Hi Marcus. Great. We started recording. Thank you Athena. Um Andy here. Ken here. Excellent. Uh and Marcus here.
Great. Um that's a quorum of five people. Uh hopefully Erica will join shortly. Um she said she's going to join at 6:30. So, uh, I will get us started with the agenda. Um, apologies, I'm not
on camera tonight. Um, so first we're going to approve minutes. Meg, you texted me and said you haven't gotten the minutes from June done yet. So, we'll move on to July 24th. Um, and then August 24th. Could we have a motion
to approve both of those? I haven't read them, but so I'll abstain. I think it's August 21st, right? That's what I thought. August 21st. Thank you for the question. Message from somebody saying they were working on them still. Anyway,
um we've gotten we don't have the July 24th minutes yet. Someone's still working on them. You're still working on the minutes from June. Um, and then we have uh the minutes from August 21st, September 4th, and September 11th that
have all been sent um in and I believe have been sent to the committee. So, we can vote on all three of those. Um, if members want to make a motion, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Great. Um, we do have to go one by one.
So, could you specify? Sorry. Um, let's go work backwards. September 11th. Perfect. Second. All in favor? Andy. Hit the mute. I Marcus I
pen. I myself. I'm an I. Meg. I stay because I didn't got a chance to read them just but thank you for whoever. No problem. Um, I'll move to approve September 4th. Second.
Great. Um, Andy, hi. Myself, I'm an I. Marcus, I uh Ken, hi. Meg. Okay. Um, August. I'll move to approve
the August 21st meeting minutes. Um, second. Great. Uh, myself, I'm an I. Andy, I. Marcus I Ken I and Meg abstain.
Okay, great. Um, all those minutes are passed. Uh, we just need to get the July 24th and the June 26th minutes. Um, who uh is taking minutes for this meeting? It's back to your turn, Meg. Oh, great.
Yeah. So I'll do to somebody Marcus told Never mind I'll call Never mind it's not my own um public comment I don't see any members of the public at this point um
so we'll move on to there is a member of the public audience thank you thank you um would you like to make a comment uh Darcy no Yes. Sorry, I skipped over you. I
didn't see you. Um, nope. Okay. Uh, thank you, Athena. Um, we'll go with outreach subcommittee update. Uh, it doesn't look like Erica or Raphael
are here. Megan, perfect. Hi, Erica. Can you hear us? I can. Hello. Great. Awesome. Welcome. Um I Oh, did do you have an update on the July 24th meeting minutes?
Yeah, I submitted those several meetings ago. Okay, great. Um I will try to find them in my email and we'll vote on them next time. Apologies for not sending August. Uh I'll try to find the date that I sent them over, but it was it was posted as part of the packet.
Oh, then maybe we approved them already. We didn't uh we didn't get to them that night or something. I'll make sure to post them for the next meeting. My apologies on that. Thanks, Erica. Um, okay. So,
public. Um, moving on to outreach subcommittee. Do you want to give a report, Erica? Um, hang on a second. Yep. Take your time. Okay. Um so
our subcommittee hasn't met since last week. Um but we did meet and since our previous meeting and talk about the it was the same set of outreach activities that we had presented in the meeting I think two two
or three meetings ago now but um and so we're working on a draft of a letter uh that can be that can be either printed as a letter to the editor or sent around to to various entities or
people in town to kind of help promote the existence of the initial report once that's done. And we're also working on the kind of um set of additional contexts that we want to do outreach to beyond above and beyond what the town
can support us with. Um those are the two primary activities where um I sent a note an email to everyone in general um replying to Andy's attachments earlier just saying that I wasn't 100% clear on
what happened with the revision of the calendar for the extension and that I'm only bringing it up because it impacts our outreach the pace of our outreach activities. So when that comes around later tonight in the agenda um or now, I don't know, but uh it would
be good to know where we've landed. I don't have a sense anymore of what our target dates are. Yeah, thank you. Um so basically the extension request has been submitted to the council and I believe they're taking it up on October 6th. And
could you remind us what the exact timing? Uh January 5th. But there was a was there not a date on there for uh an initial or preliminary? Yes, there was. Um let me sorry.
Were those revised from what you originally had sent out or was it uh that date for the initial report looks to be October 2nd. Um so it's coming up. Uh that's why I was hoping to
have this extra meeting. So could we discuss that and whether it's realistic? I think it's better to have realistic dates than to set dates that aren't realistic. And I don't know. Yeah. I mean two weeks from now to finish a
preliminary report. No, wait. Is this the first report or the preliminary? It's the initial report. It's the first initial report. Um, I was just going to say I agree. I think I originally put on the calendar October 16th, uh, but Raphael had wanted
to see if we could get that moved up. Um, which at the time I felt like might have been possible, but if we want to reconsider and move it back to the 16th, I'm totally open to that. Well, what's Could we discuss what's involved to do it? Is this
what two things? Aren't there an initial report to the cut charter and then a preliminary report to the public? Aren't those two separate things? There's an initial report that we are making public. Then there's a preliminary report which is a revision
of that based on whatever additional feedback we get. Got it. Whatever we want to do to compile new information. After the preliminary, we have a public forum with the preliminary one in hand. And then there's a final So the initial report is one that's at
the moment October 2nd. Correct. That's what Julian was saying. Dennis is when is the preliminary report at the moment. If listen um let me find that for you. Uh if you have the document you want to
share it come out later. Um it is November 1st. November 1st. Yep. So could we sort of go through who's going to do right which what in order to get meet the October 2nd deadline in
order to decide whether we need to move it to Yes, we will. But now is not the agenda item for that. Now is the outreach subcommittee update. So we'll get to that soon because it well well we'll get to that soon enough. Um,
so basically is that all for your outreach subcommittee update, Erica? That's what I have to report out right now because we have additional, like I said, it's additional activities related to that calendar when we get to it.
I've got other questions. Two of us has her hand up. Yep. Andy does. Cat is up first maybe. I don't know. Andy, go ahead. Um, did the request of the town council include the intermediate dates or is it
just we'll deliver the final report by we're looking for an extension to deliver the final report by January 5th? It is only we will deliver the final report by January 5th. Great. So, we don't have to we we can we can butts with the the schedule however we want. Yep. Okay. Thanks.
No problem, Meg. Um, one of the things that we're working on on the outreach subcommittee is deepening the list that we have for outreach. And now we have a better understanding of what Samantha does. So,
I'm actually working on a I don't know if you got to look at it yet, Erica, a spreadsheet of a variety of uh outreach lists. And I'd like to once the subcommittee has reviewed it and edited it, I I have a lot of work to do on it still, but to send it to everybody in
between the meeting and get feedback on it so we don't have to take time during a meeting for sure in additions to it and people to take some responsibility. So, for example, if you have, for example, a contact in the Rotary, I'm not sure that's the best
list, but u that lists all the organizations that we think have email lists, then you could volunteer to be the person who would contact that key person in that list. So, everybody can look at that when we get it done and take on some outreach
responsibilities because our little subcommittee can plan it, but we can't do it all ourselves. I think. Do you agree, Erica? I think I do. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Um, do we have other uh questions, comments on outreach
before I move us to the feedback subcommittee update? Andy? Yeah, I got a question. Um, it it feels like we had talked about wanting to get a list that they we then could send to the Collins Center for their annotation
and vetting. And so I think we need to make sure we build that in to the outreach schedule so that whatever we are presenting to the public has been vetted um by our consultants. Yeah, agree. Plus one. Um, that's why the overall calendar, whatever we
decided to be, is important as it bears on outreach and everything else that cascades after. Yep. Excellent. Um, I'll move us along to feedback
subcommittee. Uh, update. Andy, do you have an update? Um, yeah. I mean, I we met um on Tuesday and um took basically the the
score sheet from our from the the voting sessions that we've done and I can share that and we basically I I emailed you the uh the the spreadsheet that has the
second I'm not sure I can see um I can't share Why not? Let me just talk you through it. Um, you guys each have a copy of the spreadsheet and um
it basically took the the the voting tab and then it added additional tabs for um one was a ranking of the votes called ranked. There are three tabs showing the the positive votes which are registered
in green, the negative votes that are med registered in red and votes where no majority has been reached yet. Whites and by the definition of that was basically the greens were five or more votes in the one or two categories. Red
reds was four or fewer votes in the one or two categories and whites were situations where we had enough abstensions that if they decided to vote to change their vote or to uh then then that would that could shift the balance one way or the other. So we didn't have
a definitive vote on those or we had agreed that we needed more discussion or information on on on those votes. So, we have sort of one tab that has all all the votes sorted as far as we we could um sort them out and then
three votes that that sort of have the subcategories of group, you know, basically yeses, nos, and and we don't knows yet. And then we also had we we we done a lot of flagging of various um potential suggestions. So, those were
flagged for different reasons. So, I think we need to go through at some point. We figured we need to go through at some point and figure out why we flagged them. Some of them were just, you know, we really need more discussion on them. Some were we need clarification from Collins or KP Law. Some were
they're not charter level, but we thought they were important. Um, you know, themes that might go beyond the charter that we wanted to make sure we registered even though we don't think the language belongs in the charter. So, those were that's that that's how we
sorted the votes out for um you know, ease of the committee's use and considered where we're at and where we need to go. Um so, our thought was that the ones that we've indicated that we have a majority for are are the green ones and then the ones that we're not
sure on yet are the white ones. and that we might want to go look at the white list and decide which ones we want to add to the green list and then send that list to Collins Center for their review. Um, so that was
that was our attempt to um, you know, move move the the ball forward as far as the voting and what what the what the list that might go into a table like the Framingham table um would look like. Thank you. Thanks, Andy. I wish I could share it with you, but I don't seem to see them
when I to share. I don't know if anybody else can, but maybe it's not necessary. Interesting. I was able to screen share, so I'm not sure. Um, but thank you for the update. I did have two sort of questions, concerns. um which was
basically it seemed like with some of them the majority of us flagged them or the majority of us abstained and those makes made a lot of sense to put in the white to me but I was sort of confused as to why we would want to put issues
where basically we had a clear majority saying yes or no um and then had like one abstension or two abstensions and or two people saying flag etc. Um, I
can think of a few examples uh on the sheet. If I had it in front of me, I could point them out. But there was a few in section 8, a few in section three where basically we have a clear voting majority one way or the other, and then
um and then a few people like one or two people who abstained. And yeah, maybe I I think I can give an example. I'm looking at it now. Another question, please, because I can't follow along. I'm I I'm looking at what you sent and maybe I'm looking at
the wrong file. What you sent earlier today with three attachments. That was that was that was um what I sent earlier today was minutes, right? But there was an attachment, a spreadsheet attached there as well. I thought this is not the one.
