retreat is uh the retreat is now posted. Who's taking minutes? Let me check. >> You need to take attendance. >> Yep, I will. Just one second. Um I believe it is
uh it's Raphael. I believe >> he just did it. >> You just did it. >> Just did it. >> Amazing. Amazing. And did you see my an email Raphael about him? Yeah, we'll check in. No AI, but there's other ways. Yeah, >> I thank you.
>> The um >> they were amazing. >> Sorry, I got confused because uh it's technically on Marcus, but he's not here. Uh let me check. >> That's what the recording is good for. >> Next. Yeah, I guess I'll just send him the email and send him the recording. Um
is what I'll do. That's a good point, Meg. So Marcus is on minutes tonight, so none of us have to worry about that. And then um >> Marcus here. >> Huh? >> Marcus just joined us. >> Oh, excellent. Hi Marcus. Um you're on minutes tonight, just so you know.
>> Okay. >> Sorry for the unpleasant welcome. >> Unpleasant, you know. >> Um anyway, we'll go through roll call now. Um myself, I'm here. Meg >> here. >> Raphael >> here. >> Andy
>> here. >> Erica >> here. Um, Ken >> here. >> Awesome. And Marcus. >> Marcus, we just heard from him. So, >> Oh, sorry. Yes, I'm here. Sorry. >> Perfect. Um, and we have one attendee.
Uh, so basically we will get started. Um, welcome to the September 4th meeting of the 2024 now 2025 charter review committee. Um, and I'll get us started with the meeting.
Just so folks know, there is uh two things. Meg has one thing and then Athena's extension request will be coming up in our topics not anticipated section. Um, and we'll go forward with the minutes. Uh,
if folks got a chance to see the minutes, I'm going to move to approve the Thursday, August 7th minutes. >> Second. >> Excellent. Um, any questions, comments? >> Crazy. Good.
>> Great. Um, myself, I'm an I. Uh, Meg. >> Hi, >> Raphael. >> Andy, >> hi. >> Erica, >> hi. >> Marcus, >> hi. >> And, um, Ken,
>> hi. >> Excellent. That's unanimous. And, uh, you had said you'd reminded me that we already have the July 24th meeting minutes all set. So, we need the
26th. Is that on you? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I'm partly done, but I want to >> Okay. >> Talk with my consultant Raphael. >> Okay. And the 21st. We need minutes for the 21st as well. Um, so that's that.
And then at least we've made some progress. Uh, >> do you want to approve the 24th, >> the July 24th? So, that's off the list. >> 21st, not 24th. Um, it's on the list, but we don't have the minutes yet. I haven't >> No, what I'm saying is the July 24th
meeting minutes are on the list to be approved, and they were submitted a couple weeks ago. >> They were Okay, then I'll move to approve them, >> but they are in the packet for this week. So, I don't know if people want to defer. >> They're in an earlier week, but
Yeah, they're in an earlier week. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Uh does someone want to move to approve them or if not we can do it next weekend or next week just resend them? >> Did Did folks review them? >> I personally did not. I didn't see that.
>> I did not. So I'd abstain from voting. >> Yeah. >> You want to just hold Julian? Uh >> I think we should just hold off till the next meeting. Yeah. Um where >> where will we find them if you want to review them? uh I believe in the packet for last
meeting. >> Okay. >> Before that, I'm not sure. >> Okay. Yeah. So, Meg's getting us the 26. We'll do the 24th at the next meeting and the 21st as well as this meeting. Um public comment. Uh Anita, would you like
to make comment? I see no hands. Um excellent. Uh you can also press star 9 on a telephone. And um I will now get us right into the meat and potatoes
uh with the outreach subcommittee update. Um Erica and feel free to chime in Raphael and Meg if you'd like. Um the outreach subcommittee was not able to meet in the interim unfortunately but um we continue to have
uh plan to publicize um a draft well we have a draft of a letter that Meg has started um to publicize the existence of the initial report once that's complete and to use that as a way
to solicit additional feedback back in that interim between the initial and the preliminary report. Um I don't have additional activities to update on unless Raphael and Meg want to speak more specifically about what they
have >> I don't I have a couple of things. The the uh letter I drafted I didn't bring to this meeting because the outreach committee hasn't had a chance to see it yet. the idea was to put it in the gazette as an opinion piece or as one of their you
know editorial things that they do. um giving a chance telling people what's coming and why it's all the ways they can give feedback on their preliminary report so that we enhance the for anyone who feels they didn't have a chance to comment or didn't know where to comment
or you know there's been some confusion this is that this we should I think we should make this preliminary report equally important in terms of people responding as the initial input that what they gave
So that's what this draft letter is about once the subcommittee gets a chance to look at it. And also I'm continuing to up expand the neighborhood lists that I have been gathering uh lots and lots of
neighborhoods in Ammerst have neighborhood lists. So if you could send me any you know of or that you're part of that would be really helpful so that we can sort of blast that out um once we have that preliminary report. Great comments, questions. One last
thing that I didn't get to mention is that um one of the proposed outreach activities for this interim period that we had proposed in the previous meeting was attending the the town council
meeting. um to both uh to request their kind of support and um to use them themselves and their kind of constituency as a platform to promote the existence of the initial report and additional feedback. So we have um the
opportunity on the 8th I'm not sure will be uh ready well depends on I think how the retreat is going to go. We're not going to be ready with a report obviously, but we could use that opportunity to make contact or wait for the following meeting. That's just sort of pending.
>> Does anyone know if the block party's scheduled? >> Yep. That's on the 18th. >> So, do we want to do anything at that? Is that >> talk about that um later in the agenda? >> You have it on the agenda? Oh, I didn't see it. >> Well, I had it on the agenda for the retreat, but if we wanted to talk about
it >> now. No, no, that's good. That's good. >> Great. >> I just haven't seen the retreat agenda yet. >> Oh, yeah. Actually, no, you were right. I'm sorry. Outreach activities on initial report. I had it on the agenda for tonight. So, we'll talk about it.
Um, but it's on the 18th, I believe five or six o'clock till like 10. Um, and feedback subcommittee update. Andy, >> um, >> I just sent out a an email email with
the the latest version of the chart that we have that I think we can use to go through um, you know, the list of feedback that we've gotten so far. I mean, it doesn't have Kathy Shane's input in it yet, but um, it's quite extensive. Um,
and we talked a little bit about how to sort of expeditiously sort it uh in our um in our meeting on Saturday and we were thinking um
that there may be three types of buckets. There may be um suggestions that fall below the level of the charter. They may be things that might be for bylaws or rules or you know values questions or whatever. Um then
there are things that are sort of at the level at which the council can actually itself approve um changes to the charter and are appropriate for the charter and then there are things that are above the level of council action which would require state activity or a new charter
council. So that might be one way of sorting um you know is this on the level of the of the council is it below the level or is it outside the level of of the council or is it something that would require greater um you know
another level of approval from either the a new commission or from the state. So we we we can go over that list. I think that the plan is to go through some of that later. Um but then Julian and I also met with the col with the
Collins folks uh couple days ago, Monday I guess and um they suggested um in terms of feedback that we might just want to have a question of you know suggestion X is this something we want to move forward with is or or is this
something we want to let drop off you know off the page basically and um it would basically be a winnowing process to say is this something that's of interest to us? Um, is this something that we think should be, you know,
worked on further? And then they suggested that we could create that list and then give it to them for a run through to say, you know, to look at and to say, what would some language look like on this and also compare it to mass general law and, you
know, traditions of of charters and things like that. So there's sort of two levels that we could be talking about. And so one is basically is this something that we think is on the level of the charter that the council could do or is it above or below that level. And
then the other is sort of is this something that we think we want to put forward in some form. So I don't know exactly. I think we can discuss that as we're talking about the the process for the retreat. But what we basically have is is a chart that has all of the
suggestions in it. Some of them are just sort of, you know, comments or whatever, but they're all, as far as we can tell, they're all in there. Um, and we have a column that where possible
indicates what um section of the charter it's in. a column that says what's the rationale for the suggestion if there was one offered and then there's a a column for comments which sort of came from you know our some from us and from
other you know things that we'd received that were commenting on things so it's it's incomplete if you've looked at it it's much denser at the beginning and and much more freewheing as you go along but um I think at the level that we're
working on Saturday you know I The suggestion from Collins and I think from our group is that we stay at sort of a level of concept. Is this a concept that we feel we should push forward and then
if so how can we get it into some format that would be that would ultimately result in language for the charter and um on that score I think Collins can be helpful with that and we also have several suggestions from several members of the council. So,
um, you know, we're looking forward to to going through the list. There's a lot of items on the list and it will require some, you know, some focus and expeditious decision making or hopefully the process will work will work out. Okay. But, um, we've we've digested it
to the point that we can right now. Um, and hopefully it'll be useful. >> Excellent. Thank you so much, Meg. Andy, could you share uh what your your subcommittee hopes we'll accomplish on Saturday, like goals so that we know
what we're working toward? >> I think that's that's up to all of us, right? I mean, we're going to discuss that >> as >> but I I mean, I think our sense was that we would be trying to winnow down the list and come up with a, you know, a list of of things that are the, you
know, that of ideas that we think are worth continuing to work on. >> Okay. So, identify the topics and then perhaps fine-tune later as we go forward. >> I think so. So that was a suggestion of the college folks as well and that they could help us fine-tune them, you know,
to do the the leg work to fine-tune them. >> So that would be a good use for them, I think. >> Raphael, >> so um are we thinking that this document's reviewed before we come to the retreat folks thoughts on that?
