp, dude. >> Okay. Yeah, the harp. There you go. >> Great. Um okay, so
uh we will move ourselves along. Anyone in the audience raise your hand for public comment, please. Okay. Um I'm not seeing anybody. Is do you all see any hands raised? >> No hands.
>> No. Great. Um okay. So we will move ourselves right along to uh outreach subcommittee. Do you all have any report? >> Uh I can just say one thing and then Meg, do you want to do a general update?
you you could go ahead. >> The one thing that I wanted to focus on was the issue that that Ken raised and that we kind of need to think about as a group, >> which is the timing of the publicity for the public forum, which I thought was a useful issue to think about. Um, and it
was about the availability, having the report out, this preliminary report that we're talking about later tonight, uh, done and submitted and in hand and available to sort of distribute in advance of the public forum that we're about to publicize. And so we
wanted to give it until tonight to make sure that all those things were going to line up so that we weren't to Ken's point um saying uh advertising a meeting before the
report was complete if I if I um paraphrase that well enough. Ken. >> Yeah. The other part was that if we if we sent out a um an email about this report but couldn't actually share it at
that email, then we'd have to >> rely on people to go back and check the website, the town website, or we'd have to email them again and say, >> exactly. Yeah, >> we're back. And the the reports, it just seems like a you're it's adding a lot of work. Um and presuming people would
actually go back to the website, which they won't. there. >> So, it is a matter of thinking through based on what happens tonight when we'll have a final kind of PDF in hand that we could attach to the publicity emails that will be going out.
>> So, long as we approve the report, we should have that tonight. If we don't, um, then it might take a little bit longer. >> So, my computer's acting funny. I can't get my hand thing to raise. I have to raise my real hand. Um Mike, I don't
know what's going on here, but anyway, um I had already started sending some out and uh I stopped, but then upon discussion with Julian, it seemed and and a couple of others that we have to get it out. The the date I'm giving is
not tomorrow, it's Monday to give us the weekend, >> right? um because we can't meet our deadline if we don't I mean that's absolutely the last but I I stopped because of the so it's gone out and I've been in touch I I sent you the email I won't report it
>> repeat it but um a number of them have gone out including calling Scott Murbach although I don't think he's I think he's writing it next week which was my suggestion >> but why don't we have the meeting and then see where we get rather than taking time to discuss this
>> right >> because >> and just as as a reminder this is the preliminary report >> right >> and it is not carved in stone so things are a little rough around the edges we will end up explaining that to people >> right >> my feeling is we need to get get to it
right now and see where we are have this discussion at the end >> sounds good >> you're muted Julian You're muted. >> There we go. Can you all hear me now? >> Yep. >> Thank you. Um, any other comments on
that? >> Nope. Any feedback? Subcommittee Andy? No. Okay. I think you dropped out for a second, Julian, but what we were saying was that we're going to return to this issue after the discussion at the end of the discussion tonight.
>> Yes. Great. Um, okay. So, we will now move straight ahead with our agenda. Um, and Andy uh attached a very helpful sheet that I'm going to screen share right now. Um, and
we will I'm hoping Andy, do you want to put a motion on the table and then we'll discuss the motion? >> Is that about [clears throat] the proposal to simplify? >> Yep. >> That's what's next on our agenda. >> I move that we uh amend
um our our suggested changes as indicated in this memo or in this in this document. >> I'll second that. Um any discussion? clarification. >> Well, I can I can I can describe what it is if people
>> Yeah, >> that'd be great. >> I haven't read it, [snorts] but basically, we talked I think we talked about it a little bit, but basically, we had that whole discussion about um the council's rules of voting. You know, there's about a page of different
situations of um you know, numbers of votes required in different in different circumstances. And I talked to uh Mandy Johanni and I talked to Athena after that uh after that um discussion
and I came up with um an edit that I think a couple of edits I think will simplify it and they seem to think that that might be okay. If you can scroll down to the bottom uh Julian, it just shows the the changes. >> Great.
Can you can you scroll down? >> Oh, did he freeze? >> Julian, Andy, is the is this to send out instead of the thing we worked on the last two or three weeks? >> This is a this this is a different thing. >> Okay, good.
>> I think Julian froze. Okay, >> this is just a this is just a discussion of this one item. >> Okay. >> Uh that was in the it was in the spreadsheet and >> I'm I'm just going to share it so that you can continue on. >> Thank you.
>> This is the one item that we uh did not vote on fully because we didn't have a good proposal for the suggestion itself. And this is >> uh if you can scroll down just a little bit further. the current language is
yeah if just so the current language and the proposed language basically um or I guess the proposed language show it's track track changing so in the definitions there's a definition of a measure and we ran into the situation where there's measures and things that are called non-measures
so this basically just clarifies that the word measure will mean any bylaw order resolution or other item voted upon by the town council so anything that's a measure is something is is a vote by town council. So there's no non-measures anymore. And then you've
got te se section 2.6 and section 2.10. And 2.10 had some had the crossed out language which we moved up to 2.6. So 2.6C 6C will now have you know bo both the the information that except in
the event a higher quantum of vote is required by general laws or this charter, the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present is required to adopt any measure and the affirmative vote of a majority of the full town council shall be necessary for the final passage of any bylaw or
financial measure except in the event a higher quantum of vote is required by general laws or this charter. So like zoning things or whatever. So um the result of this I think is that basically there would be two situations. Either
you're voting you're taking a vote of the majority of the full town council for the big things like bylaws or financial measures or you're taking uh the vote of a majority of the members present um in all other circumstances.
So should simplify things. Um, the council could argue about whether they want to count extensions or not count extensions, but um, >> you mean abstensions, not extensions, right? >> I'm sorry. Absent [laughter] >> because [clears throat]
>> good paying attention, Athena. >> Good. [laughter] >> Good listen. Um >> yeah, we could um ask for a majority vote of those not abstaining or recusing themselves, but that can recol result in some very small votes. So um I defaulted
to one that would require the slightly larger amount of you know you need a majority of people there regardless of who's um abstaining or or voting. Is that somewhat clear? Yeah,
>> someone player [laughter] >> basically it's just saying that you know if you're voting on a bylaw or something serious you need to have at least seven votes >> understood >> or nine votes in the case of you know a zoning change or a bonding issue. But if
you're not voting on something on the big things then it's just a majority of whoever's there which in most cases the same majority. But if there's only 11 people there, then you only need uh six votes rather than seven. But um it just makes it clear
um how many votes you need in in various circumstances. And there aren't a lot of circumstances in this in this new situation. >> And and if I may, Andy, the it removes the possibility that several counselors abstain and then a and then a motion
passes with one or two yes votes. Yep. Can I ask a question? Um, I think it's a I think it's a really simple uh solution to the problem. I was as I was reading it, I was thinking about the other suggestion that was
under consideration they were including as part of the addendum um about changing the the size of the council. And I wondered how if the council if the council were to be larger that I think this this same simple rule
would would hold up pretty well. But if the council were any smaller >> um it it would again it wouldn't necessarily solve the problem of those those um smaller votes that you're talking about. And that may just be that's an eventuality like it's not
imminent. So if there were to be a smaller council that might have to be revised again or thought through again at least. Um, that was my only thought. >> Yeah, I'm not um I would think that if if if [clears throat] they were able to amend the the charter
to make that big a change, then they'd have to look at all the >> that's that's that's what I arrived at. So, like if it was a smaller council that I think this [clears throat] >> this rule might be a little more this simple rule might be a little more iffy, but I think it would that's what I mean. And it it would be secondary to that
really big change that would come after um >> why would it be iffy? I'm not sure how it would be different. >> Well, I just think that the p this this even though the percentages are the same, you know, the numbers are the actual numbers, the absolute numbers get
a little bit more um >> close. if we're talking about the somebody was suggesting seven or nine counselors or you know it would just it's so um conditional to whatever that would end up being that I don't think it's worth discussing. It's just I think
>> you know the difference between a majority of seven and a majority of four is is big to >> but Erica a change to the size of the council would require a whole new commission. Right. >> Exactly. So that's why I'm tableabling
my own comment, which is just that this was the only part of it that I thought that that raised a question for me, >> but it was so conditional on a on a charter commissionbased change, >> right? >> That's all. >> I mean, we used to have a select board that had five members, so three of them
could pass a vote, but I mean, they weren't really the legislature, but still. >> Well, they sort of were, weren't they the legislator? >> Yeah. No, tell me. >> Yeah. Tell me. Right. Right. Right. Thank you. [snorts] I got >> anyway. Um >> I think it's a good point, Erica. Um I
think it's worth noting that if you know if if a charter commission were formed, there would have to look at a lot more than just the size of the council. >> Right. Thank you. >> So I guess the the motion is on the table to adopt this. It's pretty simple.