That's not the one. It was red and green. Isn't that it? Yeah. It was sent on um Monday on Tuesday. Yeah, it was sent it was sent Tuesday and um I believe I see one from the packet. I at least sent it to me
posted in the packet. Um I see it from yesterday. Okay. Sorry to interrupt. I'm I'm looking for right now. Go ahead. No problem. Uh I I just wasn't sure like there was a few examples where I sort of
was surprised to see a clear no vote or a clear yes vote. I had sort of assumed that abstensions oring wouldn't especially absentions wouldn't really count towards the vote being
decided yes or no. Um I sort of counted as abstensions as absentions, right? Um was was how I saw it. So I guess my question is a little clarity on that. Yeah. Um there well there's
okay there there's one in article 3 that has two yeses, two ones, three uh four twos and two threes. So but but it's vague language. So I think that's there because it's like unclear what the charter language would
be. So we'd have to figure out what we may have thought that it was a positive thing to it was basically do the town manager and town staff pay attention to committee recommendations and so we all thought that that was or six of us thought that that was at least an important point but it wasn't clear what the language would be but if I go
down to section 8 which you're talking about um see if I can find an example um I mean our sense was that in order for it to make it onto the list, we needed to have a majority of the
committee voting yes. So that would require five votes from the committee to put it on the yes list. So if we only had four votes from the from, you know, for one or two and we had three votes for three, you know, as a three, which
was basically no, and then we had one person abstaining with a flag. um then we don't have a majority of the committee saying this should go forward but we do have one person who abstained who could who could say you know what I'm going to change my vote and I want
to vote yes so then we would have five people saying yes so I think we felt that for something to go forward it should it should meet a threshold of a majority of the committee uh which would be five votes can Raise. Let me raise my hand here.
Julian, uh, Meg has her hand raised. You're muted. So, I just start. It's a quick question. Go ahead. So, um, the big unknown is I think people flagged things
for different reasons, but often it was because they thought it needed more discussion. And at the time when we were meeting at the library, I wondered when are we going to have those discussions? I know and I think that's the case of Raphael and a couple of times he he was sitting next to me and so I would I could see that he was kind of pondering
and I know I certainly flagged when I thought flagging it in the sense of let's come back to this and I don't know how we do that with so many how we have that many discussions but my understanding and memory is that that was what at least some of us meant when
we flagged something either it wasn't clear or we needed more information or we had think about a little bit. Maybe we could go back. I don't know if we if we flagged who flagged. Yeah. I mean, we we noted that in in the on the white tab that there are a number
of potential reasons why people flag things. And there was one where it's basically like we were talking about reducing the lame duck period from eight weeks to three weeks. And we I think we just felt like we needed more information on what that would do to the you know budgeting um calendar or
whatever, right? But other ones were basically what like okay I'm I'm flagging this because you know it's about transparency and we want to make sure that the transparency theme comes up. So let's just make sure that we put this in our list of other things. So there's a number of reasons why we
might have flagged things. Um, but it might be worth going through the flag list to say, you know, can we identify why we flagged these? Some of these might be we just needed more expert um input and so that then we could send those along to to Collins and say, give us some expert input.
I'm sorry, Julian, are you there? Yeah, thank you. Sorry, I had to step away for a moment. My cat was outside and there was a pretty large black bear in the yard. Um, so it's fun to live in the woods. Uh but I am back now. Um I heard most of
that explanation Andy, thank you. I was just looking again and basically there was the town manager section in the sheet and then there was uh for the one you mentioned and then there was I think three in section 8 where basically there
was like four votes in favor, five votes in favor and then two or three people who said to flag it. um and maybe one no vote, etc. So, I think it might be worth getting feedback from Collins on those
votes. Um it might be worth that sort of thing, but I just would hesitate like we have very few sort of we took a lot out with the red column already. So, it would be great to see if we could get some more of these ideas included in the
green column if that's possible. just to say to the public like, "Hey, we're listening to an extent. We want to have some of these ideas in there even if not everyone voted to support them as long as enough people did." Did we know who Sorry, I didn't have my
hand up. I'll raise it again. Three people have their hand up. Yep. Um I'm just here. Uh I have a comment myself. Um, but Erica, you raised your hand first, then Marcus, then Meg. Yeah, I just
wanted to say to reiterate Meg's point earlier, which is that that in our process during our retreat, the um the use of flagging was multiple like for different reasons and that just you know, Meg makes a good point and that we
should just maybe we could take the approach that we're going to work through or decide what to do with all of the things that are clear majorities and then um or what to do with things that are clearly falling off the bottom and then
leave a kind of u middle space for all these things that are flagged or don't have clear majorities one way or the other which is I think a different way of saying what you were saying Andy but I think because we because we were moving fast and also not intentionally
not having long discussions during our voting process it was sort of like a a deferral And we have to sort of make space for those things we deferred. Mhm. And not let them completely fall off. So
as long as we come up with some process for those middle things. Yeah, thanks for screen sharing Marcus. Um, you had a comment. Go ahead. Yeah, I was just going to say kind of to get to Meg and Erica's point a little
bit. We have gone through where clear flagging things were, you know, to be included. And you'll see in the reds as well, there's plenty of things that we' flagged um just so that we know that they're not going to be in. But we also
pulled out all of the flagged items so that we can um like you were asking you know the idea was to go through them and say look either group them you know on the transparency side or go straight to expert advice you know some of these
things right here. So, we we did bring that or did play with that idea, I should say. Um, and hopefully we can kind of get to get to that point fairly quickly, but yeah, yeah, now I've got to figure out how to
un lower my hand or whatever I'm doing. We'll see. Um, Maggie, your comment quickly. Um, do we know I don't think we noted who flagged. Second comment is um and I hate to say this because I think
we all want this process to move along quickly but I fear there's some things we need to actually talk about uh particularly because there are certain themes that we've wanted to develop like transparency I pick as an example that Andy mentioned and some of
those have implications that I think need to be discussed related to some of the flag things not only trans transparency but some of the uh I I I feel we haven't had enough discussion of some of this content of the proposals
particularly that are not clear like you know does it mean this or does it mean that or how would this apply is this practical things like that that we have yeah I was just going to say that I think it would be appropriate to send we
need to send all our edits off to Collins for some advice, but I think to basically ask for like a detailed explanation on the ones in the white columns. Um to basically say, yeah, here
that's perfect, Marcus. Um, like with some of these with the incorporation in article A that seemed to me like basically with you had a majority present in voting saying yes to that.
Um, you had two abstensions, but you had uh three ones and one two. That seemed to me like it was it's basically a 4-2 vote with two absensions. Um, in my mind that passes and should be in the green
column. Um, with article two, both of those I think the right the right idea is to have more discussion on it and then um to sort of first send it off to Collins and then after we send it off to Collins, get their advice, have some
discussion with that advice in hand. Um Marcus, if you want to scroll down just so I can see mention the other areas that I was going to say. Um one Andy mentioned in article three. Oh, and then public participation uh
measures. Yeah, I just see that those that that one where basically it's two that again is like a six to two vote. So I'm not sure with not even any extension. So that's another in the green to me. Well, the question is how do we give
language that reflects that? Yeah, that makes sense. That would be a Collins type thing. Um, scroll down again, Marcus. Yeah, sorry. I think that's important just to reiterate is the fact that it's not necessarily down to a vote on why
they're in the white, right? There is a need to Some of these are yes, pure yes. is like you just put up, but the language is so vague that we need to take an extra step to do something with it. The green stuff we can just throw in and do. It's the white stuff we need to
take that extra step. I think Collins is a great person is a great group for that. You want to scroll just up to section seven for a minute? Uh, okay. Yeah, that again you need language for a recall provision. I see what you're saying there. Well,
actually, yeah, that one's Yeah. Yeah. Uh, you want to scroll down a little more, Marcus? Um, yeah, I don't see anything under 9 or 10, but I was just going to say it looks like, yeah, scroll up to eight again.