That's one question. Um second question is that recommendation from the Collins Center about do we want to move forward or drop? How do we come up with a rationale for that decision? Um have we should we we should consider that? Um I
think the sort of focus on above or below thing that we're you you were explaining is is important work. The piece that I'd like more clarity on is just moving forward rationale or not. Um
how do we deal with that? So that's questions for everybody. >> Yeah, I mean that's >> the item on on the retreat work plan, you know, number 10 on the agenda here today. I think that's where we we figured that out. I don't know if we want to move that up or
what, but >> but but what I mean by that, Andy, is like rationale for move forward or not. You have a committee here who we are making decisions about move forward or not. rationale could be a large number
of people shared this so definitely move forward. It could also be this is my interest as a committee member so moving it forward. I think we should be clear about rationale and approach.
>> Does that make sense to folks here? >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead Andy and then I'll let Erica chime in. Yeah, I mean I don't I don't think we have a large number of folks who've chimed in on any of these things. I think we've had, you know, several people suggesting a number of them and
then single people suggesting others. But I think at this point, you know, it's a matter of trying to figure out where does this fall, you know, looking at the at the level of a of a town constitution and the role of the council in approving changes to that and what they can and can't do. um trying to find
that sweet spot of you know what what of these things looks like it it is at that level and then um you know what of these things might be more at the level of you know council rules or
>> um axe grinding or whatever you know or or needing a new charter commission. So I I don't know. I mean, I I think at this point we we've we've cast the net out there and and gotten a lot of feedback, but I think then, you know, we have to then apply some judgment as a
committee to say, you know, we have our charge and we have we've expanded that charge to say we're going to go beyond the charge. But I think we have to have some sort of sense of what a charter is and what a what the council
can do and then sort of say does this fit into that? But you know the >> uh Erica and then Marcus >> you're muted Eric >> my apologies. So if I understood your your point though, Raphael was that
um the there's a difference between um a report that sort of responds to things that we've heard from various sources in both public and elected general public and elected officials
versus things that we have um derived as like or we've concluded need a response based on ourselves as a committee. And even if that is based on our insight of like close reading of the charter and consultation with the Collins, there's a difference between those things. And I
and I just wanted to clarify, Raphael, if part of what you were saying was is it important to identify the difference between those things or is it like we have a rationale and are we going to publicize that rationale so to speak? Like are we saying we've heard
this in repeated in in repeated formats from kind of different sources and we also concur as a committee which are two different things and and like how is that showing up in our report in the rationale like is the rationale column is it does
it matter to differentiate like what it doesn't matter that we have a a tally of like we heard this seven times versus one time versus zero times but it does it does it matter matter? I'm putting this question out. Does it matter to identify the fact that we did hear this
in public? We did hear this from elected officials or town staff or we in our close readings and thoughtful conversations have arrived at this. We feel like that we need to push in this direction. >> Yeah, I think you capture what I'm
trying to share. um the sort of analysis that involves sources um it's more work but I think it's important work and an important consideration um I don't know how the whole council
feels about that this council but I think that matters in some ways when it comes to the spirit of this in terms of rationale and just illuminating what the public has shared or folks in town M >> but again we still this is just the
initial so we definitely have time to consider but I just wanted clarity about where we are for the retreat. >> Marcus. >> Yeah thanks. Uh I was just kind of going to respond to sort of what Raphael was saying because I think really
what we're looking to do is more group things and identify the areas. part of the table that we had put together was well there was potential for us to include like a bibl you know reference section and say we heard this from you
know number one number 10 number 15 and that's why this is part of it so we have been including that um in our discussions uh but I kind of want to see what the grouping brings before we kind
of get into the you know the cutting if we even need to cut anything because um I mean you know a lot of it is right we talked about how we know that there's some things we can include in the charter we know that some things you
need a state intervention and some things are are not even charter I wouldn't say charter worthy but are not a scope of a charter they're more you know in the rules and regulations of how things are run and so if we can collect those and provide the feedback that was
given, then that's, you know, not up to us to cut it because we're not actually part of that discussion, right? That's more for the body that the rules and the regulations pertain to, which would be the council or the town manager or
whatever it is. So, it's just uh you know, we would be in that respect a conduit of the information rather than a gleaner of it. So, Yeah, thank you. Um, I guess, >> uh, I guess at this point,
>> before you go, Julian, my other question about should we review before the retreat? What are folks thinking about that? >> Yes, please. >> I would say yes. >> Yes, please. I I beg you.
Um, will Mag, you're muted. >> I have a lot of copies of the charter. I could I'll bring a little pile. >> Excellent. Sounds great. Um, so I guess
this sort of is a good segue, Andy. >> Yeah, I was just going to say, do you want me to share the um the document? >> That's what I was going to say. um go right ahead and pull up your document. Um this is sort of a good segue into a
thought that I had which was I know at the last meeting Meg mentioned basically uh basically having sort of a way to define how many people said there was an said
an idea like if it was an idea from one person an idea from 10 people etc. Um, and I can understand that idea idea. I think that like it's it's not an aggregate survey, but at the same time,
it would be helpful to know is this an idea that just one person had or is this an idea that sort of different minds that come from different places have agreed, hey, that's an idea with some merit to it. So, I was going to propose that we sort of put a check mark on each
idea before the retreat to say this is an idea that has came up multiple times or not. Not to say how many people said it, but just to say has only one person said this as in one person has an axe to grind about this issue or has done an
incredible amount of research on this specific issue or is this something that we've heard from multiple people? And if it's something we've heard from multiple people, maybe just put a check mark next to it so we know for the retreat. That was my thought. Um I don't know what
other members thoughts are on it. We can take a vote if we want, but I was hoping that we would just be able to sort of come to a consensus on what a reasonable idea is with this. Uh Andy, if you want to start screen sharing, go right ahead. And if you have a comment, feel free to.