Um I don't I don't know who's who's running the meeting at this point. is is >> I think I'm happy to call a vote if that's where we're at. Um >> yeah, I think so. >> Any other discussion? >> Yeah, I think we should call the question. >> Yep. Get on with it.
>> Okay. Uh I guess I Who's taking minutes tonight? Is it Ken? >> I am. >> Do you mind recording the vote? >> Um gets recorded by the video, too. But >> Bernie, >> yes. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Andy,
>> yes. Marcus, >> yes. >> Meg, >> yes. >> Raphael, I know you came in halfway through. >> I can't vote. Yeah, I can't I didn't hear. That was the discussion. Thanks. >> And I will vote yes. And we'll count
Raphael as an abstension if that's okay. >> That works. >> And uh we can take in Julian's vote when he reconnects. >> But that's a majority. Yes. Mhm. >> Under whatever rules we're using. [laughter]
>> Let's filibuster. [clears throat] >> How about not? >> Thanks, Athena. You can stop sharing. >> So, um, Annie, that means that all these changes will have to be into the preliminary report then, correct? >> Yeah. Um, I I have language that that
can pop in if we need it. So, >> okay. Athena has >> it'll be fairly easy to change. >> Um, if I could just another quick note, it it might be worth mentioning in one of your reports that some of these changes will necessitate changes to the council rules.
>> Oh, >> yeah. Um, when we go over the addendum, that's I mean some of the some of the changes in the report I think that's true and also some of the changes in the addendum are identified that way. You're muted. Muted.
>> Julian, can you hear us? >> No. [laughter] >> So maybe >> Sorry. Why don't we keep going then with Erica just because we have a lot to do tonight. >> Um >> I'd love to not Right.
>> So next item on our agenda was the line item budget additions. Um, just looking for the document. >> Is this the memo on the budget process? I >> think so.
[clears throat and cough] >> From Collins. >> Yes. >> Okay. Let me I'll share that. [clears throat] Can folks see this? >> Yeah. >> Okay, I'm back. Hi. Sorry about that. Can you all hear me? >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Excellent. Um, I can hear you. My Wi-Fi is having some issues, but I think I've resolved them. [clears throat] So, um, Erica, are you screen sharing the memorandum? >> I'm screen sharing the memo from Collins from November 19th about budget process.
>> Perfect. Um, I'll take over sharing. Do you want to keep screen sharing that and then I'll screen share at the next interval? >> Sure. Just to catch you up, we voted on the majority vote. Um, it was past yes votes passed it and then
you can add your vote. Ken's keeping a list. >> Excellent. Um, thank you, Ken. Um, I'm assuming we voted unanimously or >> Raphael abstain because he he [clears throat] he missed the discussion. >> Excellent. And Raphael, you can hear us and be heard. >> I can.
>> Great. Um, I was there for the discussion. I was not there for the vote. As you all know, I seconded the motion and have been in communication with Andy about this quite a bit. So, I will vote yes. >> Good. [cough and clears throat]
Um, moving on to the memorandum. Um, does someone I think just for the sake of efficiency, does someone want to uh make a motion and then we'll discuss I move that we approve the memorandum. >> I'll second that. Um,
so, uh, any discussion on this? >> Wait, wait, let's scroll up because I'm trying to find my copy of the memorandum. I can't. So, if we could scroll up so I could >> read through this again. >> Erica, can you scroll up?
>> What What is What is I'm trying to remember Collins's recommendation on this. I think it was that to pass it by. But >> where would you like me to scroll? Down. >> Down. Yep. >> More. >> Yep.
>> Yep. >> Okay. >> [snorts] >> This is a pretty lengthy discussion as to uh what the council can do at present. So in Boston has this way of doing it
>> and it looks like Winthrop has a slightly different but similar workaround. >> You know the general rule is Boston is an exception to just about everything. So we merch [laughter] >> always.
>> Oh, there's mayor language. Okay. Winthre episode looks like maybe it's more applicable >> in in I mean in my mind Winthrop is a little bit more clear for us. It might
be more workable in Ammerst, but >> it it is, but it it's a there's a difference in the the executive power, right? >> They make so the so the town manager submits a budget, proposed operating budget. Town
council can amend it either up or down in Right. The the net total will not be higher. >> I think Winthrop's language is more clear for 7.8. It would be >> you you want to note the you want to note the uh mention there the brief
mention there that Winthrop's form of government is somewhat different a little bit different than Ammerst's >> Yeah. form of government. >> It's a different power structure. >> Different power structure. So Winthre's language might not apply at all. [clears throat] I mean I
>> what's the difference? >> I'm highlighting the paragraph that describes the differences. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> Got it. the the the where it says the charter also describes the council president as
the executive or authority for the town rather than the town manager. So that's um that that's a big it's a big difference. >> Yeah. >> But Boston always also has a >> has a form of government.
>> Absolutely. But the mayor of Boston, >> the council president of the the bo the Boston council president is not the executive authority. >> Right. I was just going to say that the the he's called mayor, but the town manager makes three times as much money
and is is is the executive in Boston. But [snorts] the the pres council president called in Boston mayor does you know uh professional punk preunctery things cuts
ribbons and stuff. >> It looks like they're saying that if we want to recommend this that we should check with the town attorney regarding the method of amendment and Boston didn't need to file a special
act but it's exempt from those laws. town need may need to adopt such a change by other means including by special act. So, I guess I'm wondering if maybe we say we're kind of interested in this Winthre thing,
but we need to know, you know, what what language would apply in our situation, and if it requires a special act, maybe it goes with the the items that we're you'll see that we're putting in the the addendum where it's things like a mayor or uh things that would require
something beyond the council acting. >> I feel like this is a little different. Can we list this as as one of those things? Or else we can put it in here and say pending checking with the the town attorney for for the the proper
language or something. >> That would make more sense. >> I I would propose that this is the kind of thing that might go into an in the structural change section of the addendum that we're considering. Um, >> thank you.