Um, yeah, I see here like simultaneous transitions in Spanish. Uh, that passes in my mind. Same with uh same with the delete exceptions to voter veto provision and then delete the entire
section. Both of those pass and I don't see why you would need any language like simultaneous transitions to Spanish is just simultaneous transitions to Spanish. Deleting the provision entirely is again just deleting the provision
entirely. And those things pass with a majority. So, I don't I don't quite understand why these are flagged. Andy, um I I don't think we've had uh a clear discussion on what it means to pass, but
it seemed when we when we were doing our work in the feedback subcommittee, we felt like for something to to pass this commi committee, it should be approved by a majority of the committee members. And so if we can't get five members of the committee to say yes, we should we should do this,
then we didn't feel like that was a majority of the committee. It's not it's not a matter of if if a couple people are like, I don't know, and then the people who, you know, maybe we need to discuss it more and that's why it's in the white column. But it's not we we
need to have I think we need to have a discussion about what it means to meet the threshold. and we we've already agreed that we're going to if there's things that aren't specific language that goes into the charter committee um into into the report as as specific recommendations, we will still have
other things that we talk about that came up in discussion. But for us to to say we want to change we recommend changing the charter the town's constitution um and we're a committee of nine or of eight actually we need a majority of of
the committee whether it's nine or eight that would be five people and so if we don't have five people and the people who chose to abstain um should be given a chance to vote but if they don't want to change their vote then then we then we don't have a majority if you got four people voting for something.
Yeah, I just sorry. Other comments, questions? Yes, I have my hand up. Yeah, go ahead, Erica. Um, Andy, if I could clarify, are you just I want to understand what you're proposing in terms of process. Are you saying that if something is either not a
clear majority in one column and or it's been flagged by one or more members of the committee, then it should be sort of it should pause before proceeding for further discussion. Um, we have we have two different
things. We we and they're two different tabs and those represent the two different things. The flagged tab has all the things that have been flagged. Um, and and we could go through that and say some of them clearly passed, some of them clearly did not and then some of them we don't have a
majority of the committee saying saying yes yet. So there may be different reasons that those are flagged and I think we need to sort out like are we flagging certain each one of them. Are we flagging this because it's because we need to discuss it more or are we flagging it because we just want to make sure it gets listed in the report
somewhere even if we're not recommending it as a change. Right? the um the white list is basically ones where we don't have a you know if if you take all the members of the committee we don't have a definitive majority or
voting for it but if we have people abstaining and if they wanted to change their vote that they could produce a clear majority or a clear minor you know or clear yeah clear in favor clear against so we felt like that was that was you know can I just clarify by what you're just
saying, right? So, you're saying clear a majority, but I think we need to actually put numbers to it for people's um understanding. In the com in the subcommittee, we were saying that columns one and two had to add up to five basically. That's what you're counting as a majority.
Yes, that's what we're counting as a clear majority. What if it's two and three? But they have to add up to five. So, it doesn't matter. Yeah. Yeah, Marcus, just to follow up is what if there's columns two and three add up to five?
But three was always a no. So a majority was a majority of yeses, right? So we had one and two were a yes. One was I I really it absolutely has to be in there right now. Two was I'm kind
of okay with it. You know, let's do it. Three was no, I don't care about it. We're not doing it. abstain and flag. You know, they're abstain and flagging. So, for the subcommittee to say that this was actually going to go through, we needed columns one and two to add up
to five. Are there comments? That's why that's why there's um you know like uh somewhere up here somewhere in these where this is for right and it's really a case of where
this um abstain would go as to whether we get a majority or not. So, sorry. Uh, I'm seeing Andy, your hand still up. Yeah.
Um, yeah. Ju just as as um as Marcus was saying and to amplify that. I I believe that num that the voting number one was to say this is a high priority for me. Voting number two was it's not really a high priority, but I but I'm okay with it. And voting number three was saying
I'm against it. And so we saw those as both. Yes. Erica, go ahead. Yeah. The other thing that to remember is that from our retreat that the other factor that went into the
vote was the feasibility and that was something that was this we discussed around the table. like that's part of what factors into um this whether we are advancing or prioritizing something. It's it is its feasibility
uh not our own necessarily our own priorities but a feasibility as a recommendation to modify the charter within this process um without necessarily knowing all of the legal ramifications of all of it. It was a
kind of ranking of this seems sort of plausible to advance as part of a recommendation. I just don't want that to drop out like this was just just us kind of picking and choosing our own priorities.
I think that's what it informed when we whether we chose one, two, or three though, right? I mean, it's I think they're both uh they're both involved because our it's our priorities came from like our informed process over the course of this year. It's not out of nowhere. But it also has
to I think it also had to do with I remember Raphael bringing it up and other people brought up the idea that the sort of feasibility of making change or making recommendation for change. it was part of the uh criteria.
Just worth saying. Thank you, Erica. I agree. Um I was just going to say that like something that Bernie reminded me of at the retreat that I think sort of applies here is and I think he reminded the whole committee
was that abstensions count as abstensions. They don't count as a yes. They don't count as a no. They count as abstensions. So in my mind that means that whether something passes or not is an issue of a
majority of those voting one way or the other. And our committee has a lot of work to do, a lot of work ahead of us. We have three reports to submit. I feel like if we can eliminate maybe four or five sections in the white to say yes, we'll
pass this and we'll support what the idea was suggested by the public. I think that that will both move our committee along and follow the Robert's rules of order of how voting on committees and in town own governments
and municipalities is supposed to work. I mean, we don't get to invent our own voting system here. I think we should follow the Robert's rules of order as best we can. Erica, what are you proposing that's different
from what Andy proposed a little while ago? What I'm proposing is going through this list and anything that doesn't need explicit language or clarity such as section such as section 1.1
and then section 8.3 and 8.4 4 8.5 and then the simultaneous transitions to Spanish that we count those as pass votes because as green because that's
the majority of members voting voted for it. Um, I worry that we don't want to go in here and say, "Okay, because some people want to keep the
voter veto provision or some people would rather our meetings be monolingual." Um, that we would not put those in the green category. If they lost the vote with Robert's rules of order, they lost the vote. That's okay.
I respect their opinion, but I think that the green category is where those five or six things belong. So just a quick thing on this simultaneous the re another reason why this was white too is the fact that it's
actually exists today. So the town already owns capabilities to achieve this. So adding it that was another reason why we wanted to
have additional discussion on it was that this exists already. Is there a need to put it to the level of a charter or is this something that we just say hey guys let people be more aware of it. Right? Just because we put something in
a charter doesn't mean anybody's going to realize it. But really what the focus would be this would be something to do with the public outreach. Right? let people know that these capabilities exist. So it's not, you know, I
understand your point, but there's a little bit more um nuance to some of this. So that sorry to interject, but that that's an example I think Marcus of like an of a a feasibility issue, right? If it's something that already exists but isn't
well known or something that you know it it it it's clearly like there's a there's a desire for it, but it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of the charter. That those kinds of things are about feasibility, not just priority of value.
I would just add that like I personally I I I guess we'll use this one as an example, but I feel like it's reasonable to add it into the charter given that
I attend almost every council meeting and I am on two committees. I've never seen a median be translated for someone even though I think
something like 30% of Ammerst High speaks two languages. So, like maybe if you are both technologically savvy enough and have $100 to buy a translation software on
your phone, maybe it is possible theoretically, but I don't think everyone is in that situation or wanting to go through that amount of effort to um to access their government. Um, and I
would say that like again with like delete voter veto provision, delete the section entirely. Four people voted yes to delete the section. I mean, that seems pretty much as close to a mandate as we can get. Erica,
is that a mandate? I think Ken had his hand up. Ken, sorry. Go ahead. Hi. Um, uh, this is, uh, a little frustrating to listen to. I'm not not frustrated with anybody in particular,
but I'm trying to, uh, I'm trying to move us forward here. I actually agree with Julian going back to what extensions are. Abstensions are I'm not voting. And I am not and I don't think
Andy's suggestion that we go back to the extensions and say, "Hey, what do you want to what do you want to do now?" Those extensions are abstensions. And so I'm in agreement with Julian that if we had a four to two with two abstensions,
that's a majority vote. And those abstensions stay um because I I do want us to move forward and I want us to classify these things to get them in the hands of Colin so we can move forward. Thanks, Ken. Um other comments? Uh Erica, your hand still up.
Yeah. Um I totally want to move it forward, too. I just want to have a real coherent process because I think part of why we're in a state of a little bit of confusion is because some of these things weren't 100% clear as we started down the road on September 6th. And so
we're trying to clarify them now. So I don't want to delay any further than we have to just to be super clear. But I just think going back to use the example of the Spanish translation, it would be a to my mind a mischaracterization to say that because
four people voted to prioritize this and four people didn't that that means that four people don't think it's important to for the town to to provide some kind of translation. In other words,
you you can interpret that vote in a number of ways, but I think it would be a mischaracterization to say we don't value the translation into Spanish or the making things accessible in general in meetings. It's more about is this a charter?