Yeah, I just again I don't think it makes that much difference whether one people or seven people said it in a town of you know how 15,000 voters or whatever. I I it could be seven people who arrived together and all had the same idea because they talked to each other. I I I'd rather have people look
through and sort of say maybe mark up, you know, these are things that I think the council could do. Um and maybe we get some sort of consensus of like like wow there's a bunch of these things that we think the council could do on its own and wouldn't require
um you know extra stuff and then but that's that's a starting point for a a laundry list for the council. And then we have some other categories of things that we think are that you know that we put into these are things that would require more state level or commission work but that you know that doesn't mean
we're knocking them off the list. that just means we're putting them in that category. And then we have the other list of things that might be more at the local or you know at the at the rules level. So I'm wondering if people if people could could it's a pretty
I guess you it's not going to be something you're want to you're going to want to print out. I don't think because it's very small type. You're going to probably want to have it on a laptop and blow it up. So um but however you want to do it but somehow I guess we should agree on
what the homework is so that we can get a sense of what what we're trying to mark up so that we can accelerate our how many of you thought this is something that's charter level and that we should push put forward you know or >> how many you know >> there may be some things that are just somebody like there's one where people
just say said you know this process is ridiculous and I'm not sure that's really even a suggestion but um you know other or or somebody said you know we should have a mayor and it's okay so so that's a certain level of a comment but it's certainly you know h how what what
is the homework I guess me >> I support what Andy suggesting that we go through and clarify what category of change these different recommendations are I'm a little reluctant to weigh in
on a lot of people said this and only one person said that because sometimes you know the genius person who studied it more says something that nobody else thought of but if they had the that's why we should put it in the preliminary report because we might find I think we'll get
the response we get from the preliminary report is really important because people say oh wow I never thought of that or whatever we're giving them something specific to respond to will be useful Yeah, I too like what can the council do
homework. Um it's just the entry of this process. So I think that's important work. It might not be a long list of I don't know what the list looks like, but that'll help sort of guide the process moving forward. >> Okay. Um
>> yeah, go ahead. >> Can I orient you to this? >> Yeah. So, it's basically Can you see it? >> Yeah, it's great. >> Okay. So, >> tiny print, but we can see it. >> There's a what, there's a where, and
it's not always filled in. There's a rationale if provided, and it looks good up front, and then it gets very sparse as you go along. And then there's some discussion. So, >> right, >> you know, we were I think Julian and I were talking and thinking we might try to go through article one tonight and see how that goes. You know, that might
be help clarify some stuff. But in this case, you've got somebody who said that, you know, current that that there's a section that says Ammerst should currently says Ammerst may exercise any
of its powers or perform any of its functions and may participate jointly or by contract in working with other jurisdictions. This person is saying it should be a mandate. So, you know, that that may or may not be something that
that would fit. But then there there's revisiting the public forum definition to make it less cumbersome. And there's a reason why. There's clarifying whether manager appointed advisory bodies are multiple member bodies. There's clarifying division definition of a
measure. Clarify the definition of an emergency. Define quorum requirements for all town bodies. clarify what the town c full full town council definition is which has to do with um you know whether an abstaining vote means a no or
or counts against something or not and then there's return to the town meeting form of government or alternatively adopt a council mayor form of government. So that's kind of a whole different level. And then as you go down, there's a lot of things in the legislative branch, right, to postpone,
requiring a second order for council to postpone, consider allowing people on the council to have, you know, just people with part-time employment to serve on the council um who are partly employed by the town. Something on voting, when to vote a pay increase so that it starts at the
beginning of a term rather than partway through. revisiting language on what a majority vote is. That's pretty important, but it may also be um something that's in the rules. Clarify what when a measure needs to be read at two meetings. What does that mean? You
vote twice or do you vote just hear discuss it twice and vote once? Uh roll call requirement language which may be redundant or not. Um all council meetings live streamed and recorded et you know. So there's a lot of stuff here
in in section two which is the article two is the there's the 8week lame duck period uh lengthening and staggering terms. So there's a lot of stuff in this section council size public comments
district meetings mandate it. So we got a lot of suggestions here. Um, uh, so that's that's article two. Then they get a little shorter, but article three has a fair amount. And you can see that
the amount of detail drops off significantly. Some of the detail in article one is just to make clear what those definitions are about because it's fairly technical. Some of this is more conceptual and I think we can grasp it easier, but also we just haven't had the
time to fill it all in the sparseness because of running. It's huge what you did. No, sorry you didn't. I didn't raise my hand. Sorry. >> Yeah. Um Erica, go ahead. Then Marcus. Um and then Meg. I appreciate you putting this together, Andy. I think it's helpful. And we can start reviewing
article one. Yeah, thank you Andy and the whole committee. Um, >> yes, this is a committee effort. I >> I wanted to just uh maybe this is a question for a little bit later, but I just wanted to be really clear on the if we're being asked to review in advance
so that we can get a good head start on our retreat to be really clear about what the criteria is for what we're how you want us to mark this up or kind of categorize things. Um, I think that doing whatever that pre-work is,
whatever those criteria are to mark this up as we review. Um, that's what I was asking clarification on. Yeah, it seems like the committee isn't as interested in sort of deliberating what ideas multiple people had versus one person,
but I think that it's totally reasonable to ask everyone to look through this beforehand and sort of try to get an understanding of um what we want, what could be done at the council level, what
could be done at um the rules level, what could be on at a at a state level or a charter commission level. And also like whether some of these things seem more like like I want some way of sorting out stuff
that is either extremely minute or stuff that is sort of someone has an axe to grind. Not that either of those things are bad necessarily, but one person with a very very minor suggestion shouldn't
take up hour of our hours of our committee time. So I want to just be careful about proper time management and asking for committee members when they review this to keep that in mind. Um Marcus. >> Yeah, thanks. I mean so I was kind of
getting on to Erica's point. We need to define what number one means, what number two means, and number three means. Andy, you'd had that in an email. I think we just need to put it in that present in the um Excel spreadsheet as
just a definitions page. So then we run through each of the things and put one, two, three next to each of the ideas. And then to your point, Julian, during the meeting, all we're saying is
um if you could share again, Andy, sorry. >> Um it would be just a case of like line 132, who's got one, who's got two, who's got three. tally those up, report that out, move on to the next one, and then
once we've got all of the points laid out, then we can get into more of the detailed discussion. But we need to really create a group idea about what's,
you know, what's in and what's out. The the idea was, you know, we would have this master list obviously and then we just duplicate these um the sheet three times and just filter on which one was
the one versus two versus three. Uh and those are our then you know a sheet of all concerns that are uh council actionable versus state or whatever actionable
versus rules and whatnot. So it really is trying to keep it simple. >> Thank you Erica. >> Yeah the um the question is what is one two and three? So if Are we meant to be
ranking things based on what we feel are high priority, medium, and low? Um, are we are we using what Julian described is are we the ones identifying ourselves on our own? What's what's a council act? What's a rules act? What's a state act?
Those are things I think we have we have ample room for consultation on and I'm not sure we should be debating >> um at that level. Yeah. >> Uh what we are what the council itself is capable of of doing to change the
charter. We might have a I mean maybe I'm just speaking for myself. We might have a good guess, but we probably would need to consult anyway. So I'm not sure we should spend a lot of time debating what we think is a state rule versus a local. Anyway, my point is to to your to
your um process, Marcus, like are we ranking them based on what we feel is the highest priority? What's the one, two, and three here? >> Yeah. Um, do you mind if I answer, Julian? >> Go right ahead. >> Um, yeah. So, it's not a ranking. It's
just purely a numbers system. Number one being well, what again, whatever we choose it to be today. We have still have to define it. But it is not a Yeah. Yeah. But it is not a, you know, a high,
medium, low type ranking. It is a bucket one ranking, bucket two ranking, bucket three. Bucket one could be things that we know are above. You know, from our discussions up to this point, we have a rough guess that it's going to be, you
know, more than can be done in a charter. Mayor um things like everything has to be done remotely, all that sort of stuff, right? We know that has to come from the state. We know certain things we can do in a charter. We know
some certain things are um certain things are rules or whatever they are. We aren't the idea is not to spend hours discussing it. The idea is to go like I say go through each line saying who has which what done. We group
it and then to your point we can send it off for additional clarification. But it is just a case of right now we have almost 200 ideas on what we need to do.
We can't spend our whole time going through individually discussing which one's where whatever. We need a quick and simple and dirty way of just creating smaller groups so that
we can get into the kind of the idea of and understand ourselves the scope that each area you know of the discussion that is within the town what what's happening so that we can get into our business of putting the report together
but yeah I completely agree we shouldn't be in the business of determining exactly what is in and what is out, but we I would say have enough of a background to have a, you know, a reasonable guess about what it is and
that would at least get us into a place where we could have a more informed discussion rather than just a a wag. >> Rafael, >> yeah, again, thanks for doing all this
work. I think um in terms of like review of this document, it's good for us to review it to see what feedback has been put forward. Some of us are not as close to it as the feedback committee. So, it's great that we have that. The what
can the council do piece? I'm going to use a different word in terms of how I'm thinking about it. The what's in what's out language has been used, but in my mind, I'm thinking about what's plausible, what's possible. And I do think if we do that work, to Erica's
point, if we're reading this feedback against the charter itself for homework, trying to figure out what's plausible, we benefit from having the Collins review what we've listed as what's plausible. I think it would have been great for them
to help us with that before the retreat, but we're here. Um, but I think like that piece of work in terms of what's plausible, um, is important work for us to do. So, I don't know if I'm reading this the way that other folks are, but
the what's in what's out for me is like what's plausible, what's possible, what can the council do. >> Yeah, that's basically exactly what we're talking about, Raal. Raphael. Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Are there comments, questions? >> Nope. Not seeing any. Um
>> any Yep. >> Just I um just looking at article five here there there's sort of the the the range is shown right here. There's clarify what a new appropriation is. That's like a definitional thing that will help them do their work. Um
>> uh and then there's clarify whether the manager's budget goes automatically to finance committee upon submission to the council or whether it waits until the council meets. Um you know that's technical. It's a small thing, but it's actually something that might that that could be could be easy for them to
accomplish. Um, FINCOM should be a citizen board representing taxpayers. That's a much bigger and in some ways um, you know, uh, heavier discussion or you know, conceptual. And then there's more
specific stuff about finance committee being uh, appointed by a nonpartisan body or person. I'm not sure who that is. It's not very specific. Um revisit whether the budget coordinating group is necessary. There's been some suggestions from a couple of the counselors on how
that might uh how it's actually evolved since the chart since the councils existed and um the meetings that have been happening between the school committee and and the council and and others in the towns. Um and then enhanced transparency in the town budget
process is not very specific. So um there may be more more specificity coming in in other questions about how to make it specific but you know I might be like sure let's enhance transparency
but I'm not sure sending that to the council is going to be very helpful. Um, so there may be specific ways to make it more transparent and there may be some ways, you know, that are that are listed elsewhere, but I'm just sort of trying to I actually don't think that the small
ones are necessarily less important than the big ones. And in fact, some of them may be the easiest to put on the list because, >> right, >> they can clean up things that the council has identified as problematic or or barriers that could be fairly easily overcome. The other thing is just some
are so small that like we can even just ask for the council to amend its rules or even like I saw the thing that said I don't know what town staff are earning. Like that's so small that a resident could do a public
records request. Like that isn't even a a charter level thing. That's a like I can find it on the website. I believe after that comment came in, Athena sent us the link and turns out they do have a document. >> Yeah, they have the open checkbook and they have so yeah.