>> Because it requires additional consideration. I'll say I agree with Andy's suggestion about um having >> it's the same suggestion I'm making. >> No, it's not Erica. Um [laughter] >> to me a different one. So I think
>> Andy made two different suggestions and I'm saying the last one. um [clears throat] his prior his former suggestion was to include this with a pending review of KP law and that is what I would suggest simply because in
my mind the discussions even though it legally it might not be accurate I think to the community there is a big difference between sort of a budget process change um and some of the larger changes that we're suggesting in these
is in the memorandum with like moving to a mayor. I think those are sort of fundamentally different changes. One would have to could go through a special act but really would have to be approved by the voters and is a major change to
our government. Whereas this is one of the more major changes we're considering, but it's nowhere near the level of a mayor or going back to town meeting or anything along those lines. Um, so in my mind I think it would make sense to
approve this and say pending review by KP law who would be able to work out that issue of the difference in administrative authority between Winthrop and Ammerst in my mind. So that I think was Andy's second suggestion. He
made two. So that's why I wanted to clarify uh Bernie and then Andy. Well, the the old saw in doing this stuff is is it feasible, practical, and desirable? And we haven't um we haven't talked about that. Uh we're discussing the
feasibility piece, but the practicality piece is is has we've been silent on and the desiraability piece u we've been silent on. I'm not sure why this is here other than the fact that somebody somebody somewhere thought it would be a
good idea. Um I think the the the existing statutes are very clear. >> Yeah. >> About the way that the council and and um the Collins Center goes through
length, great length to to let you know what um the council can do in terms of shaping the budget. uh but in in a council manager form of government other than uh Wrup's where it's for some
strange reason the uh the council president is the uh is the uh is the the administrator um is is very different from what we have and I would suggest that um we take this up and and put it
in the this discussion of structural issues that um you know might need some future consideration, but it's not nothing that the committee is going to recommend because this follows the statutes. >> Yeah.
>> Because really it it follows the law and you know what we're saying is is well we want to throw the we want to get the legislature to throw the law out the window and give Amoris this particular this particular power. Um, and and I don't I don't think that's practical.
And I don't think it's desirable to have 13 people um with the ability to make uh propose individual changes to a budget that's been shaped by the the town manager and
the staff with the guidance from the council. I mean, uh, the manager and the staff, my experience, don't simply go off and write the budget in the way they they think they do. They, you know, we
spent a lot of time on the finance committee setting up guidelines. The council sets up guidelines. Um, council sets up performance goals for the manager. Those are all reflected in the way the budget is shaped. So, I'm not sure that this is desirable.
I'm not sure that it's uh it's it's feasible. I'm not sure that it's practical. So I think it fails and should be you know we it should be relegated to a discussion later on that this came up. this has been a a point where people have uh uh h have
understood or misunderstood what the council's role is and that maybe there should be some clarity about how the council can impact impact the budget but I don't see it resulting in any changes to the charter [clears throat] >> yeah I mean I think I was thinking out
loud before so I thought of one thing and I thought of the other so I did say two different things um I think it might be useful to um to look at the addendum um as a group to see the kinds of things that are in there and then see if this fits more with those than with the other
things. I think there's a lot of uncertainty about about this and um I'm I think the hope of Erica and Meg and I when we were looking when we were working on the addendum is that that would also be seen as a serious piece of
work. And so being able to support put this as one of the things that came up in discussion but that is you know it would require somewhat of a heavier lift and and some clarification before we can you know definitive definitively
recommend it you know specific language. Um I'm kind of feeling like it might be more appropriate there uh in the addendum as a bullet point to say this is something that came up. you know, we're taking it seriously, but we we you
know, there's enough questions about it that we don't feel like we can, you know, necessarily put it in as a specific change right now, but it would be part of our package. >> Um, other comments, questions? >> Uh, just a quick one. Sorry. Go ahead. I
think I I agree with, you know, let's at least acknowledge it was its existence and see where the law comes out on it. Um we don't have to you know depending on what comes out we don't know whether it's going in or not but at least in this preliminary report let's get it in
the addendum let's say that we are consider you know reflect the reality that we are considering it and we'll see where it goes >> Raphael you had your hand up anything to add >> yeah I'm just following what folks have shared about the addendum
>> I agree with Andy and Marcus it's exactly what the addendum is for I hope I hope we get to it tonight. >> So, well, so we have a motion on the floor, which is the motion Meg made and I seconded to include this. So, I'll go forward with voting that and then if
that fails, we'll have a different >> Wait, to include it in the report or in agenda? >> That's the motion you made >> in this um >> in the what? In the report or the addendum? Okay. >> Um >> can I amend the motion?
>> Huh? >> Save time. Can I amend the motion to save time? Do we put it in the addendum? >> Sure. >> Sure you can, but I think it might be worth noting who supports putting in the addendum and who doesn't. I don't. >> Okay, go for it. >> Um, >> good. Okay. [clears throat and laughter]
>> Okay. So, so a no vote on this would be >> voting on the chart, but but open to put in the motion me is to place this in the report. I seconded that motion. If you want to place this in the report, you
would vote yes on Meg's motion. If you do not, you would vote no. Then I will open the floor up to other motions and see what people would like to do. Um, >> but Julian, I think you need to be clearer. The addendum is part of said
report. >> Yeah. >> Right. Yes, it is. >> Yeah. So clarity of >> I didn't hear you. >> Go ahead, Erica. Sorry, my hand raising doesn't work with the screen share. Um, uh, just to be super clear, >> yeah,
>> the addendum will be part of the final report and not the preliminary report. That's an important distinction. So, the motion was to include it in the preliminary report >> and we should vote on that. >> Um, I'm sorry. >> Yep. >> Had his hand raised first. >> Yeah.
>> No. Placing it to in into the agenda, I think, response to my my comments and my concerns. Andy, >> um I just in the in the course of discussing the amend the the addendum, given that this is a preliminary report,
I'd like to consider whether it could be part of the preliminary report. Quite a bit of work has been done on it. We could say it's a draft and in that case that would it would reflect a lot of the things that we've heard but aren't in our chart. So I think we need to make a distinction between are we putting it in the chart
of specific recommendations or are we putting it in the addendum of you know um other other things that we've heard. >> We're voting on putting it in the chart of specific recommendations now. But if after this vote if it fails you'll be
able to make a motion to include in the addendum and you can specify in that motion if you want to include the addendum in this report or in the final report. Originally the plan was for the final report, but I'm I mean I'm open to changes obviously. I think we all are. Um >> a tweak to the motion could just be
charter review recommendations now. >> H >> So are we including this in our charter review recommendations now? >> Yes, exactly. >> It means the chart. >> Yes, >> chart. Yeah, the list. Yeah, >> the add agenda. Yeah, >> correct. So, a yes vote would mean you
include it. A no vote would mean you don't. I'm just gonna move along with voting if people are clear. >> Great. >> I I'm not [laughter] >> I'm not either. I'm not either. >> I'm not either. >> Could we Could we take the motion that we have on the floor off and just have a
motion that it says this will go into the addendum? >> No, because I >> that's what I wanted to amend my motion. >> I would like to distinctly say that I do not support putting this in I would rather go on the final report.
>> You'll get the chance to vote [laughter] now. >> Which is why I would like to be able to vote on this motion separately from the agenda. >> Okay. So, let's just do it then to say we're going to never get through this. Go for it. I don't care. But just >> Okay. >> So, Bernie, we we have a list of
recommendations that appear in the preliminary report. I think this vote is whether or not this should also be included or not. >> Okay. Yeah, >> that was well explained profit. Thank you. Um, is everybody clear?