Does this rise to the level of the charter appearing somewhere in the charter? And we don't need to debate it right now, but I just want to be clear on terms, right? It doesn't mean we're not it's not a value vote of like I think translation's important well I
think it's not important or I think we should only speak English. This is not that debate. We shouldn't turn it into that. It's a debate about does this rise to should we make this recommendation that the town should make this a a kind of constitutional issue to Andy's point
like are we revising the constitution towards this or are we are we putting it somewhere else like another set of recommendations that you should listen to town council are these in addition to the thing the ways in which you should modify your own charter
and so those those two things are really important to keep clear. We're not voting on what we think about Spanish translation in that case. Right. Um Andy and then make I'm just looking at this example. Um we
have three votes in the one category, one vote in the two category, three votes in the three category. We don't actually have any extens any abstensions. We have somebody who flagged it rather than voting. So I don't know if that counts as an abstension or not. But um I think that
this is we we kind of got flag happy toward the end and in some cases it meant I'm flagging this because I want it to be on the list of things that we talk about that aren't in the charter and sometimes it was like well I don't know what to think so I'm just going to flag it. So I I don't know how to interpret that but I do I do kind of
feel like if we're gonna and I guess I feel both ways. I if it's a if it's close to a judgment call then maybe we should be more inclusive and and and keep sending it along. But I think our final recommendations should be supported by a a numerical
majority of the entire committee. So um you know we I I don't know if that means Thank you. strongly encouraging people to take a position. Thanks. Or or or you know but but it seems like we should have a threshold when we have
a fin when we finally have a report to say a majority of the committee stands behind these recommendations. So, I mean, if if there's a couple things here that we'd like to pass through, fine. But, um, the reason we have the white is because it wasn't really clear
to us which way the committee felt. And in some cases, it's because it wasn't very clear what the process was because of flagging versus abstaining versus, you know, so on. Thank you, Meg. Um, at least for myself, flagging and abstaining are not were not
the same thing. I was sometimes abstained because I didn't have an opinion or I didn't know enough or I couldn't decide. But flagging meant there's something to talk about. At least that's how I voted. Flag is like, wait a minute, I want to
come back to this. I'm agreeing if you abstain, you took yourself out of the voting. But if you flagged, maybe you didn't. Yep. Sorry. Thank you. Got to put my hand down.
Other comments, etc. What is the X in the F column mean? It was flagged. It was flagged. And so the the what is Yeah. If I'm looking at line 37
in the A column, there's two flags and then there's an X in the flag column. How do I read that? Yeah, the flag column just means that just recognizes that there was an F in the in the abstain column. We just went through
all of the list if there was any any F anywhere. I see. Or in some cases an it's not a separate thing. No, it's it's just keeping track of all the flags. Okay. But but it looks like we only have seven votes in um in 30 36
or somebody chose to say flag rather than voting. So I can I Yeah, you can chime in. Um, I mean, I think our goal here was to just sort of move the ball ahead to to sort of clarify where we were in some in in the
obvious cases. The greens and the reds seemed like they were fairly clear. Um, the whites we didn't feel like were were clear. If we want to clarify the whites or if we want to go through the flags, those were the two areas that we thought maybe the committee should be focusing on.
I think Yeah, thank you. I think the best use of our time right now might be to go through everything in white and decide what we want to do with it. If we want to keep it in white, if we want to bring it to Collins, if we want to put it in green, put it in red. Um, I think
that might be a good use of the committee's time to sort of move forward so at least we have clear boundaries of what we would include an initial report and not. Um, Marcus, would you mind scrolling to the top?
Thanks so much. Um, is that all right with folks? We'll just move through one by one and we can have a little bit of discussion if we need to. Um, just being conscious of time. So, we'll get us started. Article one. Um, in my mind, this should move into
the yes call. Um, how do other folks feel? Okay. Comments. Uh, don't see any hands raised. Uh, I guess we'll just go around and say I guess if folks don't want it moved
into the yes column, I'll ask that you speak up. And if not, we'll move it in the yes column. Is that all right? Okay. So, moving Yeah. just uh if you're going to be marking things, the green is the lightest green
in the in the top right corner. Thank you. Sorry, I will find the uh mute button and get to that X ASAP. Yes. Um Yeah. No, I'm a I'm a no on this one.
Okay. Um so maybe the best way to do it is vote it. Yeah, I think I think that's the exact way. Yeah. Okay. Okay. How are we We don't have everybody here, correct? Oh, that's crazy. This is This is really
I mean, we had a vote with all of us here, and now a majority of us are going to say whether it should go green or not, but this is what happens when you're not here. But yeah, this is also work that can be um that can be done outside of the committee meeting.
Yep. Um because if we're if we've come up with a process that is go through everything that's in white and vote again and see if we come up with a different answer. But if you want to actually come up with if if you want to move these into one or
the other, I think it involves discussion, not just a vote. Otherwise, we're back at zero. Right. I agree. Especially because voting now is fewer of us than were made the original vote. Yeah. It's fixing. Three of you aren't
here, so we're going to revote it. So, how do we want to how do we want to dispose of these then is what I would ask the committee. Do we want to send everything in white to Collins? Do we want to what what is the suggestion, I
guess, is what I'm saying is I personally would like to go through and move a fair amount of these into the green column. I understand a lot of committee members don't agree with that. Um, so how would we want to dispose of
that? We can't just wait until we're lucky enough to find a night where all eight members can join us. Um, that isn't realistic. Could could we walk could we walk through
these briefly and maybe we can say because we've been the the um feedback subcommittee's been through this once already that maybe we could say why we thought it was in this in this category that be helpful that's great and
and we can discuss it a little great so could we flag the flag could we identify any that following what Erica's suggestion question that there may be some things we could homework we could do on our own and invite others who aren't here to do as we go through this
quickly. Would it be helpful to identify those things where it would be good to get individual feedback? I'm not quite sure how that would work, Erica, but it was an interesting idea that some of this work we could do between meetings. It's just one way to do it. I understand people don't want to slow down, but I
also think the other way to the other way to go is to um is to s simplify this list of the the ones marked white or the ones that are flagged or both and send a packaged
version of that to Collins for some additional feedback that might actually inform a refreshed vote um with with some hard information because a lot of these things is where we ran into uh the wall of not necessarily being
clear about is this charter is this charter worthy? Is this charter appropriate? Is is this so is this might be a good point to just take the things that aren't clear red and greens and package them up for additional feedback. Mhm.
I I I actually would like to get their feedback on what we think is clear because I don't think we have I don't think that as a as a not not exclusively, Andy. I meant like as a as a next step for these these things in a sort of gray area that we've been debating all night. Um that's
what I was saying. Not that we'd ever consult them again, but that Oh, maybe can we can we take a couple of these just so we can walk through and sort of say what we thought why we thought they ended up here and then we can that might help us decide which ones can just go into the green or or the
red. Yeah. So, the first one I I hear the argument um that abstension shouldn't count. So, maybe it could it could go in. I mean, I I was one of the threes, so I'm not going to I'm not going to reiterate my
argument, but um so I don't I don't think this this is a big one. I mean, I think we could probably dispose of it. It's not there because it's not clear. It's there because by the system we were using, we didn't arrive at five votes from from the full committee.
The next one, I just on that one, I didn't I abstained, I think, because I didn't have an opinion, but anyway. Yeah. I mean, it's basically it's basically taking language that exists as a as a as a suggestion and making it a mandate. So, um,
so are we moving moving that into the green? I guess I I I'm just thinking it would be good. I mean, we could What do you I mean I should we vote should we vote to move these or we just saying yeah?
Is it okay with folks prefer to do? I do not care either way. I move I'll move to put this in the green. Do I have a second? Second. Great. Um myself I'm an I. Meg.
Hi. Sorry. I just need to pull up everybody's name here. Um Andy. Um abstain. Okay. Um so predictable.
I'm just was trying to pull out my original vote. So, give me a moment, please. Oh, yeah. That's a good idea. Yeah, I'll move on to Ken. Hi. Great. Um, Marcus.
No. Okay. Uh, Erica, we're just waiting on you. I'm going to go get my votes in the other room. Well, it's pretty much a green anyway. Yeah, I Yeah.
Yeah. It's going to be moved either way. Let's put it on the list. I mean, I I would I would strongly hope that we would have a final vote before we actually, you know, and we have agreed upon rules for what makes it in and what doesn't. Yeah. But this is this is an intermediate
process. So, fine. the um so the so the next one article line nine article two sorry just hang on a second let me um make sure I save this so that we oh yeah don't lose all of our wonderful votes
uh any team thank you great so the next one was eight of us abstained and flagged because uh we needed more information.
So this is clearly one that we we need we need to dig deeper on and I think the main thing we were trying to figure out and we actually talked about it in the feedback subcommittee was um what difference does it make if the council is sworn in at the end of
November versus the beginning of January to the calendar? can't the calendar stay the same and you can just have them do other things until you get to the calendar. Um, but we don't know the answer to that. So, if there's if there's a if there's some problem that
we're not anticipating, then then, you know, we should know about it. But it's clearly not on the list of things to say yes to because nobody voted for it. So, it's it's not that we're against it, it's that we don't know. This is a this is a pure white.
Yeah. I will just say this, there's a lot of information about this in League of Women Voters materials. Um, I think it's totally fair to flag this and send it to Collins. Um, and same with the next one. The next one is we we basically said we
needed to split it and discuss individually whether whether we were voting for an increase or a decrease. So, we could do that, but we we have that's why it's there was no vote. Um, this next one, there are only seven people voting, so there's no extension
there. There's no flag, so we might want to fix that. Um, but also it's so there's no majority. Uh, I mean, it's a I think 17 it's a four to three, but we we're missing a vote. But which one are you on? I'm sorry.
Uh, line 13. So that's strengthen checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches. I would just say one comment here is it may be, and I could be wrong, um that
with a few of these where there was only seven votes, maybe someone went to get something from their car or went to the bathroom or something and missed totally understandable. It's just that we don't have we don't have eight votes, so we didn't think we should put it forward yet talking about it.