>> Um anyway, Maggie, >> um we might want to think about am I muted? No. >> Adding a column of questions from the committee clar clarifying questions. Did you mean this or did you mean that or uh because some of these questions that have just come up in this discussion
have been important. We didn't know you know asking clarification in the preliminary report so that we get the final report is more specific. >> Yes, like that. >> So, >> and also I want to say thank you. This is quite a big piece of work
>> and thank you. And is it the the reason it gets more sparse as you go down is because of running out of time, right? Not because you didn't I mean >> I think so. Although the definitional stuff required I think some more explanation. Some of the other stuff is fairly self-explanatory.
>> Got it. >> Excellent. Um Erica and then I I'm just going to move us along into actually sort of working with article one. >> Uh I just maybe I'm being obtuse. I just want to be really clear on what the homework ask is if I'm going through
this how because there's because there's so much that I want to make sure that if we're if we're all going in, you know, eight different directions, um it'll be hard to reconcile our notes, but I I if I missed it, I'm sorry, but if there's a clear ask of like how should I sift
through or rank or notate all of these um compiled comments so that we're ready for the retreat, >> you should look through the entire document And after looking through the entire document, go and think about what
seems like something that you in your opinion, I'm not saying this is illegal advice or anything like that. What in your opinion is possible? And then on top of what's possible, what is a good idea or something that you would
support moving forward with as a recommendation to the council and bring your perspective on that to the entire committee meeting? >> Is that the consensus of our just the discussion we just had? That's not what I got.
>> Could I share or No, >> go ahead. I think the latter end of I think the latter end of what you shared I didn't get that piece. I don't think that was communicated. And in addition to that, I think like the reading the charter against this document is
important work. What's plausible is important work. We need support with that. What Meg We could come up with initial list. There's some things that'll be clear. But I think like that's work that we should do. Meg's point about additional questions I think
is also important for us to grapple with. Um before we move forward though the chair might not love this but even though you want us to forge ahead with like reviewing article one now considering a retreat is on Saturday we
have to review this document against the charter in a day. I would vote for us not to do that here and now. Um that's just >> I agree. >> Yeah, for some of us Julian like multitasking, reading the charter,
reviewing this document, it's a lot of brain energy. We have to spend that to do this offline and then we meet for a retreat that's all day on Saturday. >> Ditto. >> To me, it's a lot. >> I don't know if other folks agree. I just wanted to put that out there.
>> Okay, I hear that. Um Marcus and then Andy. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh I thought we were assigning each line a value of 1, two or three. Uh based on
the discuss on the definitions that we were going to discuss and record in the Excel spreadsheet right now. >> That was my understanding, Marcus. >> Okay. Well, that
>> Andy, >> I think that was what we were we were thinking at in our meeting. But I think, you know, the question is how how are we to judge what is, you know, how how how well positioned are we to judge what
what is a you know, at the at the council and charter level and how, you know, there's been some question about whether we should have the Collins Center do that. and you know make that determination.
But we need we need to have some way of doing homework that's going to be able that we can sum up as we as we go as we approach this thing because it is large and so >> and we need to get through this whole
thing in a in a Saturday. Exactly. >> So I mean the the question is you know what kind of grading can we each do that then we can sum up and we can sort of say how many people feel like this is something
that should move forward or how many pe that should be that that we want to that we want to develop further. I think that that was the question is like is there enough of a germ of an idea here that we can then h that we can then say this is
on the list whatever list you know and it may be a three category list but this is the thing that the Collins center came back to me and Julian with was to say you know um should we move forward
with you know line six mandating that the town uh you work jointly with other other jurisdictions whenever there's a reasonable possibility of achieving better less expensive services and administrator is is this something do we want to you know push for this or or or
not it's a mandate. The next one is um do we want to do we think revisiting the public forum definition to make it less cumbersome and there's suggested language um is that something that would be worth moving forward with? And so
it's almost like you're just going down and and I'm sorry guys from the fe from the feedback subcommittee. This is an additional uh step that happened after we met. But um because we were talking about level one, level two, and level three, you know, with the two being the
sweet spot for the council and the charter and uh things above and below that, but um Pat was saying, you know, you might want to just be looking through this and saying, is this something we can move forward with and and theoretically get some get a
recommendation that is, you know, that will be useful to the council. um or to the town if it's not council specific um you know yes or no and so if I were looking at this just you know I
would say mandating you know there we're already saying that ammer should work jointly with other jurisdictions but mandating it seems a little clunky and I would say leave it alone um so I would I would say no don't don't push that one forward and then in seven
I would say you know there's a definition of a public forum that's been found to be kind of clunky and they have the counselors have some suggested language to make it work better and I would say that's worth considering and so I would just sort of go through and
say yes no yes no yes no um and some of the yes some of the nos might just be this is a general version of a more specific question that comes down below but I think we're really looking at you know are these ideas in a form that that
with some hammer hammering, we can hand them off to the council or to the town. And so it may be some of these are good ideas, but they might take a lot of work. Um there might be things that would require a study commission or something to get them right. And so I don't Yeah, somehow if we could say,
"Yeah, we think this has promise. This has potential, >> right?" >> Um yes, yes, no, no, yes, yes, no. And then we can all if we go through and check and and write that down then we can see where we are in terms of you know how many of us are voting yes how many of us are voting no and there may
be some that are unanimous some that are significant majority and some that are really contested I don't know >> yeah well put Marcus >> yeah so that's a complete change of what we had discussed and would have been nice to have you know kind of come out
with that at the beginning um you guys have had a meeting with the Collins Center about this cuz >> I mean >> this is a complete 180 about how we've been talking about it, how we've been framing it, right? We had talked about
the need to reduce complexity for Saturday so that we could actually get through the, you know, 200 odd or whatever it is um inputs so that we could group things and then talk about what the groups meant
and all that sort of thing. Now we're going individually on each line. We're not going to get through that in a month of Sundays. So I I I appreciate
the input from the Collins Center, but the time frame that we're dealing with, I think need some more aggregation prior to going through that level of detail, right? Um, we,
you know, to Erica's point, we aren't, actually Erica and Raphael's point, we aren't meant to be, you know, the experts on it. We couldn't give exact definitions of what's in, what's out, whatever we're choosing to do, but we have a good idea and then take it to the
um, Colin Center. That was kind of where the idea was. Let's get a through on it. Now that we're going into this proposed level of detail, I mean, yeah, let's have at it.