>> I know. >> Great. Excellent. Thank you. Um, I will move us along with voting. Uh I guess my rationale for including this in the report rather than the addendum is that I feel we've
heard a lot about this and it is a change that is in my mind a lower level change than um than the uh things specified in the
addendum as I've seen them so far. And I just think like what Bernie was saying with is it practical? I don't know if it's practical or not. I'm not an expert on the town budget. Is it feasible? This seems to be saying that it is feasible because it's been done in other
communities. However, we could check that by KP Law. And is it desirable? And I think that's where I would disagree with Bernie. I think it is desirable because we've [clears throat] heard from people whether they be the schools, the firefighters, the DPW workers that they feel they need more support in certain
areas of their budgets um and are stretched too thin for reasons X, Y, and Z. And this would allow the council to have and at least open the discussion that hasn't really been had of where do we prioritize and moving X dollar from X
place to Y place that they've heard a lot of public support for. So that would be my rationale for why it would be desirable. >> Um >> is your votes a yes? >> I wanted to explain my vote since I [laughter] didn't before. >> I was saying I would like the
opportunity to vote. Uh, so you're a yes. You want to move through? >> Yes. Yes. >> Um, so Raphael, I'll start with you. >> No. >> Bernie, >> no. >> Erica, >> no. >> Andy, >> no.
>> Uh, May. >> And I hope we do include the pre the uh whatever it's called report with the thing when we get it out Monday. But since some of us are making comments while we vote, I'm a no. >> That's okay.
Um myself I'm a yes. Uh Ken, you're muted. >> I can. >> Excuse me. No. >> Um and Marcus. >> No. >> Okay. Does someone want to put a motion on the floor for to include this in the
>> has her hand raised? Athena, go right ahead. >> Sorry, misclick. >> No problem. Um, uh, does someone want to make a motion to dispose of this in the agenda? >> Not dispose of it, put it in the
>> So, so moved. >> Okay. Okay. We'll vote. Bernie. >> Yes. >> Ken. You're muted again. [clears throat] >> Sorry to what's going on in the background. Yes.
>> That's okay. Andy? >> Yes. >> Erica? Yes. >> Raphael. >> Yes. [clears throat] >> All vote. I um me. >> Yes. >> I believe that's everybody. Andy,
>> no. I'm I'm a yes. >> I am a yes to you. Sorry. >> Okay. Excellent. So, we've dealt with that. Now, um Erica, I can take over screen sharing here. Thank you. Um or
can I um uh so we will now move right along to article 10. We had some discussions about um additions and reinforcing our
stance on some of these issues. Uh, I move to include our comments on article 10 in the addendum. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Great. Um, any comments, questions? >> So, basically that would mean that we
article 10, there's the five items that were recommended before and that we heard from people that there should be continued efforts in the, you know, to to support those things and we will put that in the addendum, right? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Great. Did Did somebody second that? If they
didn't, I'm seconding. >> I do believe. Yeah. >> I think you I think you did. >> Oh, good. >> Um >> I can't keep track. [laughter] >> Okay. Uh we'll move to vote on this. Um myself, I'm an I. Andy. >> I.
>> Marcus, >> I'm Yes. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Erica, >> yes. Bernie, >> yes. >> Meg, >> yes. >> And Raphael,
>> yes. >> Excellent. Um, so we will now move right along. >> Erica has her hand up. >> Sorry, Erica, go right ahead. >> I have a related question. Since we've decided that the article 10 uh
provisions are going to be or suggestions are going to be listed in the addendum um the chart currently says article 10 no recommendations um which I think is
not quite accurate. There's no specific uh suggestion that's been voted through, but it we are including a a strong recommendation in the addendum is a strong recommendation that the council consider even though we're not recommending specific language by
including it in the chart. So, I just wanted to bring that forward and see what we might want to do about where it says no recommendations. >> Okay. Um I think I think we would just add a cadendum part just like we did to the
other items. So we would simply include uh the issue itself copy paste it and then just put cadendum. Does that make sense Erica? >> It makes sense to me. I just wanted to bring it forward for conversation.
>> I have a I have a >> Yep. a suggestion that we just um that we just put in the chart those the specific things that we have language for and that we don't include the articles for which we don't have specific language and then they go to the the addendum and
all those suggestions are there on their own merits. >> I think that also works unless you want to give the give the clarity that we've addressed every article. I think it it matters which are we including the
addendum with this draft or not. If we are, people can just scroll down and they don't and it doesn't need to be included in the report. But in my mind, if we're not and including it in the final report, we should have it that those issues are still being discussed
and say you'll get an addendum soon that is forthcoming to address these issues so people at least know that we haven't abandoned them or think that. >> But why like is there any chance we can get sorry go ahead
>> get it done by Monday? >> So many people so much of what we What? >> Get what done? >> The addendum. >> I don't see why not. >> That really moves us into our next discussion which is the addendum um
before we vote the preliminary report. Um in my mind with some tweaks and some work from Erica and Meg, we could and um we could add this addendum to the
preliminary report. I don't see any anything wrong with that. I think that would be a great great idea. Um, and then we can take out the other stuff and just basically say on page xxx, probably page like 21, see this attached at
endom. Um, I think that's a good idea, but uh I don't know how other folks feel about that. Um, do we have any comments or maybe even a motion to approve the draft following some edits? >> Which draft?
>> Did you look at the Could we look at the addendum? >> Yes. Uh, Eric, would you like screen share what you sent? >> Wait, are we finished with the regular? We're finished with article 10. >> Yes. >> There's no vote or anything. Okay, good. >> We vote We already voted. We voted to put in the addendum.
>> No, but on >> what? >> Never mind. Never mind. >> We voted. We voted to put it in the addendum to >> our discussion of the addendum might affect what we do with the chart. So, >> but the whole charter stuff will come back to that. >> Yes. >> Right. Yeah. Okay. Got it.
>> The whole the report is our next agenda item after we decide what to do with this. >> Okay. Should I share? >> Yes. We're building to the report. Does that make sense, Meg? Go ahead and share. >> Yes. So, if you can give us suggestions, we'll work on it. I think I
>> I have a list an edited like not edited but annotated list for what my suggestions are even. >> Great. >> Um >> fantastic. >> Excellent. Uh your screen sharing Erica. >> Yep. >> Great. >> Andy or Meg or I who Andy would you like
to talk through this or to give an introduction to how we organize this? Um, I I mean I think you you were the instigator on this, but I I'm happy to chime in or whatever you want, but
>> Okay. Well, I'll just give a I know that this came later in the in the um >> process >> later in the process of getting ready for this meeting. So, I just wanted to give an overview um of what this document is. What we did
is is collect items that did not uh refer specific language for um a charter revision like a specific item in the charter that could be revised by um editing language or by
deleting language. Um but that rose to a level of being like worthy of consideration by the council. So what we wanted to stress was that there are some broad categories of things that could that we heard repeatedly
that need to be considered and taken as seriously as u specific kind of article language review like we have in the chart. There are some recurring themes uh that we wanted to mark out and emphasize as a significant part of a
charter what the outcome of a charter review. And so that's what we have here. And so there's some introductory language. There's two big categories of suggestions here. One has to do with structural changes and one has to do with [clears throat] issues of
>> uh government transparency, responsiveness, and public engagement. So I'm going to just scroll a little bit, but I just wanted to give that context for what this is. >> Thank you. >> This came from the public um input and and feedback in various forms.