Um so then the next one The next one is clearly, you know, there's six people in favor of it for six two and four four I mean two ones and four twos, but the thing itself is do the town manager and town staff pay attention to committee
recommendations. So what does that mean? I does that what language would go in a charter? It seemed like people felt like it was a good good question, but it wasn't language. So that can be sent to Collins, I guess. Um,
right. So then the next one, all applicants should be informed. Um, again, we only had seven votes. We didn't have a majority, so that's what why it went in our white. But, you know, if we want to put it in uh in the green, that's fine
with me. Okay. I I personally think both of those seven votes should go in the green. I mean, it seems like there was a majority both times. Uh, and one person might have been out of the room for a moment. Well, I mean, we should give everybody
the chance to vote. Yeah. I I guess maybe the best way to approach this is just to email everyone and say if you haven't voted on these to reiterate their vote. Great. Um, what
that could be that could be homework. Yeah. Oh, yes. on the 27 votes we could say please everybody send in your votes on this so we clear perfect um this I think this whole section should go to Collins quite frankly well that that's that's basically what I
mean we we basically said we need expert advice so but I but I will point out that in um article four on line 20 it says lengthen and stagger terms for elected offices in article two we had the same language that we voted in favor of
So we probably say yes this is a good idea but we still need advice on it. I guess we can label that green. I mean clearly this involves changing the terms of election. So it's beyond the level of the council. So they need to tell us how we could do that
right so I put that as green. Um but that's an example just that the the part in the part you referred to in article two I remember flagging the lengthen and stagger terms for elected office flagging because it's
probably governed by state law is what I think we learned. In other words, that would change that would impact its appearance in article 4 as well. Yes. Correct. So, we would need Yeah, I think so. I
mean, we voted there were five votes for it in the in article two. one of them the the the the two column had an asterisk in it which we assumed was a flag. So I think that's what we we moved to flags from asterisks after that but so so that that
could be um it certain I mean it certainly could be in the green and we and we still need expert advice so but it's certainly something they could annotate. Yeah. Um, all right. My notes my notes say those should be
divided. Lengthen and stagger. Yeah. Well, the point of that I think I think it was the point of lengthening them was so they could be staggered. That was my understanding. Oh, okay. Of the Okay.
Yeah. My notes. Yep. So, maybe we should say that. Maybe we should say that. Yeah. I mean, we might want to lengthen in order to stagger. in order to stagger because if you don't lengthen them, you can't unless you're gonna have an election every year.
Yeah. Yikes. Yeah. Which is what they do in one place somewhere. Chickabe. Yeah. Chickabe, I think. So, um Okay. Well, let's move on to SE section five.
Yeah. I just want to point out the two at the bottom of this section we had in in article four. Sorry, can you scroll up? So, yes. Yeah. Um, these were both voted, you know, nobody voted in favor of them, but five people abstained and flagged. So, if we're leaving out
abstensions, it clearly failed. Um, but people people flagged it and I don't know why. Or they abained. I I flagged it and I can say why. Well, did you abstain too? No, I think I
flagged it because what is how what are some examples of how you would enhance transparency in the town budget? Is that No, this is planning board, zoning board of appeals and oh, I'm sorry. should be elected by residents, not appointed by the flagged because we need expert advice
because we're not sure if that basically it seems like some members supported the idea, but um we needed the Colin Center to confirm whether that can happen in both cities and towns or just in towns. Thank you.
As in official like town meeting towns, not towns like Ammerst where we've done this political thing. Um, article five, enhance transparency. I think that was one where there's no language there that
can go in a charter. Three people voted against it. Five people have flagged it, I think, because they they think transparency is important. Right. I agree. I don't I don't think we would send that in. I was but I was in that category of people a lot of people want more transparency, but what what how do you
do what we need some examples of what how to do that and what it means? I think I think we can ask Collins with some if see if they have ideas. But didn't we just say we're not sending that? We have some ideas in here that are about transparency. So, okay. Okay.
Concerns about lack of collaboration between school system and the town. Again, this is like um it's a value statement, but it's not really something that gives us language. I think I think with both of these we should ask Colin centers center to see
if they could think up some language for us to consider. Sure. I I I disagree. I think we have we have specifics about transparency. I mean about ways that people can find out things and we should and we should
consider those and and we also have um a section on the school committee and we have things you know that we could add we could specifically say things but I I haven't seen anybody suggest I I don't know what that would be. We don't have anything directly governing the school
budgeting process and I think that is what as in suggestions and I think that is what Collins could help us with to see if they could develop a proposal that might improve the situation for the community. Well, we have a regional system that's not even we're not even under the
control of. So, it's it's not going to be easy. Correct. But that's why we hire a consultant to figure out those difficult things considering that Ammerst still pays 81% of the region and has its own elementary school that they're having
trouble funding. I mean, we we have nobody voting for this at this point. That's my point. There's no positive votes at all. So why would we be second-guessing
the input of this committee? Well, I mean, we can we can certainly do it. Yeah. Sorry, Erica's got a hand up. Yeah, Erica, go ahead. This is this goes back to the point five people flagged it, right? Because it it maybe didn't rise to the
level. It didn't sort of fall off like this is unimportant, but it clearly is a longer discussion than we would want to take on a simple vote of prioritizing. So, that's why it was flagged. I didn't abstain from anything. I if they if I had a if I had an additional question I
flag things. So that's how I use the vote that day. So five flags to me says we need additional discussion and we can that discussion can be we need consultation. That's part of what we've been marking and part of it is we need to mark certain things for additional discussion
among ourselves to decide well this is a dis this is a comment that came in about this subject. Do we can we actually do anything about that in the charter? And it may be that the answer is no and
we don't need to debate any further. So is that our discussion or you you're saying or we put it in as a question to Collins specifically around it where it says concerns about lack of collaboration that whole thing. Yeah. Um
I don't I don't think this is this one is a line item because it's not clear what it's actually asking for. It's raising an issue about transparency which comes up in other places. So it may be that we need to have a you know I think I
suggested this maybe during our retreat that we could contemplate sort of having a series of addendums that aren't part of the report that are charter suggestions but are yeah here's a set of recommendations around transparency that came up over and over again that don't necessarily
rise to like article 4.2 to revision, but it has to do with how to increase transparency because the public is raising this concern over and over again in various ways. So, but but like that we can't have that debate that we can't
arrive at that suggestion right now because it's complex. And so maybe it's not this one doesn't go to Collins because it it's Collins can give us like um context and advice if there's something on the table right here. It
feels like there's nothing on the table yet. That's my view. Yeah, I was just going to say like I agree with Eric. I think there's not much really on the table here and Collins could at least be able to give us advice, give us legal wording, and
also tell us like, hey, here's what other municipalities that have a working relationship between town council and school committee or have chosen to fully fund their schools have done. And I think that this is arguably,
depending on how you see it, at least one of the top three issues facing this community as a town. Um, and I think the community would be disappointed if we don't address it at all or find any ways
to potentially improve or clarify the situation between the collaboration between the town council and the school committee and how we fund our schools in a fiscally responsible way that is
not basically firing teachers year after here. Magaz Ken. I strongly agree with um Erica. I don't know if this is something that would come in the narrative about other things that we heard, but to not this was something a lot of people have said
it doesn't necessarily mean funding our schools. I mean, you go a little further than I would go, Julian. I think there's been a lot of feeling that uh the relationship between the school committee and the council needs to be improved. We we heard it over and over
those of us who went to the listening sessions and uh I don't it's certainly not a maybe it's not a charter thing but it's something that we heard a lot. Yeah, I would say we I agree, Meg. We've
heard it a lot from the community and we've heard it from counselors and anyone who's following town government or even reads the newspaper knows that the current relationship um not to place blame on one side or the
other is not working. So Ken and Andy have their hands up too. Um Ken and then Andy. um in in in support of Erica and maybe even more broadly. Um yeah, I always saw our reports as being something that obviously obviously focused on the
charter itself, but also giving shining light on these things that are not charter related but we heard about. And then a third level is simply just having an addendum that has everything in it. All things that are sort of quite
frankly ridiculous at times and some are very Um but yeah, these transparency needs to be one of those things that is not a charter thing, but it needs to be it needs to be highlighted for the council to say we gave the public a megaphone
and here's what they told us and you should probably listen. Yeah, I agree, Andy. And then I'm going to try to dispose of this with a vote. Um since it's clear there's some level of disagreement. I I I think we need to distinguish
between political um you know relationships in the town that change from time to time and and and and things that are about how we organize the system. And I'm not sure that the relationship between the town council
and the school committee is a structural one. I think it's one about relationships and and politics. And so that's that that that that happens within a structure. But I don't think there's something structurally wrong with how we're we're organized or
something that's structurally fixable. I think it's that the people involved have to fix it uh within the system. So I I think it's important to keep our eye on that we're that we're building sort of a concrete framework and that what happens within that framework involves people
and and sometimes it's going to be frustrating. Okay. Other Ken, do you have another comment? Nope. I guess your hands just still up. Um, I'm going to make the motion that for this issue with concerns about a
lack of collaboration between the town and the schools that we ask Collins for potential wording and examples of what other municipalities have done. Um, do I have a second? second.