>> Erica, I think this is a good a good practice for the committee and working efficiently. um because we have a lot to get through and maybe having members sort of stop and realize, okay, I'm
going to have to use my own judgment here and quickly consider whether I think this is a good idea, a bad idea, or an idea I need more clarity on. And that is how we will move forward on Saturday. That's the advice that I've
heard from Collins. And I think the Collins Center is offering good advice here, Erica. And then Andy. >> Um, I may be missing something about the debate uh because I'm not sure that anyone is saying throw out what the
Collins is is suggesting, but um I wanted to just propose that the the original question that I raised was what is the homework? What is the ask to make Saturday an efficient and productive session? And
it seems to me we could just do a very simple I mean Andy I think you were saying kind of yes no yes no. Um, I would just maybe add the idea that we we if we're individually reading through this, that we come in with a sense of priorities,
um, of what is of highest urgency in our own minds, in our own sort of informed consensus of we've been through this for a year now, thinking about the charter, hearing about the charter, consulting about the charter, and talking about it with the public and if town officials in various ways. So we that we're bringing
our informed opinion to bear if we go through this and kind of I feel like I could go through this and say not sure I can get through all 200 by Saturday or whatever it is but I could go through and say item 173 feels like that's a really urgent priority for this town to address
in some form. I don't feel as a lay person I can come in by Saturday and say, "Oh, that's a state law issue." versus something char that the council could take up in its next session. I feel like that's the part I want to outsource to our consultant a little
bit. >> But in terms of what we can't give the Collins 200 things to consider, we're going to give them a concise and edited list out of this incredible thing you guys have compiled. And how do we get that edited list? My suggestion right
now is that we each individually kind of begin to rank them in priorities so we have like a fruitful discussion. And the the ranking is based on our own sense of what we've heard all year, what feels
what is showing up in the record, what is urgent, what is kind of keeps coming up in whatever way. um and what is shown up as an outlier in our conversations, annotations from call-ins, there's all kinds of evidence for why we would rank something of a
higher urgency. So that's what I'm suggesting. >> Yeah, Andy, I'm welcome to go through things like with a will include like support won't include and a priority ranking. I have nothing against that
like on a one two three scale. Um, Andy, >> yeah, I I just um wanted to respond to to to Marcus's comments, which which was that this is making it harder. And I think what I was hearing from the group was that the one, two, three and
figuring out what's a non council level, non-charter level either higher or lower was um was going was sounding harder to folks than than prioritizing or figuring out what's you know what what's what's a
higher priority or what's a lower priority. So I think we're just trying to um you know based on the discussion here what I'm hearing here and also what I had heard from from the column center is like how do we get a process that we can go through on Saturday and have a
sense you know have some sort of process that we can tick through these things and already have had something in our heads about um you know what what we would rate where or what you know how do we win how do we take this list and turn
it into something that we can move forward with. So it's not trying, you know, I think we need to go with whatever the committee feels is going to be the most productive and the most um, you know, promising and not,
you know, I I I think we we each might have different ideas of what that is, but you know, if we're trying to give out homework and we're trying to figure out a vote what basically amounts to a voting system on on Saturday for for how do we rank these things, I I I don't
know what the what the ranking should be, but I I think it's it we need to figure it out so that we all >> we're all voting the same way and you know whatever that is most workable for the group. So let's let's try
the first three or four items in article one and try them with both a ranking system one two three one being least and most important three being least
important as well as sort of differentiating do we is this an idea that we want sort of in the stuff. Um, Andy, would you mind screen sharing? >> What's the difference between those two?
like basically say I guess we you could consider a three as not in the pot at all and sort of a one and a two as like high priority low priority if you want >> and that's determined by what Julian >> that's determined by
>> us as a committee as to whether we want to consider >> I mean in my initial analysis of that in my analysis of it like how am I making that decision priority bas >> what I've heard
>> I'm trying to like what I've heard >> the sources that are here >> um is it plausible or not is that all in play? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I mean I I guess I'm just wondering if if maybe we just try like to say what's
a priority and what's not. I mean or or do you think we should say high priority, medium priority, low prior? would prefer we go like high, medium, low just so we can sort of get an idea of like there's some of these little things that might be good ideas but
aren't important, you know? >> Are people okay with that? >> I'm good with it. >> Great. >> So, do you want to talk about the preamble? >> Sure. Let's start with that and let's
try to move efficiently. So not as much comments as just here's my rating and maybe a here's why. >> So one is high priority, two is a priority but not the highest and three is not so interested.
>> I am personally a three. This was it. I don't think we need a preemp. Um I'll call on each member. Marcus. >> Um, I just want to say that we are, this is the document we're seeing for the first time in this meeting. So, just
want to take a second to make sure I understand the issue. >> Yes. I we're trying to train people up on it to understand how to do it on Saturday. >> No, but the the the idea was that some some charters have a preamble. Ours
doesn't have a preamble. Now, it's a statement of values. And um some folks said that we could develop one outlining town goals and values and have that to start the charter. >> But what do we what
what is a high priority, medium priority, low priority? um like why would we be ranking them all on the same scale when some things could be part of the charter, some things can't be part of the charter, and some
things have got nothing to do with the charter. >> No, >> but in each of those values, they would then be high, medium, or low. No, what I'm saying here is that if it's
a low priority, we're saying it might not work in the charter, might not be eligible, >> but there could be things that are in the charter that I think are low priority >> then >> or things that are not that would be
state, you know, state input that are low priority, >> then you'd probably want to give it a two because some of our committee members don't seem to want to make that decision. They want
to leave that decision up to Collins. >> Okay. Do we want to go around and say high, medium, low? Uh Andy, you're an expert on this. Do you want to start? >> I would say it's a low priority for me.
So, three. >> I would agree. three. Um, I'll pass the buck along how I see it on my Zoom screen. Erica, >> uh, two, >> Marcus.
>> Um, okay. Uh, Raphael, >> this is the first time I'm seeing this. I'm going to abstain. Maybe for folks in town, it's a priority. I don't know, but I'm gonna >> No worries. Ken, >> three. >> Megan,
>> I'm going to abstain. What is one or three? Which is I don't even What is one? One is yes, high priority and three is low. >> Yes, >> I'm going to abstain too because I haven't seen it before. >> Okay. So, what I'm hearing is mo is a few unsures and then mostly lower
priorities. I appreciate that. That's help. >> There was a one, but wasn't there a one and a three? I don't believe there was a one. >> Okay. >> Um anywhere, Meg? No. Um
anyway, uh do we want to try the next one out? See if this can go a little bit smoother. >> It might not be smooth, Jill. >> There has to be a process, but you know, sometimes we discuss stuff. It's not always smooth. I hear
>> Okay. Uh >> well >> do folks I'll first ask do folks understand this? >> Can you this is tiny print but this section should be revised. >> Um
we could be looking at the charter at the same time but basically there's a there's a section that in section 1.6 Six says Ammeris uh may exercise any of its powers or perform any of its functions and may participate in you know jointly or in
cooperation with other jurisdictions. Um and this one says they should revise it to say that the town is mandated to cooperate with other jurisdictions um whenever there's a reasonable possibility of achieving better less
expensive services and administration for Ammeris residents. Um the comment over here is consider the implications and practicality of a mandate and what constitutes a reasonable possibility. Um, so we're currently saying
suggesting that Ammeris may cooperate and that this is saying that you must we must cooperate whenever it sounds like it's a good idea. >> This makes sense to folks. Okay, I'll mix up the order a little.
I'll start with Ken. >> Sorry. Uh, one. >> Great. Um, I'm going to agree. One. Um, me >> abstain. >> Uh, Raphael, >> good to see the process. Abstain.
>> Erica, >> two. >> Marcus, >> I'm going with a three because there's too much um possibilities with the reasonable possibility. >> Sounds good. Uh, Andy.
>> Yeah, I think I'm I'm a three, too. I think the current language is fine. >> So, this is very split because we have two people abstaining and we have two people saying one and we have two people saying three.
So, and then we have Erica saying two. So, this is very split. Um, something maybe we should come back to uh come back to on Saturday, discuss more. It's great. I'm glad. I think it's good that
we have uh some descent to an extent. Um revisit public form. Do we want to go forward with this one? Uh Marcus? >> Yeah. Can we record the results
somewhere please? Or on the screen maybe? >> Uh sure. I'm not screen sharing, but I uh I was taking notes on who voted how. Um is there a column where we could sort
of just tie things up? >> Um try. So, uh how many ones were there too? >> Um there was two ones. Yep. and then one, two, and then two threes
and two extensions. >> You might just want to have four columns and start tallying within them. >> Column for one, two, three, and then a for a good idea. Okay. So, the first one was what?
The first one I The first one I believe we had uh I believe we had mostly threes. Hold on. Um,
we had, I believe, zero ones, two twos, two abstensions, and three threes. >> Okay. So, say that again. >> Zero ones. >> Yeah. >> Two twos.
>> Okay. >> Three threes and two extensions. >> Okay. And now let's do 1.7. >> I'm sorry. The for 1.6 was two two ones,
one two two twos and two extensions. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. So this one I mean this this is basically we had a public forum definition in the charter that said public forum means a meeting where
more than one half of the meeting time in the agenda is devoted to public comment. It's actually been kind of clunky because there's a pres certain amount of presentation that needs to happen and then there may not be very many people showing up. So there's a fair amount of time waiting around or scheduling another meeting for
presentation time so they don't take up too much time. and the math of 50/50 doesn't seem to work out. So there's a suggestion that the language be changed to say um uh uh instead of 50% time meeting time
requirement that would change to uh a meeting in which all members of the public who wish to speak on the subject are given opportunity to do so. And that's how currently the council us does um uses that's the the what the council does in his hearings.
>> Okay, let's move forward the same way. Um this time I'll start with uh you Andy again. >> I think this is a one. It's an easy fix and it seems like it would make a difference, >> right?
>> Which one is this we're talking about? 1.7 >> the um line seven the uh the definition of a public forum right now it says 50% of the time has to be devoted to to members of the public
but um the point the the the logic of this or the suggestion is that we um that we just the point is that to to make sure the public is heard and so we we just want to have definition that will say the public, all the members of
the public have to be heard or that's what the suggestion was. >> Um, excellent, Meg. >> Um, this looks like a good idea, but you know, again, I haven't seen this before. I just is this process I just worry that
we have such short precious time together. I want to be sure we get to the other agenda items, but I like I mean I've just seen this for the first time, but I like it that this idea. >> So, let let's put a number on it
>> is one that you like it. >> Yes. >> Like it or think it's a priority. >> It's a priority. Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't know if it's a priority. I don't know. I'm having a hard time >> with this procedure. >> One, I guess.