Ken, go ahead. >> Uh, no, no issue more that I just wanted to give uh, credit where credit was due. This this statement underneath structural changes and before you mentioned the changes, that's exactly the what I would want to read if I were reading this for the first time as a as
a resident to understand what it what exactly this this is, like what these things are. I think you did a great job of of boiling it down but being brief with it. So, kudos. Yeah, agreed. >> Thank you,
>> Erica. Masletoough to you. >> Well, >> thank you. It was a It was a collective effort, but >> Yeah, but you were the leader. So these kinds of things that that are that we heard repeatedly like things
like the mayor council shifting to a mayor council changing the size of the council staggering term these are kinds of things that would require special acts or other kinds of charter commission activity uh are the kinds of things we put under structural changes.
So, I'm just noting this because if since we voted uh on the the budget process issue just now and whether to include it here because it refers to a legal question and possibly a special
act or some structural differences. Um, this is why it may fit well right here. >> Well, it's in there. Allow council to increase light items. increasing to >> this this may not capture the totality
of that item. We'll we can review that. >> It seemed it was already added before we voted it. >> Well, we were considering it for again the the final, so this wasn't necessarily going to be part of preliminary until tonight. >> Anyway, this is the kind of thing that's
in here. Um >> it's addressed it's addressed in here. I I um I've only had a chance to go through this quickly, so I I'm just going to sit silent for most of this discussion because I'd like to be able to read it again. But the first read through it
seemed uh um pretty good. >> Great. Comments, questions, >> pretty good. >> Um noting that we also included the the one vote which we were completely split on. Uh, we included that here um because
it was one of those things that didn't fall neatly into like something we could approve or disapprove. >> Did we That makes sense. Did we end up deciding to put that in the report or not? Because I feel like we had a subsequent vote after it that decided what we were going to do with it or
something. I think that [clears throat] was one of those things that was I correct me if I'm wrong a group but I think that was one of those things that after we voted we said perhaps this can go in an addendum to reflect the sense of the committee that we were split but
that it came up as a significant issue. I'll just also point out that um I'll just also point out that it might be worth adding something in here. We've heard
from I counted 15 people about changing to a mer council form of government in the comments. We heard >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> That's the first thing I mentioned here. >> Yeah. Yeah. But we heard from I would
say probably 12 maybe 13 people about exploring sort of alternate forms of government that aren't mayor council. We heard we did hear smaller council. We also heard to bring back the town meeting form of government. We heard
arguments about exploring sort of like going outside of the typical like three options in Massachusetts and looking at what is done in other states and so on and so forth. We heard a few people mention some creative ideas there which
seemed interesting. I think it would be too bad if we only mention those two specific options since we're exploring different options. I think and we heard from an almost equally
large amount of people. Uh we should also include two or three other options besides just this. I would I could I would happily add some language here. Um but I have it
annotated that we would explore options used in other states and municipalities. we would explore um using a smaller town meeting model and um and I also had that we would uh
that we could ask KP Law about what options are available in terms of forms of government. So I [clears throat] think I think that it's worth since we heard from a similar amount of people on those issues, it's worth being all-incclusive here if we're going to
mention it. Um, that's my first edit and I'll let open it up to other discussions. I have more edits down the line. >> Some of the things that happen Oh, sorry. I got my hand up. >> Some of the things that happen in other
states are not legal in Massachusetts. >> Yeah, I don't know why we would waste our time putting it in. >> Yeah, it's not legal. The state has certain specific municipal structures that are legal. >> [clears throat]
>> And what about what about a smaller town meeting which is something we we had heard from >> 12 that's that is legal but it didn't wouldn't address the issue that brought us here in the first place Right.
[clears throat] >> I mean, it's not the end of the world to write another bullet that says smaller town meeting, but town meeting is already mentioned in there. Well, I think that realistically we if we've heard it and we're recapping what we've heard that we think are
merited suggestions that we can't address as a committee, we should we should include it here. I think this is where where that something >> what me's saying Julian is that the town meeting is already addressed right >> is is it where is that
>> where I can't I can't get my screen to move >> I don't see it addressed >> it doesn't appear to be [clears throat] >> okay >> town town meeting is not addressed here going back to town meeting is not one of the things that's included here as as a structural change
>> okay sorry >> so should we add that going return just to get it over this discussion over with >> or at least a small a smaller town meeting because we heard >> smaller town meeting go back you know a smaller town meeting I mean that would take a new charter commission
>> correct which so would I believe these other suggestions >> yeah they all would yeah >> has his hand up and then have a suggestion as well >> y >> yeah I kind [clears throat] of I I think that our that our charge was to sort of
move forward and and figure out how to improve what we voted on. So, just to say some pe what I heard was either go back to town meeting or have a mayor and and I kind of felt like a lot of the impetus was like actually people
were wistful about town meeting but they weren't actually expecting to go back to it. But that may be my that may be my you know I could I think we can put it in there. I just don't I don't think it adds anything. I think these these are different ideas that we haven't tried before whereas going back to town
meeting even a smaller town meeting is sort of like well then how big and you know we the charter commission considered a 60 person council and didn't didn't go with that but it it just seems like to say I mean I guess we
can say some people said either a mayor or or town meeting but I just don't know that saying town meeting really helps us helps Yeah, we've Yeah, we've already gone from town meeting, right? >> What? >> Nobody wanted it. >> Well, I mean, I shouldn't say nobody. It
was No, I know. I know. I know. >> No, I had I had a comment, >> Erica. >> Yeah. It's not that nobody want wanted to go back to town meeting, and it's not that none of those suggestions were legitimate or worth listing even in
here. Um, I think it's that and I have no problem with listing more things that people suggested. Um, we're we're doing something here to sort of not just list everything which is in which is already included somewhere
else. The full list of suggestions is somewhere else. We're doing something to kind of highlight those changes that are that rise to a kind of um workable even with
um great effort like it would like to switch to a mayor council form of government to calling up a charter commission or doing a special act. Great effort could be done um to have a charter. I I don't think we heard enough
um comments in the charter review process that said dissolve the charter and go back to a different system. I think that what we what we're looking at here are ways to revise and improve the existing charter. We
have no problem including those things because they're things we heard. It's not to silence anything. is just to say they the full list of suggestions is elsewhere. Not all of those suggestions were actually workable, but they're
worth hearing and knowing about. >> Yeah. >> But I have my hand up, too. Go ahead. So if that's true, then this is something that doesn't merit getting into the main part of the report. But if a number of people said it, why not put a bullet that says
revi, you know, all many of these things would require a new charter. Uh go back to, you know, a smaller town meeting. I don't think it's going to happen, but if it's what we heard, and that's what this addendum is about. We don't lose
anything by putting it in. >> Yeah. I would also just say you don't lose an entire charter with that suggestion. Yes, it would require a number of large changes to the charter, probably an equal amount or maybe even more than the mayor council changes.
>> Well, no, it does because you have to have a new charter commission. And a new commission means a new charter. >> Don't you also have to have a new charter commission for mayor council. >> Yeah. For any of these, >> right? So it's in that category. What the heck? Just to get it rep because most of these represent one point of
view. Not necessarily. I can't keep keep I think it can't hurt to put it in. >> Um Andy and then Bernie. >> Um I don't think this is the section for what the heck. I think this is a section
where we're using our judgment to to say these are some things that we think are were were important to a sub you know to that that we felt were rose to the level of
um you know serious consideration u based on what we heard. So they are coming out of what we heard, but they're not just like a few people said it, you know, in passing uh because they missed town meeting. I think it's these are
things that were specifically targeting particular areas that people felt, you know, were weak. They wanted a mayor because they wanted um, you know, uh, somebody more directly accountable to the voters. they wanted uh you know anyway you can go
down the list but >> to just say we want some other things that you know some people see I I think this is where we have to exercise some of our judgment and say is it really a good idea for us to put forward in this list of things that we want the council to seriously think about and the
community to seriously think about do we really think that going back to some form of town meeting is rises to that that level and I would I would argue vote something like that and then I would I would vote no. >> Well, we maybe we should vote on it
because I think I [clears throat] think it's a perspective that a number of people have. I don't think it's I don't can't imagine it happening. But anyway, sorry I didn't have my hand up. >> My camera back on.