Thanks, Meg. Um, could could we have a discussion? That's what I was gonna I was about to get us to a discussion. Um, you're first in line after I make my quick comment. Um, I was just going to say that
I I think that it is a structural issue. I think funding education funding on the local, state, and national level is a structural problem. and the charter is part of that structure and part of that
system. Um, and if we can make a small change in the system to help make the structural problem better um with education funding, especially in the current political climate, that is a good thing. Um, just a s just random
suggestion as an example of how that would be done. We ask the town manager to attend one school committee form a year. I have never personally seen a town counselor in the school committee audience. Um, just my own anecdotal experience. If we asked town counselors to attend a forum on the public school
budget, maybe that would help something. It's certainly something that could go in the charter um that could come out of this recommendation and allow counselors to maybe get a little bit different of a perspective um or at least open their
minds. Uh Meg You're muted. I think it's Yeah. Thank you, Athena. Well, there you are, Athena. I think this is um I I would word this differently, and I know we don't want to go there, but I think it's emotionally stated, lack of collaboration, no
collaborative process. Uh I would rather word it in terms of desire for greater better quality communication between the school system and the town. um particularly concerning looking at the calendar
uh clear communication I don't know but I just think words like lack of collaboration and not a collaborative process are emotional and uh by you know they as as Andy said this polit it's more of a political comment
than describing a process this I'm not it's not I know it's not related to the charter but if if there are uh issues around how major bodies in our town relate to each other. Maybe it's something that should be that we should
ask the Collins Center to help us frame so the language isn't political and emotional. Thank you, Meg. Um Andy, I see your hands up. Yeah. Um I I agree me that that would be a great way to frame it and I think it
should be in the supplemental section which is things that we heard rather than things that we want to put in the charter because I think that's I think it's important to we we said we wanted to reflect the things that we heard loud and clear and this is something we've heard loud and clear but I don't think it rises to the
level of the charter or it's is specific enough to be in the charter. Well, do people want to amend the language? Oops. I didn't raise my hand. It's okay. I'm not completely sure I agree just because we as a committee, yes, the public is going to offer
emotional statements to us. Of course, people are rightfully emotional if their child's teacher is laid off and they feel that that was a very good teacher, a good program that their child was in. People will be emotional about that.
It's our job as a committee. we stepped up to the plate to be able to decode those emotional statements from public commenters and say so what can be done about that at a structures and systems
level and that's why we need to see from Collins or someone who has more expertise than we do who's smarter than I am to say
Hey, here's ways that you could improve this relationship that do rise to the level of a charter or that other municipalities have in their charter. Um because I know other municipalities do address this issue, especially ones that have had problems with school funding or
funding of other services before. Um other comments before I move us along to a vote on the motion? Just a quick one. Yeah. Marcus, can you show what?
Sorry. Go ahead, Andy. Then Erica, Marcus, can you show us the green page just so that we see the things that we're send the list of things that we're sending to Collins to comment on? Now, just scroll up. These are all things that we agreed that we want them to to give us feedback on
and to help us understand um how to how to put forward. So, they're going to have their hands full with fairly specific things that we're asking for. And for them then to give us some feedback, that's good
enough, I think, um to give us feedback on um you know, an emotional statement about um political bodies not getting along. Um, I I just I I don't I think we I think we should register it
in our in our down below our chart. That's all. Thank you, Erica. Um, I will just go back to what I said earlier, which is that uh it may be useful to get input from Collins, but
not until this is kind of put into the form of something they might better be set up to respond to. In other words, it's our work as a committee to to parse this into uh a either individual or set of comments that we receive that have to do
with like we could say to Collins at some point that's not about a line item in this feedback spreadsheet, look, we're receiving a lot of comments about uh the the the poor quality of the relationship between these two entities. Um what are specific suggestions that
might exist around that? And that's it. It doesn't have to be a response to this particular phrasing of this particular um issue, but I think we can, you know, I might I might amend this motion, which is do we send this to
Collins or not? um to say put it in a bucket to be sort of of a second tier. That needs a little bit of a little bit of editing or cleanup on the part of the committee before uh before it it merits a response from
our um very busy consultants. I I hear what you're saying. I think I the people at Collins have served us excellently. Um, but of course in my mind this is this is our this is something that we can get guidance on
them from. After all, the taxpayers paid the price of a pretty decent used car for Colin Center to help us out. Why? I don't understand why we're hesitant to use them. Meg, I don't hear Erica saying not use
them. I'm hearing her say, "Let's reword this to get their feedback on how we might include this in e in some kind of report, whether it's an addendum or something." We heard this and I I don't I think this language is emotional and
and comes from a political perspective. Nonetheless, it's something we heard. So, I I would like to amend our proposal to send it to them until we've rewarded this in a different way. and ask them how to deal with it or should we deal
with it at all. That's why we have them. Thank you. Um, let me see. Any other comments? No. Okay, we're voting on this. Uh, I'll start with myself. I'm an I. Meg. What's the vote? What's the motion?
Can you restate the motion, please? Yeah. Sorry. Sure. The motion is, and Meg seconded it, to we can re I'm accepting your statement as a friendly amendment, Erica, to edit this statement and then send it to
Collins for their review to see if we can get suggestions of how this could be done. this just to say in my recommendation to do that was also a sort of second priority
because we're trying to we're trying to work with them in a sort of efficient in a in an efficient sort of ranked way. There are things that are clearly as they just showed the green column that are clearly kind of needing uh
expertise as stated as those comments came in. So, I'm I'm happy to work with the committee and I'm happy to edit the comment into a more sort of palatable manner. Um, I I will accept that as a friendly
amendment. I don't think I can support putting it as a lower priority given how high of a priority this issue this is for the entire community. Um, but I accept the first part of your motion as a friendly amendment and Meg has seconded. So, we're going to move on.
Wait a minute. Could somebody state what we're voting on exactly? Now I'm confused. We're voting on if we want to send this issue to Collins um with some editing of it to make it a
little bit more merited and a little bit less uh emotional. So could we if we vote yes, could we agree on who's going to do that editing? I was offering I was just offering to do it. I was saying, well, how about we have two people who don't have the same like Andy and
somebody else. Does someone Does someone You don't want to do it. Andy doesn't want to. Okay. Does someone want to work on it with me? If you want to, Meg, if you want to work on it with me, I'm happy to. Sure. As long as we do it really soon. So, like tomorrow.
I'm happy to work on it with you on my computer tomorrow and I can guarantee you People need to see what it is before they vote. Yes. Right. Yes. Exactly. And I can guarantee you I don't think that we completely agree on school funding. So we're good people to work on
it together. So are we voting on something that we don't know what it looks like? Yeah, that's doesn't make any sense. We're voting to have me and Meg edit it and then send it out to the committee and send it out to Collins. So wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,
wait. We're voting whether to put it on the list to send to Collins and we don't know what it is. No, I think we're not putting it on the list. We're voting to do a different process which is to disc to reward it and bring it back to the committee. So I've I amend
with the understanding that if the committee approves of that rewarding, it then gets sent to Collins. Yeah. But we haven't. So were there three parts to it, Julian and Meg will do an an edit and they'll send it to the whole committee and sometime in the future the committee will vote on
whether to send it to Collins. Correct. And if and the question to Collins in my opinion is how should we deal with this feedback we heard from a lot of people which was emotional and not specific but but strongly felt. I I guess I just want to understand is
this going to hold us up from sending the green list to Collins? No. No. No. It's separate. Separate. And we could all vote not to do it once you see it. People should say forget it. So, this is a separate a separate thing
from what what we've been talking about the rest of the time. Yes, it's putting it in a third category. We're just trying to deal with it so we can keep going, but not Yeah, it's a new category. This is a version of flagging.
Um, okay. Myself, I'm an I. Uh, Andy, I Meg. Hi, Ken. Ken, hi. Hi. Thanks, Erica. Hi. And uh
Marcus, sorry, I had to find the button. I No problem. Thanks. Um, okay. Uh, moving us along to elections. I think adding a recall provision. So, I'll just say on that last thing, I'll volunteer to send you some
language, Julian. Sure. So, we don't because it's first draft. I'll wait for I might send it I might send it to others to Yeah. Okay. I'll send it to you very soon. That's fine. Yep. Feel free. Send it to me whenever you get a chance and I'll uh I'll see what I think of it, make some
tweaks and send it back to you and we can discuss. Thank you, Meg. Erica, I have a just a kind of a point of order because Earlier I made the comment that for this item we could consider making it of a of a
second priority. In other words, get the stuff on the green list out the door to Collins and start getting feedback. when you restated my statement, uh, you characterized it as a being of a
lower priority because of its content that I was sort of ranking the issues around the school committee as of a lower priority. And you kind of turned it into uh a value statement of mine about making this a second priority. And
I just wanted to clearly object to it being characterized in that way because what we arrived at is in effect what I said earlier which is we're going to go ahead with the green stuff and we're going to restate this particular issue into clearer
language so that it can be considered by Collins possibly at a later time which is kind of where I started but I think when you restated it Julian you made it in you made it seem that I was saying this issue is garbage it's a second priority. it doesn't matter and I object to that
characterization. I apologize point of order. We can continue. I understood I understand your I understood your statement at the time as this is a lower priority to me personally as a committee member
that I disagreed and I apologize if I misunderstood your statement. It was purely procedural. Great. Thank you for clarifying. Um, can we move on to section seven? I'm so excited that I'm doing the minutes for this meeting.
Yeah, it's going to be a lovely job. Good luck. Yeah, really. I need Marcus to help me with chat. GGP. Seriously, uh, add a recall provision. This I feel like we need to discuss with
Collins more. Well, it didn't get enough votes. No, it got Oh, no. It got four. Sorry. It got four. Um, and it and it three were against and one was abstaining or flagged or whatever.