>> Okay. Um, Marcus, >> I'm going to abstain. >> Okay, Erica, >> I give this a high priority of one, but I have to just agree that this is not I don't think this is a good use of time right now.
>> Um, Raphael, >> um, seems plausible. Um, in the stuff that I've heard, people want their voice to be heard. I'll put a one on it. I'm gonna third like I'm not sure this is a good use of time. I think we understand
>> how it's how at least some something similar to it is how we're gonna be spending eight hours on Saturday. >> Yeah, we've done it. We've done it >> six hours. >> Yeah, we've done >> but we will have read it on Sunday. Sunday we will have read it ahead. >> Not my first rodeo, Julian. So I get the
process one for me. >> Okay. 10 >> one. >> Right. And myself I am also a one. I think this is a good idea. Is that everybody? I believe so. With um
two extensions. So we had six and two. Six. >> Okay. Um is that enough to to get a flavor of it or do we want to keep going? Do folks feel like they understand it? Understand what we're going to be doing on
Saturday? >> I do. Thank you. Great. >> Me, too. >> Okay. Excellent. Andy, you understand it? >> Yeah, I think so. Um >> um >> just you know the if you have questions
about you can always refer to the charter you can refer to um the big spreadsheet with everybody's you know if you're trying to find out what what people said for a rationale um maybe I can send a link to that if
that's helpful but it's kind of hard to find things in that it's just a big repository but >> Erica do you understand Yes, I understand. >> Right. Um, Marcus, >> so
go ahead, Eric. >> No, I have nothing to add. I've made my point. Thank you. >> Okay, now I'm good. >> Great. Raphael, >> what's the question? >> Do you you understand what we're going to be doing Saturday and how
>> I said that 50 times, Julian? something. Come on. I understand. One, two, one, two, get it. >> I I get that people might disagree with it. >> I'm trying to be nice, Julian, but remember, we have a retreat. We're going to be with each other for a while. I
think people understand the process. It's 7:20. >> Great. >> You have to review this document before the retreat. >> Huh? Sorry. >> We have to ret this document before to respect these folks time, energy, brain
power. I think to me it's important for us to move ahead, >> right? >> A lot of hours on Saturday. >> I'll move us along. I just want to make sure people know what we're doing. It seemed like there was >> some folks who didn't understand. >> Um
so moving us along in the agenda. Um we will now discuss the outreach activities. Um, on the initial report, I was going to suggest that once we have narrowed
down these ideas that we have some committee members staff a table at the block party on the 18th from 5 to 9:00 p.m. where we could have a bulletin board up that basically has some of a
sampling of the ideas we voted on on the retreat, maybe one per section. um and give folks dots where at the block party they could say this is a good idea, this is a yellow idea like maybe or this is a
bad idea with a red and it would allow us to reach the probably two or three thousand people who attend that event um if they want to come up and put up stickers. It would be in my opinion more
of an aggregate survey of how folks are feeling, what folks are thinking and a good public outreach opportunity given this committee has not really reached many folks in the public except those who are very concerned.
>> Meg, >> that's the same time as what our next meeting, >> correct? That this would be in instead. So, whoever sits at the table doesn't come to the meeting or >> No, this would be instead of our next meeting. Okay,
>> Andy, >> I think we're going to need to uh um I'm trying to polish these ideas and to I thought we were talking about running them by the Collins Center in in in order for them to sort of put some
language to them and and grade them as far as which ones are whether they're any legal or you know constitutional issues. Um, so I I I guess I I'm not sure we're going to be ready to ha have anything
that is going to be ready for prime time by the 18th. And I also worry that when I go to the block party, I'm usually looking for food. I'm not really looking to vote on, you know, questions of town constitutionality. So, I'm just not sure
that that's going to be a venue that's going to be very successful for that. I mean, we could hold back food for votes. You can't eat till you've proven you voted. We hand out one of those I voted stickers and talk to the uh the
food vendors that they can only provide food for those with the stickers, then sure. >> Um yeah, that's that would be fun. Um but I mean we as a committee have re have gotten attendance uh public forums
to hear folks ideas that is 10 it's a handful of people each time and oftentimes it's the same people and in my opinion the outreach this committee has done to the public is disappointing quite frankly I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone I'm just saying I've
been disappointed with it and it would be great to get our name out in an event where folks who might not be focused on the charter are and we can sort of get a
bigger pool of people in the town who might be able to share their perspective and actually engage in what I would describe as real outreach. Marcus or Raphael and then Meg.
I appreciate the efforts folks have made with outreach. I think civic engagement is a challenge Ammerson elsewhere. I do think Andy though there's a if we do something in terms of presence there I don't think it has to be like vote on it
could be like this process is still happening update people about where we are. Um and I just want to say like outreach is is a challenge. Civic engagement is a challenge, too. And it was summer.
>> Yeah, that's the other thing. Tons of students who come to the block party, college students, high school students, etc. Um Meg and then Andy. >> Um make sure I'm not muted. I've sat at tape many a table at events like the
block party and if you're not people don't stop. If you're not out there walking around with a clipboard or something and engaging them, it's not people, as Andy said, it's people go to the block party not to comment on town government, but to have some food, watch the jugglers.
Uh, so I don't think it's a good way to get more input. We've is I think we've sort of finished the input, initial input. We're going to get more input when we put out our preliminary report. Um, I have strong feelings about a frustration about the outreach that we
did because we didn't have a budget. I spent I must have made six or seven calls to the survival center and more to the Crocker farm only to find out we after I booked the spaces we couldn't use them because we didn't have any money to pay for it. So, I don't think
it's so much that we didn't try to do outreach as that we were we had frustration with u limitations that we didn't have any control over. But I don't want to sound defensive, but um I think if we're trying to do outreach, in
my experience, sitting behind a table uh doesn't, you know, we might get 10 people. We do better going to a neighborhood meeting or a a uh a neighborhood committee or something. That's in my opinion. I mean, I'll sit
there for an hour, but I'd rather have a meeting of our group of of this group than sit at a table at the black party. Just my opinion. I'm one person. Andy, >> lower my
>> Yeah, I think we've despite the fact that it was summer and we didn't have any money, I think we got a lot of good ideas and so the thing to do now, I think that that will really engage people is to give them something to react to. >> And so I think when we have a
preliminary report, >> I think we'll get more interest and we it also is not summer. So, um, you know, things are working in our favor because people find it easier to react to something than than to just come up with ideas. And I think there'll be be some
interest, but I'm just not sure it'll be baked enough by the 18th of September to to get that feedback. >> By the end of our meeting, I was hoping we would have a sort of list of ideas that we're considering. And even if we don't have advice from
Collins yet by that point, we at least have them whittleled down enough that folks can comment on them and process them. Raphael. >> Yeah. Andy and the feedback committee looking forward to going through that whole document. It's a lot of work. I do
want to share though like there's been a framing here periodic about challenge disappointments, but you all we got a lot of feedback, a fair amount of >> right. I think we need to name that people didn't need to show up to all the listening sessions, but the feedback
committee had a lot to work with. I think we want to appreciate those folks that committed >> to submitting those feedback forms without sort of framing it in like folks aren't involved. People respond. >> We want more folks. That's always the push. But continuing to frame this away
in that way to me is tricky in terms of how we engage with folks moving forward. people have participated. We want to do better, but I hope we recognize that. And I also want to recognize the work of folks, the work that folks have putting
in put into like trying to make this work. Good. A lot of good work here. Thanks. >> Thank you, Rafael. other comments, questions, um
ideas, >> no. Um, Andy, >> I I think some of this is relevant to the the suggestion that we extend our deadline >> because if we're not looking to like cram this into, you know, the rest of
this month and next month, but we're actually going till the end of the year, then I think we have a little more time to produce a preliminary report that will be, you know, that will have had feedback from the Colin Center and that will be um a little more polished and
then we will then elicit better feedback. I think so if that's something we want to do, I think we should probably discuss that. >> I would another I know the plan is to discuss that. So >> I think that's an appropriate segue to say how do folks feel about
um about voting an extension request to the council and I'll put together a memo to the council president to extend our deadline maybe to January 15th. M >> I strongly agree as much as I would like
our work to be done even December 31st because I think if the council has only 90 days to respond and it puts a lot of pressure on the council that's on its way out I think some of those same people will be reelected but it it's just not reasonable that they're going
to give this thoughtful uh response in the last weeks of their term especially during a holidays and so on. So I think either December 31st or January 5th so the new council deals with it.