>> Um, you know, Erica has made some some really good points. Andy's made some really good points about, you know, we're we're the task here was to improve the charter, >> not to change the form of government. In our discussions, what we heard from
people was there was some interest in changing the form of government. So, we should just mention that that that came up. But that wasn't our charge. Our charge was to come up with ways to make the council make the uh charter a better
working document for everybody and and that's what I think we need to focus on and and I I also think that we have every right and responsibility to edit what we were received as information and to make decisions about
what gets included, what gets emphasized and what doesn't. Uh the fact that some people might have uh pine for for town meeting to my mind doesn't isn't significant. We're past that. We moved on. Um
there's been no government in this commonwealth that has changed from town meeting has gone back to town meeting. Uh you know say the the bullet points here. These are changes in the form of government
um that require a heavy lift that the council may wish to consider and we're going to mention them and and let's let it let it go at that. >> Me and then Erica. >> So the reason we have an addendum is for the things that don't relate to the
charter and that would and that's people mentioned. So, I think this is something that we should put in there because a number of people mentioned it, especially the idea of a smaller town meeting. >> That's what the That's what the addendum is.
>> Also, I was I was just going to add that I did go through all the comments that we received online, not in the meetings, in the forums, just online. It's the same. We basically have the same amount or close to the same amount of people
who suggested a mayor council and suggested some form of revising the town meeting structure. So I'm not saying that's it's not a poll of the town. It's not a vote of the town. We already had a vote of the town, but it's a suggestion we received in a similar volume. Why not
include it? I mean, anyway, that's just my opinion. Erica. >> Yeah. I want to be super clear that I don't think um I don't I don't even dismiss what that people
have a a fondness or a nostalgia or wisfulness or a desire to return to town meeting. That's serious. That's real. And you can read that as literal like I want to go back to town meeting or you can read it as a kind of expression of dissatisfaction with the way things are.
And so I don't I don't think we I don't think there's a problem with just saying um several people had a strong feeling about wanting to return to a form of a different form of government. Um but I just want to draw the distinction in a
different place which is in this addendum what we've gone to some effort to do is to sift through and say council please respond to these things
that the public is asking for and I I I don't know if the council is actually going to take us up on that and respond to the idea of changing to a mayor, council, form of government. I don't know. Um, but I find it highly unlikely that they would respond to the idea of
or take seriously a of a serious response to the idea of undoing the town council and going to a town meeting form of government. It's not for me to decide. So, I can put that in like a lot of people said this, but I
just wanted to be really clear that I'm not personally I'm not not including it here because I think people who want to go back to town meeting are silly or nostalgic. That's not the case. This is a different consideration for what is on
this list. [clears throat] >> Thank you, um, Andy. And then I'm gonna cut off comments, I think, just for the sake of time. Uh, we should vote on this and let that be and move on. >> There's a whole other section of this
that we need to talk about. >> Yeah, we have other things we need to do. Andy? >> Yeah, I was just going to say that it would be helpful to scroll down and look at the section se second section because I think a lot of what um people um were talking about was their,
you know, dissatisfaction with lack of transparency and not knowing who to go to if they had thing, you know, things to say. And so some of that um you know I don't Erica can you scroll down to that section just to show people.
>> I can I wasn't sure if we were going to do that or vote or on something. >> I I think we should vote on this and then we can do that. I think that's a good suggestion Andy. Um >> yeah I mean I just think it's helpful because a lot of the people who were saying sort of either town meeting or or a mayor were mostly talking about
transparency and communication and a lot of those ideas come up in section B. So >> yeah. >> Um so I'll vote on this. Um I guess I'll make the motion that we include suggestions to uh form a smaller or
slightly revised form of town meeting in this agenda in this agenda. Sorry. Um do I have a second? >> I'll second it, but I don't think it's going to win. But anyway, okay. [laughter] >> Okay. The other the thing Andy suggested
is looking at the bottom and seeing if that changes anybody's mind, but it sounds like you and I are the only ones. Anyway, whatever. I'll second. >> Anyway, let's let's go on. And Andy, >> no. >> Um Erica, >> yes.
>> Uh myself, I'm an I. Meg. >> Yes. >> Uh Ken, >> no. >> Marcus, >> no. Raphael. >> Yes. >> And Bernie. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Four. Four to four. >> Four. >> Is that Is that really four to four? Yeah. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Couldn't hear Bernie. Thank you. >> So, we go what? Put it in and say it was four to four or don't put it in. Well, it fails, but I don't care. [laughter]
>> If we're putting in if we're putting if we're gonna put it in, if we're going to not put it in, then we have to take out this election of planning, zoning, and finance committee because that's also four to four. >> That was a different vote. That was whether to put it in the chart of
specific things. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. Yep. No, that makes sense. Okay. >> Um, can I just make a motion? >> Go right ahead. Yes. >> Yeah. I'd like to include a a bullet here where we talk about the um interest in moving returning to some
form of uh town meeting and there would need to be further work to explore exactly what >> that sounds. >> Can you repeat that? It was broken up. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm going to um the point is that we would uh include in
this document a bullet here that uh there was interest in returning to some form of town meeting, but that further work would be required to understand exactly what would be acceptable. >> That sounds good. >> I'll second. That sounds great. Better
wordsmith than mine. Um I'm just going to move us straight to voting for the sake of time. Um, myself. I'm an I. Erica, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Me, >> yes. >> Marcus,
>> yes. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Bernie, >> yes. >> Raphael, >> yes. >> Great. Excellent. Um, so, um, I'm just going through my list here.
I did have some other edits. They're much more minor for the sake of time. >> You want to move to section B then? >> Yes, let's move on to section. >> I just wanted to request before we fully move on, Marcus, could you email me a sentence to the effect of what your motion?
>> Uh, absolutely. Actually, can I um text Ken that before it leaves my head? >> Yes. >> Great. [laughter] Somebody just get it over to my email. Okay. >> Can I just give the the context? This is this is all this is a sort of bucket of
issues having to do with transparency, responsiveness of government representatives and so on uh and public engagement. And so the range of issues is broader here because this is not about structural changes anymore, but
sort of good government kind of practices and not necessarily mandatable in a charter. So I'm just going to scroll through a little bit. Just a question here that I flagged is without reducing their other
responsibilities. Were you hoping and including that or is that sort of colored to remove it? >> That's down below. Yeah, >> not there yet. >> Okay. Sorry, I'm looking at my version, not
the screen sharing. Can I just comment on one thing here on district the district meetings one you just scrolled past? We did um actually have a specific change to that in in in the in our suggestions that we are requiring three district meetings for
district folks and and uh at large folks counselors to attend at least one meeting in each district in their term. So I don't know if that means that we should >> we can note the change. >> Is this redundant or or or should we just note that we've we've actually
changed it? But I I don't know why >> I think well Andy if I can respond [clears throat] I think that we can leave in my mind we can leave it because even we can note that change here and say in addition right because because there's already an article that makes
that requirement but it's it's some feedback that we've gotten is that it's not either um >> it's notification too is right they're not well publicized enough >> yeah that's That's what I was trying to get at. Yes.