Well, the flag was I think around the fact that it would take so long and the terms are only two years. What's the point? Correct. Yeah. Um, so it was like it's a good idea, but it was doesn't make any sense. Yeah.
So, do do we know who abstained and flagged? Is that was that actually an abstension or was that what's that? I think it might be a worthwhile idea to have everyone put their individual votes in as homework so we know like Andy
voted this way for example. Um I know you sent that to me Andy. Uh Erica sent it to me and I believe one other member sent it to me. But if everybody could do that, that way we just have a record within
the Google sheet. Just add to the Google sheet your personal votes and that way we have a record of who voted how. So we write our name after the number. Sorry, how are we doing that? adding a tab in the Google sheet where you basically say
just like Marcus did, for example, Meg, if it's your votes, put Meg's votes and go through and put your votes as how you voted then. Um, and if you don't remember that,
yes, but it's just on that one thing, not the whole day. Correct. on one item or the whole spreadsheet on the on the ones in this in the white.
You recall. So Andy or so whoever on this feedback subcommittee that owns this spreadsheet can needs to make it a fully shared Yeah. document, correct? Uh
if if we're going to do that. Well, yeah. It's not a Google doc right now. It's just a spreadsheet. Um right. That's what I mean. If it's easier, we could clarify via email. Why do we just tell what is why do we
need to know who voted what way? I'm not sure. Yeah, because three people said no. I was I was going to say if we're voting it go so yes if we're voting except for the flag which was probably around what we're discussing
that's not feasible. I was just going to say that we could do it on all the votes just so everyone knows I understand that's a lot of work but it's also more transparent to the public. Well, I mean, we voted and so, you know, we might I might think
differently now, but I don't, you know, so I the votes of the are the votes. I I it's I mean, this one it it certainly um you know, if we don't include abstensions, it p it it it passes. So, it could go
green as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I voted against it, but I don't I think Collins center would probably say you already have two-year terms, so what's the big deal? Why would you add a recall within in between those? But yeah,
I I don't I don't feel it's worth my my time to go through and re and cal record all the votes I made would take a morning. Yeah, maybe not everybody even has it written
down on their sheets. Not everybody may have written it down. Yeah. Um, okay. I am not sure I agree, but that's okay. Um, we'll move on. Uh, add a recall provision. Does this go in
the green? So, Andy, are you saying that you would put both these two issues in the green or just one? I mean, if we're if we're not looking for five five votes, if we're saying there's a majority of people voting, it
goes in the green. Yeah. Then I guess I don't I don't think I don't think it make I don't think it's feasible, but and it would require um be action beyond the um council. It would require, you know, it's affecting elections, so
it would it would it would require state action, but Okay, let's put this in the green. And then I'm assuming the next one, Marcus, that that was like an accident to put that. No, I put it in the green because it's already we've already talked about it,
right? It we already put the other one. Um, excellent. The previous one we put in as because it's that article two stuff. Yeah. Excellent. Okay. So, just so we for the sake of time here, um noting what Andy was saying, do we
want to move uh the next one into the green as well? Seeing four votes in favor, three votes against, and one flag. Yes. Okay. Other perspectives? I guess we can vote if we want. Oh yeah,
it did get flagged. It did get flagged. Uh but uh one thing is what do you mean by simultaneous um translation of all meetings? Right. So
in form in terms of um actual inerson translation or like the town has pocket translators um or are you requiring Zoom to have a translation or
you know because we have such a desperate means to access a meeting. What does a translation of all official meetings mean is kind of where I get a little stuck on? Um,
you know, and it could get us in trouble in a if we actually do go down the road of putting it into a charter, right? So I mean I agree that it's certainly something we should put into like some rules or something you know make the best possible way of doing it
but um you know right now because they have the pocket translators you could say well we have the simultaneous capability of doing it but this meeting is all on Zoom right uh Zoom doesn't provide translation but
your phone does. So are we like how would we achieve that? So I mean it's it's a very good idea. I'm just like kind of stuck are we by requiring it by putting it in a
chart. I mean this is probably something too that Collins will bring up. Um this is how we achieve it. I don't have all the answers to your question. I have I have just personally my folks live in Southwick and like my
grandparents and they have simultaneous translation at all their meetings um with an in that are in person with a physical translator present and on Zoom they have basically the town has bought some sort of software that
translates it in real time. Um, and I don't know exactly how that is done or how it's worded, but I'm sure we could ask Holland to examine South Town of Southwick's charter and find out how they've done it and include
similar language or model that based off of them or another town that does it. Well, does their charter include it or is that something they just did? I believe their charter includes it in some level. I don't know exactly the
the level. I didn't look at it. I was just talking with my grandparents and they were like, "Oh, yeah. It's definitely in our charter." And my grandmother's on the planning board there. So, that is I could be wrong. It's word of mouth is all I'm saying. So, two of us have our hands up. Oops.
Go ahead. Me and then Eric. No, no, Erica might have been first, but where did she go? Um, I think the word official meetings is vague. I mean when there's a it it should be either say public meetings or I think it should be council meetings and council committees. It's there too many meetings uh and you
know our whole all our meetings would be translated for example and I think it's uh unrealistic that we I mean this is an example where probably why it was flagged that it needs to be clearer and I would support this if it said all
council meetings and council committees should be translated into Spanish but it's just I mean when there's a staff meeting is that a official meeting it's kind of official but it's not public do we public meetings, meetings that are that are under the, you know,
uh, protected by the open meeting law. I mean, this isn't, it's too su vague. An official meeting could be a staff review. Hold on one sec. I'm just going to sort of since we're starting section 8 and
it's clear a lot of people disagree on this, it's 8:15. Do we want to wrap up and take this up at a different meeting? That sounds good. Yeah. Okay. I I move to adjourn. Wait. Oh, wait, wait, wait.
Can Can we agree that we're going to send the list that's green to Colin Center for their feedback? Yes. Could we should we vote on that? I think that's a great idea. Otherwise, they're going to need time. Sure, we can vote on that. Um,
I just want to respect people's times. I know you said you wanted to get out of here at 8 meg and it's 8:15. Yeah, but I'm still here and I'm not complaining much. Well, I am because I have something at 8:30. Um but uh anyway, let's vote on
that. Um I'll make the motion to send everything in the green list. Second. Great. No problem. I'll give that to um to Marcus. Uh, comments, questions.
Um, I don't see any. Okay, let's vote. I'm blowing my hand. Great. Uh, Meg, yes. Myself, I'm an I. Erica, hi. Andy, yes. Marcus,
uh, yes. Ken, yes. Great. Excellent. That's unanimous. I'll now move us along to see if we can adjourn. Before we adjourn, questions,
do you want um the feedback subcommittee to come up with with something to send to them or do you how do we want to, you know, do you want us to take the the greens that we agreed on tonight and the and the green list form that could be um
that they could comment on? send the greens to them in a form they can comment on and with the whites we'll take up the rest at the next meeting and hopefully be able to send that as like here's an additional great other questions comments
Erica's hand is up down Erica go ahead when is our next meeting yeah really good one our next meeting is in two weeks on Thursday Um I don't have the date on me but 2 weeks from today that is generally the
rule we follow. So if we have a meeting October 7th. Thank you Ken. Um second. So by that time by that time we are likely to know the answer to the question about the extension.
Uh no because that vote is on October 6th. Oh. Oh, actually, sorry. Um, Julian, just for your information, South's actually a town. It doesn't not a city, correct? Yeah, it doesn't have a charter.
It's a town. Okay. Whatever their governing principles. Yeah. Sorry, I was just I just didn't That's okay. I appreciate it. Um, we'll uh discuss this. Yes, Erica, I had a followup to my question. So,
we're we're meeting in two weeks. we're unlikely to finish or finalize an initial report at the end of those two hours. Um, which means that the initial report now is looking like
two weeks after that. Yes. Is that accurate? Correct. I I unfortunately have to get going. Um, but if you we want what me? No, nothing.
I have another meeting at 8:20. So, I I appreciate I scheduled this till 8:00. Um, yep. So, Erica is raising a good question. Should we bring that up at the next meeting or bring it up at the beginning of the next
meeting in terms of the real realistic goal date for finishing the report? Well, if if you all would like to discuss that, you're welcome to discuss that. But when I leave, we don't have a quorum anymore. So that's just the bottom line and I have
to leave pretty soon. Okay. Thank you. Um so other comments, questions before I adjourn the meeting. We would have a quorum because we still
have five of us. If you have to go then would you like to stay vice chair? So, we can stay for two minutes and finish the discussion if you'd like to do that. Okay. Have a nice night. Bye. Bye. Thanks, Julian. You too.