>> Okay. Um other I guess I'll make a motion to extend. Just give us a little extra time. January 15th. >> I think Athena had her hand up. >> Oh Athena. Sorry I didn't see you on there. >> I think you might want to consider the council meeting dates.
>> Okay. Um >> um so my suggestion was the last meeting of the current council's term >> or you could choose the first meeting of the next council's term. >> Okay. Do you know when the first meeting of the next council's term is?
>> They have a first meeting on January 5th. >> Okay, that seems like a reasonable time. Then let's let's do that. How do >> Erica had her hand up too? >> Who? Sorry, I'm not able to see people
for some reason. Um, Erica, >> uh, I have a question which is, is it if if it's possible to request an extension, would it alternatively be possible to extend the 90 days limitation? >> The 90-day limitation is in the charter
itself. So, >> that can't So, you're saying that can't be moved? >> That's correct. because it would be of much more interest to me to extend the window of the response than to extend our work by three months. >> Yeah. Unfortunately, that's not
something the council can vote to do because it's written into the law. >> Yeah, I'm not sure that's going to be possible. So, let's >> but it's something we can consider. >> It's something you can consider as a process. Um, so do we want to move forward with
the 5th with asking for January 5th and we'll put together a memo? If we can just vote on that real quick, then we have something to leave here with. >> Um, >> Julian, I had I had my hand up. Um,
>> yeah, sorry. I can't see people for some reason. I'm not sure why. >> That's okay. I um Yeah, I made sure. Um, let me drop my hand. I think I There it is. Um, I'm not happy about it at all. I'm not
happy about extending. I totally get and that's my emotional response. The rational response is everything that Meg said like we've we've got I think it was Meg that said like we've got work to do still and we can't we just can't like shove it off and and expect a really
thoughtful response. So, um, that's just my thought. I I don't really have an alternative suggestion, but I'm not I'm not wild about it at all, actually. >> Thanks for being realistic about that. I appreciate it. >> Erica and Athena have their hands up, too, since you can't see. So, Erica,
>> uh Erica, then Athena, thank you. >> Athena, why don't you go ahead first because I suspect it's more relevant. Um, one of the reasons that I had suggested the last meeting of the current council's term is because there's one member of this committee who's running to be a council member and that might create a conflict of interest
if this committee is presenting >> suggestions to a member who is serving. >> Good point. Good point. Athena. >> Uh, Erica, >> um, I feel very similar to Ken in my response to this notion. Um, I have an
interest in concluding our work, but I understand why we might need to extend it. Um, I hope that when we're putting forward, we haven't discussed this at all, but if we're putting forward an extension, I don't know what people's expectations are about the the kind of
uh continuity of our meeting schedule all the way up through January 15th. I'm not sure what we're expecting of each other in that respect. my fa >> just want to consider what Athena shared about timeline but maybe it would be
helpful for this committee to flush out a timeline before we move towards like making that motion just a clear timeline in terms of things have shifted if things will shift if we
need if we're taking additional Andy, >> I think part of the reason that it's being suggested is becau is that the council isn't going to have have time to review it with the current timeline because the council will be turning over
at least partially and um it'll right now this would the 90 days would land them right in the middle of the the you know the early part of the budget season. So I think the sense and also it would be split between the
current council and the new council. So my understanding is the deadline we could choose whatever we can choose to finish by October 31st but but not to deliver the report until you know late December, early January. Um I think would what I'm hearing is that would be
better for the council and it might allow them to consider our work more um judiciously. I think it would be better to put this in the hands of the next council just because we already have
like we want to be able to have those discussions with them and engage the council members and allow them to put it on their own agenda after we're finished. And it's important for us to be able to complete our process thoroughly and then have a report to
them that is workable and that we can discuss with them and answer their questions and so on and so forth. I think generally it's better to put that in the hands of the next council. Plus, it allows allows voters to weigh it as an issue in the election, which I think is the most democratic way to approach
it. Um, so I'll make the motion to extend to dis to January 5th, which is the meeting of the >> Julian. Did we vote if did you put forward a motion that we should we vote
on this or I don't know. So are you making a motion? >> I'm making a motion that we extend our committee to January 5th and that I will deliver a memo to the town council asking for that
extension. Do we have a second >> to discuss it? >> Discussion. >> Excellent. Andy seconds. Um, Meg, >> I want to clarify though that does that doesn't have to mean we extend our work until then. We could set our own
deadline for finishing the report for October 31st >> because I think, you know, we're all weary. So, the decision to extend the deadline for submitting the report is in order to align with the council's
changeover. But that doesn't have to mean we meet every two weeks on Thursday night until the middle of January, right? >> Final report. Yes. >> We have to finish our final report though. >> Yeah. But >> Julian, Athena has a hand up.
>> Athena, go ahead. to speak to Raphael's point. I think it might be wise to work backwards from some dates. So there are eight regular council meetings remaining for the rest of the year. You have three
reports due to the council and for the committee to have adequate time to prepare those reports and present them to the council with time in between to for the committee to conduct whatever activities it wants to conduct to prepare the next report. Um I think it it might take a
little bit of planning. >> Yeah, I um I'm happy to come back with a little bit more of a calendar for our next next meeting. >> Great. Thank you. >> This extension request more quickly than that. I think Andy. >> Yeah, just just the concern has been
raised about, you know, that I'm I'm I'm a candidate or will be if I turn in my signatures uh for the council, but I'm quite sure that, you know, if it if it were if I did happen to get elected and and the committee was presenting its
report on um January 5th, I I would be an an eager recipient and then I would be a knowledgeable member of the council and I'm sure you could present it. So, I'm not too concerned about waiting until January 5th. >> Me, me neither. Um, me neither. Uh,
other comments, questions before we vote on this. Seeing none, Andy, you just still have your hand up. Uh, Raphael, >> I just really want to lean into timeline and planning. I think that helps this whole committee.
>> Yeah. Uh, I I think sometimes I I just think that would help. I I maybe we vote now, but I I think I'd like to see that calendar and grapple with the work that people have to do. Maybe at the re I don't know when. Soon.
I think that's that's very very important. Just time clarity. It'll help everybody here. >> Absolutely. Other comments, questions? Erica has her hand up. >> Erica,
>> is there some limiting reason why this couldn't be put together with a calendar and voted on in our next meeting? >> Because the town council needs to be able to vote on it before October 31st.
And I quite frankly don't have faith that they will vote on it before then if we don't get it to them quicker than in two weeks. >> It can I share Julian?
>> They meet between now and then. They meet three maybe four times. We meet three maybe four times and they need a certain amount of notice. I want to make sure that they can get this on their agenda with proper notice before our
time runs out. >> Raphael >> so I'll share Julian. You seem like a great multitasker. Why can't we put it to vote on Saturday? Why can't you come up with that timeline for then? Does that seem
why why can't you >> my goal in the retreat is to spend the retreat on the actual substance of the charter not on administrative tasks. I think it's important to make that distinction so that we can have a
productive retreat focused on actually reviewing the charter rather than sort of the administrative tasks of running our committee. Athena and Marcus have their hand up. >> Yeah. Uh Athena and then Marcus. >> Marcus was first.
>> Marcus, go ahead. >> I was just going to move that we postpone the vote until such time as we have a calendar. >> Okay. Um Athena, >> is there a second? >> I second it.
>> Okay. Um, I just wanted to point out that the next council meetings are September 8th, this coming Monday, the 15th, the following Monday, and October 6th. >> Thank you, Athena. Um, would we like to vote on either one
of these things? >> You have to take up the motion to postpone first. >> Okay, great. Marcus, um, comments on the motion to postpone before I vote on that? >> No, I'm good.
>> Okay. Uh, I'll start with Andy. >> Um, I I don't know. Pass. >> Okay. >> I want to hear I want to hear a justification for it. >> Yeah. Uh may >> um
I've served with Andy, but I'll vote yes. >> Okay. Um it seems like >> Marcus has his Marcus has his hand up. >> Oh, sorry. I need to undo it. Hang >> in a little.
>> Explain your rationale for why. >> Uh because I want to be able to plan. Um, to kind of Raphael's point, I think we need to set out when our last meeting is going to be, when we have the report in. Uh, I
don't think they should be I don't think the meeting and the report need to be tied together. I just think we need to have rather than just blasting a date out there. I think we just need to have a better um understanding of what we're getting ourselves in for.
>> Ken, do you want to vote on this? I'll start with you and work backward. >> Sorry, was that me, Julian? >> Yep. >> Um, I vote to postpone. Yes. >> Erica, >> yes. >> Andy,
>> Andy, >> if you pass, >> um, Raphael, >> yes to the yes to the yes. >> You're yes, I assume. Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot to vote. Yes. Yes.