>> Okay. Excellent. [clears throat] >> But I can make the note of um that we have we have suggested a specific frequency change or >> um Okay. So the next thing is my question about the without reducing
their other responsibilities under community participation officer. >> Yeah, that wasn't I wasn't sure that was a good idea because it was sort of a snarky thing to say. [laughter] That's why I put it in blue. >> I have nothing wrong with being snarky. Um, but I do think we could find [clears throat] a way to say it more
formally, if you will. >> Or could we just Yeah, I don't know. >> I put it in blue because it was I don't know. We don't need to say that. >> Do we know? I mean, yeah, it basically >> the town manager implemented this by giving >> parts of by dividing.
>> I would just add >> Oh, I can't edit. Yeah, I like that. >> I would just add which due to attrition has been reduced to one. [clears throat] >> Yeah, >> because that sort of covers what you're saying, Meg, while so not pointing the
blame at anyone and just recognizing that >> poor Angela Mills is sitting up there holding three people's jobs now. >> And well, plus what her main job is already, >> right? >> Plus, she's out there whenever they have a town trash pickup, she's running it. And >> Exactly. God, I don't know how she does
it all. >> What is the suggestion specifically >> which due to attrition have been reduced to one? >> Thank you. >> Right here where I am. >> Yeah, you get rid of the blue. I put it in blue because I didn't think it was
too good. >> You should point out that [clears throat] um a lot of the staff um have multiple job descriptions. I mean, we we are t staffed very tightly in town
hall and um Angela's not very much appreciate Angela's work and everybody else in that building who does more than one thing and steps outside the boundaries of their job description. >> Yeah. >> Routinely to make things work. >> I they do >> I do I must agree with that statement,
Bernie. And I will just say having graduated the schools and having worked on other committees and in other departments, I will say that that sentiment is true outside of town hall and other town departments as well. [clears throat] >> Um,
>> yes, I mean I think Samantha's very overworked. She hasn't Yeah. >> Anyway, we we digress, but I completely agree. So here here is the issue that was raised before about um article 10. >> Um this is where it shows up in the
addendum and I just wanted to make sure everybody saw that. >> Great. Awesome. This is already here. >> Um >> yeah, right. right now. Um, the town manager is the ADA coordinator and that really should be a discrete
>> position, but >> y >> I would just say that I I think it would be great to include this in the preliminary report. um if we can uh I think where you start and says this section needs to be edited in bold red
font and through the draft list from Andy. I think that those things if we were to send it out um if we were to send it out with the preliminary report could just be deleted and then um edited and finalized for the final report.
>> Delete that first bullet. >> I'm sorry. What are you deleting? time. I'm saying that if we were to approve this for the preliminary report, it might be worth removing the piece that says this section to be edited. Um,
>> that's just for the one bullet point, >> right? So, we would just >> What's what editing is needed, Erica? >> This is this is a bullet point that needs substantial editing. >> Okay. So, I was just going to suggest that we still do that substantial
editing, but save that substantial editing for the final report and include the rest of this document in the preliminary report. >> I mean, it's an important point to have in um >> we can I think so if it's an issue about
that one bullet point, I think we can I think we can make it happen for the preliminary report. >> Right. I I have a a different comment which is a section that we didn't get to and didn't discuss yet is the third um
>> recommendations for how the council should respond and a kind of review of the review process. And if we want to um we can save those sections for the um final report because
they'll require more discussion than we have time for. >> I see. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean that might be a good idea. Maybe we could just say, could we have the headers and say, you know, >> you know, you know, >> coming to a theater near you,
>> review the view process, you know, to, you know, in pro in progress or something like that rather than I it'd be nice to telegraph that those are going to be coming and also >> yeah, >> recommendations for council response to be, you know, whatever. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, good idea.
>> PBD, something like that. So, we bracket those and then we're I guess I can make a motion so we can um come to a conclusion. Uh I'm going to make a motion that with
some editing the addendum sections A and B with some footnotes about C and D is included in the preliminary report. >> Second. >> Second. All right. >> Point of clarification,
uh, which is assuming we've approved the preliminary report tonight, when would that editing be done and sent to me by so I can send this to the town council? Um, Friday, Monday, Tuesday. Either's fine. I don't mind anyway. Just let me
know. >> Well, we're we need to get it out to the public. So, say again, Julian, what are you saying? There are two things. when it get when will it be done to send to the public as a preliminary report and we've said it'll be ready Monday.
>> Right. So, I'm just wondering when do you all plan to send the edited document to me so I can send it to the council >> and everybody can start publicizing it. Um, >> minus those two sections, >> including those two sections. No, I
thought we were >> My motion was for sections A and B and they need editing. And so Julian is asking when we can have those sections fully edited to include. Is that right? >> Exactly. >> So if if I can with support from Andy
and Meg to finish it up, I think I can say we can get it to you over the weekend. >> Perfect. That's great. And I'll send it out Monday. That's excellent. >> And will it be called the preliminary report? >> It Yes, with the addendum attached. and I'll send it to the council and CC everybody on Monday just like I did with
the first one. >> So, it needs to be posted on the town website on our site. >> Yep. >> Excuse me. Because we that's we're telling everybody where they'll find it. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll move forward with
voting. Um myself, I'm an I. Uh Erica, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Meg, >> yes. Bernie, >> yes. >> Marcus, >> yes. >> Raphael,
>> yes. >> Ken, >> yes. [clears throat] >> I believe that's it. Great. >> Um Huh. >> Yay. >> Yes. So, this is included. Um
Okay. Uh our last major thing is voting to approve the preliminary report. Has everyone gotten a chance to see the final updated version that Andy was gracious enough to send to us? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Excellent. >> It says 11425. Is that the that the
>> most recent version of the PDF? >> Yeah. >> The the only the only changes would be that we would be adding the addendum. >> Correct. And we also mentioned um the there were
two sections that were not written yet that were mentioned, you know, the the Collins Center memos and there was something else. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's what I was trying to say in my email that there was two things that we hadn't we hadn't addressed. Um but I
guess that can be saved for the final report. It's not a big deal. >> So we would just like um leave those out for now. >> Yes. I I would say though I included the advisory notes just based on the fact that I think some people recommended
things and because they're out of scope of the charter I wanted to make sure that was present somewhere fored but with the addendum I don't think those advisory notes are needed the memos are out there for the public the conclusion
piece though next steps I think it's worthwhile us thinking about what are those next steps Um, we're asking for the public to provide feedback on this for folks to weigh in. What are our next steps in
terms of moving to a final report? >> Do we feel we have the capacity to figure that out now or just not sort of include it in this report? It's not necessarily required, but I think good for us to think about. >> What do we,
>> right? >> What do we have now? I mean, as far as what in the preamble to this, did we say that there's going to be a final report or >> we just said this is preliminary report? >> Yeah, there's a there's a note about the process. So, yes.
>> Yep. >> We don't have >> we don't have to include the advisory notes and conclusion. We could decide, but I think we should really, whether it's included in this or not, be clear about what our process is to move from preliminary report to final.