Um, so the the issue is the the infrequency of our meeting causes a problem for kind of finding a consensus. There's um it's uncomfortable to to have this discussion without the full committee
here, but there's a question about do we need to break off part of it into a separate group. We haven't really discussed is it the feedback committee uh alone that's going to generate the initial report um and
how how that relates to our kind of rhythm our meeting rhythm as a full committee. So I don't want to have a halfhour discussion about this. Everybody's tired, but I think it's not necessarily just let's just hope we get it done next time. Um, I don't know if
anybody has uh thoughts or motions to make around it. I I think we didn't we talk about having a writing committee? We did at one point say it's going to be difficult for us to to write as a group
of eight. um uh or to you know it's usually I think easier to generate something and then bring it for feedback to a larger group. Um but we would have to
sort that out as a full group. We can create a report by subcommittee subcommittee's been doing work crunching the you know the the data but I I I I don't know that we should be the ones to draft the report. I I'd rather have a
fresh group of people who want to take that on, including people from both subcommittees, you know, whatever. So, but I mean, we're going to get feedback or whatever. We're going to get response from Collins to say, you know, these things look good. These things could be
better. These things probably aren't going to work. And then we have to figure out what we do with that. We're going to have to take more votes and then we'll have to put it into a chart and then approve it, I think. And then we're going to have to have this sections where we said these are all the other things we heard, you know, the themes that are also
important, but they're not charter ready or whatever. So, right. So, is it does it come down to kind of putting on the agenda for the next committee meeting forming a writing report? I think it was on our agenda for
tonight to discuss a work group. Um, but we didn't come to that. So, do we just move that agenda item to October 2nd or whatever it is for our next full committee meeting? Meina has a comment. Oh,
please take me first. Okay. Meg. your each of the committees. Does it make sense for each of the committees to appoint someone to be work with the other two people? Two is a good number to write because it could just go back
and forth. Uh does that make sense, you know, over the next few days to start next? I nominate Ken. Yeah, I nominate Erica. Well, I can't the next couple days for sure because I'm
No, but I mean if we could appoint two people just to do the first draft. Um, let's hear Athena's comment, please. I know. Yeah. Thanks. My suggestion is first that it's usually helpful for someone to take a
swing at a first draft because having a jumping off point for folks to comment on is really useful. That's how the process works in most council committees. One member takes on the drafting and then they get feedback and
revise that and it's an iterative process. Um, another way that you might tackle this is that the outreach subcommittee write an um a summary of their activities, the feedback subcommittee write a summary summary of their activities and then that those two
parts go into that initial draft. as a way of like breaking things up and spreading the load. Thank you. Yeah, but it seems if two people Oh, sorry. Andy's got his hand up and I already spoke. Andy, um
I'm just trying to think of the the order of things. We're we're sending a list of things to Collins for comment. It I don't think it makes sense to write anything until we get comment back. Mhm. So I think maybe it's good um we should get comment back. We should
review that in our next meeting and then we should identify a team or a person or whatever whatever whoever the writing component will be will then be informed by the discussion that we have after we review what comes from the columns. But I I think a writing committee would be helpful
but maybe a small one. Very small. Yep. I agree with Andy. Okay. Can I ask a question? Um, is the process of sending the the um the green bucket to Collins
likely to turn over with enough time for them to get some some responses back for our next meeting? Good point. Good question. I'm going to be on the road for the next few days, so I I won't be able to do
much, I don't think. But it's almost I mean we basically had to move a couple items that we talked about tonight into the green column and we you know copy that as basically something that we send to them. I I
think you know it's a chart that has here's a bunch of ideas organized by article. Um, but it may it may take a week to sort of put all that together and have enough um enough time
to clean it up and send it with enough context. I mean, if somebody to do it, it could happen soon. Um, or I could maybe do something in a hotel room tomorrow night, but Oh, don't really want to know about that.
So, Andy and Andy in a hotel room in New Jersey. Who? Oh. Oh, Pennsylvania. Oh, Pennsylvania. High end. High end. Um, well, in any case,
that it seems like that that work has to happen and it has to sort of come out of the feedback subcommittee. Those two things are true. And it has to at least get with launched to Collins in if we can if we can say in a week's
time. I don't it sounds like it it's a hard ask to get it back from to to get it back from them with useful um in a useful timeline to
have like workable feedback for our next meeting. it does it doesn't seem like given um people's schedules given that we need enough time to post it up so everyone can absorb it to have enough time to comment on it in a meeting. So, but getting it launched to them seems
doable and making sure that we have a have an agenda item to solidify the writing workg group or whatever we're going to call it. Uh or person, first draft person,
whoever whoever that falls to. Um that needs to happen next time. it seems to me with some urgency. But that that's my perspective. Marcus. Oh, sorry. Yes. Thank you. I forgot. Um, can I just um share this the worksheet
just so we can kind of get an idea about what we are going to send to um Collins because I mean they're fairly um to the point which I'm hoping would um yes rather than just talking I need
to actually share um you know so they they're fairly to the point so you know just definitions and measur To me, this is kind of fairly boilerplate.
A lot of this stuff um should be fairly simple. So, it it we may be able to get it back in time. But yeah, to your point, Erica, I mean, it's it's iffy. I mean, I'm always positive on their ability to turn
it around, but we aren't the only town in Massachusetts or city doing this stuff. So, yeah. It may be that they can give us a partial response. It may be that there's certain things that they will they will
prefer to discuss with us as opposed to just add a comment on a spreadsheet. That's but that's a thing. So I think when we who who is actually going to send this to them? Andy.
Andy. Oh, okay. Andy. Yeah. Can we include uh you know just to say please send us what you have by a certain time because I think Eric you brought up you know a partial response is better than no response. So at least if we get
something back we can deal with that versus getting nothing back cuz they're waiting to get the whole thing done. And you know we don't need the whole thing done to start things off. you know, we could start putting together bits of the report,
you know, based on even just, you know, article two or article one, you know, we can get the process going and start moving along, which would give us an idea about how things would work out on that respect, I think. You know,
yeah. Um, yeah. Okay. Me had her hand up. Oh, sorry. I'm so glad to have this conversation. This is what I was at the beginning of the meeting asking what has to be done to meet these deadlines. I suggest that when somebody sends this to Collins,
whoever it is, and it might be Erica and Andy, have a conversation with them about their capacity to respond and give them a so it's not just an email to them, but give them some sense of what we're working on, what our timeline is, when we think we'll get things to them.
Is there a way to get things back in batches rather than nec not necessarily all at once? so that we have a better understanding from them of what their capacity is right now at to get how you know so that our
our timeline is realistic. Andy, um, could I just ask if one of if Marcus or Ken, since you guys are on the feedback subcommittee, if one of you can take this chart, the green chart, and whatever other greens we came up with
tonight, and just put them in one um sheet. Um, sometime this sometime this weekend. And then I can take it on Tuesday and I can send it and, you know, frame frame something and send it to them.
Um, and then ask them ask them when when we can get and ask for a time to discuss maybe with with Erica and me or I don't know Julian. Um, but but sort of take a temperature on what their capacity is to give us
some feedback within that week because we need it if we're meeting O in two weeks on Thursday, we need it by that Monday or Tuesday, right? Yeah. Yeah. To to be able to give in the packet, right? Yeah. I I can um Sorry, I was having
issues getting up to Google Drive um through my work, but yeah, I can do that now. I will send you guys a link. I was thinking about putting it in the in the one from the
um I think this just deserves a separate document so you can send it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Great. Thanks, Marcus. Yeah. Thank you. So, is that okay if if Marcus does then I'll send it out Tuesday and you know Yeah. If if you want to reach out Andy
uh to Collins and see if um they would like to set up a meeting about what we're proposing as a process, I can attend and and Julian can attend and that way we have, you know, we have a good way to come up with a plan quickly or have have
realistic expectations about what they can produce. Okay. So, reach out to them, say, "We're going to be sending you this thing. We'd like to set up a meeting to discuss it." And yeah, maybe like mid, you know, mid late next week. I I you know, it starts to
get short because then the beginning of the following week, they have to But at least we could, you know, maybe we could if if you create this thing somewhere along the way, I can send it to them and but we can and we can reach out for a meeting maybe next Tuesday.
just to kind of clue you in on what I'm thinking. Um, this is the Google doc and I'm going to add in whatever we greened up from today. Actually, no, I'm just talking to you without sharing. There we go. This
is the Google doc and I'm going to add in the lines from the the whites that we greened up. Okay. Mhm. Um, this will be a document that I will share with whomever I need to. Um,
and we'll all be good. I would propose Marcus uh I don't know that you need to include the the the voting breakdown. True. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It just can be a very simple, you know, if you can you can leave the comments in because they might reflect the sense of
the committee, but uh you don't I don't think you need to jumble them up with all that. Uh yeah, I'll get rid of uh columns D through H and um that's good. Yeah. Okay. So the other pieces I'll just
relate to Julian our our desire to make sure we have an agenda item that resolves the question of the writing process and uh right that we not leave that meeting without a without a clear process and timeline for
who's doing what and when is my sense right now. Is there anything else, Erica? If I'm getting if I'm asking them for a meeting, what time would work for you on Tuesday? That's a great question.
Could I could I just to spare everybody this terrible conversation, could I just email you some Yeah. some options right after we hang up? That'd be great. if I don't know if it's helpful, but I'll be I'll work hard to get that language around the relationship between the school
committee and the council if that would be something for this mailing or I want to send it to you also, Andy, to make sure you're okay with it and before I send it to Julian. That's a next that's a piece of between you and Julian and so that can may it may end up coming
later. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um thank you Verica. I guess someone needs to move to adjurnn besides me, right? No, you can. You can. I move to adjourn. I can second. Okay.
Oh, I got there first. Andy, you got it. All yours. Let's vote. Andy, I Meg. Yes. Ken. Hi. Hi, Marcus. I
Athena I vote I I think. Okay. Byebye. Thanks everybody. Thanks for sticking around for this last part of the meeting. It was really helpful. Thank you everybody. And bye.