>> Yeah. I mean, we could put in a paragraph that says, you know, we will be having, you know, releasing this to the public. We'll be having a forum on December 16th and, you know, the the location and the Zoom. I I don't
know. or do we just like communicate that through other means and not bother putting it in the in this report? >> Yeah, that's the question mark. I didn't know what the committee felt. >> People are going to get an email saying come to the forum and here's a report then maybe
that's enough. >> The email that I drafted and sent around says and your feedback will inform the final report. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, it's inviting feedback at the forum or any other time. It gives a link for giving feedback. If people can't come to
the meeting, the forum on the 16th in the town room at 7 o'clock, [laughter] be there or be square. >> Okay. >> Um, so I Does someone want to make a motion to approve this report with the
addendum? >> I think hands are up. I don't know. >> Sorry, I can't see people. >> Um, Meg and then Erica. No, I just spoke and didn't lower my hand. No, I'm lowering it. >> Erica, >> um, was the question of next steps open or did was that resolved?
>> I wanted to put it out there. I don't know. >> Yeah. >> So, I just wanted to say one thing about that. The ne the anywhere we publicize it, I think we should also publicize the the the event itself and the existence of a link which we'll have at the beginning of next week when Sam posts
it. Um, in fact, we can just use the town the the committee website, which is where she will post it as the default link in any, you know, any place you want to put it. If you want to put it in the beginning of the narrative of the report, that would also work because it,
that link is stable. Um, it won't change even when she posts it. Our charter committee um, charter review committee link is stable and can be included there. But in terms of next steps, I think we could just list se a couple of bullet points,
which is now that this report is complete, um there will be a public forum, there will be a final report, um and there will be a um respon response
from town council within 90 days of the day that we submit it, which is January 5th. So those things could just be listed for the sake of understanding where we are in the process and and I don't think it has to personally don't think you have to write a lot more there. Next steps.
>> Great. >> Excellent. Um do we have a motion to have a to approve the preliminary report with the >> Ben has his hand up. >> Yeah. Sorry. I was just going to say I completely agree. That was the one note I had at the very end of this this note
or this uh report was essentially say what what Erica just said. Don't don't detailed just just lay out the steps. That's it. >> So the the motion would then be to approve this report with the addendum and with a ne next step section to be crafted by Erica.
>> Yes. [laughter] >> No. >> And be careful when you raise your hand. >> No. No good deed goes unpunished >> apparently. if if if that Yeah, >> I'm happy to help. >> Yeah,
>> great. Um, so I'm going to make the motion that we approve the preliminary report um in full adding an addendum. Um, do I have a second? >> Second. >> Who seconded? >> Erica.
>> Erica. Great. Other comments, questions? No. Okay. Um, I'll move on with voting. Myself, I'm an I. Andy. >> Hi, >> Ken. >> Hi.
>> Um, Meg. >> Me. >> We can hear you. >> Me. >> Give a thumbs up. >> Huh? Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. >> My earbuds ran out of steam.
>> I great. [laughter] >> Erica, [clears throat] >> yes. >> Bernie, >> yes. >> Raphael, >> yes. >> Marcus, >> yes. >> Thank you. Um, that is approved
unanimously once Athena or once, excuse me, Erica sends me uh the edited addendum. Sometime this weekend, I will uh send this out to the council, CC you all, and we can start our community
outreach. I will also send out the date of our public form and this report and the addendum with the sheet to uh the local news outlets and folks. And hopefully we can get Samantha, the outreach committee can work on the full
outreach plan, but hopefully we can get Samantha to post this on Instagram, etc. Um, >> so, >> okay. Yes. Go ahead. >> Member of the outreach committee. Who's going to contact Samantha? I've already reached out to her, but I haven't heard back. Are you going to do that, Julian? Oh, Erica. Okay,
>> Erica. Great. >> Send. I'm going to send around again the spreadsheet of the outreach if people want to take places they know. >> Great. >> I added a column in yellow of this outreach, distinct from the last time we did a cycle of outreach.
>> Great. Um, okay. Uh future agenda planning topics not anticipated. >> Any comments? >> Could you briefly state our next uh meetings? >> Yes. Our next meetings are December 11th
at 6:00 p.m. That's a Thursday. December 18th at 6:00 p.m. That's a Thursday. And then um those are our last two meetings. We will be working on the final report during those two meetings. The 25th is Christmas Day. We will not have a
meeting. The 1st is New Year's Day. We will not have a meeting. Um the report is due on the 5th. If there is any sort of emergency need to schedule an additional meeting, I will pull the committee for that to happen on either
the 22nd and the 23rd or the 29th and the 30th. >> Does that make sense? >> So just the 11th and 18th. Is that right? >> Uh currently, yes. Unless we have a need for one final meeting.
>> Thanks. >> Are there com? Yep. >> And has >> other comments? >> Yeah. Has his hand up. >> Yeah. Um this is jumping ahead a bit, but um after we we submit that report on
the 5th and the council has 90 days to respond. They're not responding to us, are they? I mean, Julian, are you still I mean, are we still a committee at that point or are we disbanded? Do we you're done after you submit your report and
then your recommendations are in the council's hands? >> Yep. Thank you, Athena. I think that's helpful. >> Okay. So, if they they're unclear about something that's that's their problem. Like they they can't come back to us and say, "What do you mean?" >> They could ask it, but they're not obligated to. Right.
>> Correct. I obviously if the council if a counselor emails me or emails one of us as a committee members, I'll respond. Um but I'm not in I'm not responding on behalf of the entire committee. >> Well, that's also the purpose
[clears throat] that's also the purpose of the preliminary report going to the council >> to give them the opportunity to to give us feedback that we need clarification here, you know. So that's that's part of the process.
>> One week before Christmas, >> they'll have an opportunity to look at it and [clears throat] before it's dropped on the desk in the um January 5th. >> Okay. Uh future agenda planning comments not anticipated, topics not anticipated. >> Um are are is the whole committee
planning on attending the January 5th meeting? >> I am >> January. Oh yeah. at 6:30 >> the council meet the council meeting >> it'll be the first council meeting so Andy will automatically have to be there >> um me
>> is everyone planning how many of us are planning to come to the oh the forum in the town room on the 8th >> 18th >> 18th >> is that thank you I think >> that end up being >> 16th the 16th >> 16th 16th >> sorry I got 16th not the eth 16th
>> that's okay >> great >> did that end up being a hybrid event yes Yes. Okay. >> In the town room. >> Just checking. >> I'll be there. >> It's a Zoom event and this we've got thanks to Athena, we already have the link and if I already sent it around >> just so I can get an idea who's planning to come in person.
>> I'm I'm on the fence. I'm not sure. >> Who's planning to attend virtually? >> Yeah. >> Ken and Marcus. Any >> I'm not I'm not sure if I can. Okay. >> I'll be attending virtually. Marcus, >> I need to double check.
>> Okay, great. Um, other comments, questions. >> Could we When will we plan I guess the uh at the meeting next week? Wait, what is that? Yeah, we'll plan what we're going to how we're going to manage the forum, >> the fi the forum and the final report.
Yes. >> But I mean the how we're going to who's going to speak and what we're going to say >> and how we're going to let you know what's our timing and all that. >> Yes. Um, okay. I move to adjourn. >> Second. >> Uh, Raphael second.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Ken, >> hi. >> Um, myself, I'm an I. Erica, >> yes. >> Marcus, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Raphael, >> yes. >> Bernie, >> yes. >> And Meg,
>> no. Yes. [clears throat] >> Okay. Have a great night. Bye. Bye. >> You can stay, Meg. You can stay back. >> Just stay. [laughter] I'm done. I'm done. >> Party of one. >> Good night, everybody.