>> Um, I'll abstain. Uh, and that just leaves me and then Andy. >> Meg. >> Didn't I thought I said yes. >> Maybe I called on you already, Andy.
>> I mean, I think we should decide this at another time than at this point in the meeting. >> Andy? >> Yeah. Okay, fine. Yes. >> Yeah. Um, okay. I will bring this to our next committee meeting and hopefully the council will approve us so that we don't
go defunct on the 31st. >> Um Julian, I have my hand up. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I think in the meantime someone could work on said calendar. >> I'm happy to work on it. I will bring it. While it might
>> while while it might seem like a I don't think it'll take a lot of time for us to see a calendar and vote on it. I don't think that has to be postponed to you want to deal with all this stuff there. There's important work to be done during the retreat but I think with a
calendar scene clarity about I don't think it has to be postponed for too much later. >> Okay. I am happy to bring a calendar to the retreat and vote on it at the retreat if you all can promise to keep
the discussion on it under 10 minutes. >> You got it. >> Okay. Which is harder done than said it seems for this group. No person >> for a lot of for a lot of groups. For a lot of groups
you have good folks here, >> right? Andy >> Andy has it. >> So the the schedule the calendar then would be would have when are we going to have the initial report when are we gonna have the you know the second
report and when are we going to have the final report >> and when are we going to get it vetted by uh Collins and by legal and things like that. So, we just need to fit that in and then if we can get it done by
October 31st, then our then we just say delivery date. We put a bow on it and we deliver it on whenever. But I I think it would be Yeah. So, so yeah, great. >> Raphael, >> I think Erica, you had your hand up
before me. >> Thank you. the um when you're preparing the calendar, please remember that there's a public forum required between preliminary and final and we want to leave enough time to plan for that. >> Absolutely. Um
>> so my hand was up so wanted to share that. Thanks Erica. And before that sort of forum preliminary report great to consider that there's additional outreach that's happening. Just plotting that out too. Uh I I don't know what
amount of weeks we talked about in the outreach subcommittee, but we had some things planned to share initial report and >> Great. Um do folks have a general idea of when they think we could get an initial by
>> when we could what? >> When we could get an initial report done by. M >> I suggest that we create a schedule for each of the next meetings. We've been meeting for a year, but I think we want to meet for a fairly short amount of
time going forward until, you know, into October or November that we create goals for each of the next meetings in in relation to when can we, you know, go through all the recommendations, uh figure out how to present them, write the preliminary report,
uh and so on. When will the U public forum be? I think we need a real tight calendar for us to be sure we're, you know, moving it along. >> Raphael. >> Yeah. Regarding your question about when I I think if we use the sort of format that was proposed by the feedback
committee, I don't think it's a heavy lift. I think Saturday will matter much. I think getting some guidance about what's plausible from Collins matters too, >> but I I don't imagine it taking too much time. >> Okay. Andy,
you >> just wondering if the >> am I can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um just wondering if the outreach committee has done some thinking about a calendar or or you know when you were
thinking about the preliminary and the and the forum if there's any kind of sketch of a calendar that you guys have have put together that you could assist Julian with so he's not just hanging out there on his own. >> We can send the dates that we discussed last time.
>> Sure. That's great. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Right. Other comments, questions, topics not anticipated. >> Wait, is this topics not anticipated? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Um, I would like to either myself or
from all of us send a note to the council saying that we're no longer interested in having an a ninth person appointed to this committee. I think it could be disruptive uh especially after Saturday when we will have gone through this process. I don't I I'm happy to do
it on my own, but I'd much rather it was something we all sent to them. They put an effort into meeting with us. What three or four of them met with us and uh longer than any of us expected a conversation and I think we should say
thank you for taking this so seriously. Uh at this point it wouldn't be helpful. >> Okay. Um, Raphael, >> was there update on the agenda about this, Julian? Did I see that on the agenda? >> No, this is items not anticipated 48 hours ahead.
>> Yes, >> there was a vacancy update on agenda on this, which is just that go says that they're going to continue recruiting for a member. They voted that at their last meeting. >> Right. So, exact. Oh, I see what you're saying. So, in in response to that, it
seems like not worth the effort and it could be disruptive. >> It's not it's not it's not worth our time to draft a letter like that at this point given >> Well, I'll send it myself, but I >> You're welcome to do that. >> I don't want to just be the lone ranger doing it by myself, but I'm happy to. It
just seems it would be counterproductive at this point to bring in someone minimally who would have to be brought up to speed and you know worst case scenario they would have a whole different opinion about how everything should happen. We need to get this
moving get this work through this last two months. >> Raphael >> may I'll say we'll move but I think them joining us last time was to get insights from us. I think they heard that from
people here, so they know. Um, so we'll see. >> Yeah. >> So, we were sort of ambivalent at least, you know, we said maybe it'd be good. I don't know. I just think >> okay, >> if we don't want to do it, we won't. I'll just do it myself. Probably
>> you can do whatever you'd like as a member of the public. With all due respect, me, the time to make that comment was when they joined us at the last meeting. >> But I it things have changed since then. >> What has changed? >> We're having this retreat on Saturday. It's they're going to start from scratch
the process of seeking more resumes. It'll take months. I mean, we'll be all done by the time they do it. It's not worth the effort. >> But that's okay. I understand. I should have said it when they were here a month ago. Uh
but okay. I Does everybody agree we're not going to make a >> I think you got that uh those documents to read, Meg. >> Yeah, I'm just I know I'm gonna documents I'm gonna send an email from myself. >> I'll send an email from myself alone and
say in my humble opinion >> just speaking for myself uh >> I don't think it's worth the effort. >> I'm happy to join you Meg if you if you want to add my name to that. Okay, I'll send it to the the other comment I mentioned to Julian
that I wanted to mention items not considered 48 hours, but I think we're sort of doing it. We've done it already, which is to get clear on what our process is for approving or just, you know, on recommending things in this
report. And I suggest that we might consider identifying recommendations that had the full unanimous support of everybody versus those that had maybe only five votes. But I'm not sure we should talk about that now. But I
thought uh indicating the degree to which our committee supported recommendations. I think given this conversation tonight, we're not going to insist on consensus or unanimous support for everything we recommend, which I think is good because that's can be a
long process. The question I'm asking and maybe for discussing later is whether we want to indicate the unonymity of our committee and advancing recommendations. Maybe another column that says, you
know, five, you know, six to two, eight to nothing, >> seven to one. I'm not sure. But that might be an interest, I think, something to think about. >> In other words, if everything goes forward is kind of this is the
recommendation, but it was actually a tough decision and we almost didn't make it versus something that's like a no-brainer. Um there's some of the things that have have been said so often at every public hearing and they've come in that is just obvious things that are
really good idea versus things that are more debatable but approved by us. We might want to think down the as we go through this of a way of indicating the degree to which our committee supported the recommendations.
I'm not sure. I'm just trying to make sure that we're clear at the beginning what our process is. Implementing a process we've agreed on rather than making it up as we go along. >> I hear that. >> Yeah.
>> Thank you. >> Over. >> Lord, my hand. >> Can you see hands, Julian? >> Uh, no, I cannot. Erica has Erica. >> Erica. Um, I would like to know what is
the schedule of events for Saturday. >> Yeah. >> What the schedule is for Saturday? >> Yep. >> It's been posted on the town website. The agenda is on the town website. >> Could you say it here? >> Sure. Um, it was posted on the town
website this morning and I will pull it up and speak it to you right now. Um, just let it load on my computer, but I will get that for you. Uh, you
have uh it's Saturday. The library is available and booked. Um, >> I can share it if you want. >> I have it right here. Um, call to order at 10:00 in the morning. We'll have 30
minutes to set up the space. Um, from 9:30 to 10 public comment. Then I would like to go through a process like what we just did for what to include in the report with a consensus process and we try to decide what to include and what
to sort of study and discuss um more and ask for resources from Collins. Then I'm hoping that we'll have lunch at 12:30. Then we'll have another chance for public comment. Then we'll have a motion and vote on what specifically not to
include in the process. We'll refine our work plan. We'll get um a working group set up for the initial report um and time when it is going to go out and what the outreach is for it. And then I'll probably if we have some time slip in a
calendar and vote for an extension request and then future agenda planning topics not anticipated in a journ at 4:00. The space is booked till 5 in case we run over a little bit and need some time to clean up. But that is that's our
plan. Erica, is that helpful? >> I wanted it to be part of the record of this meeting. >> Half hour lunch. Erica, >> I'm ready. >> Guess what I saw. >> I'm ready. >> Regular lunch box.
Thanks, Juliet. >> There's Emer House of Pizza right across the street. >> Great. >> Plenty of great places to get lunch in half an hour. Um, >> other comments, questions?
>> No. Do we need to bring I can bring a projector as a backup just in case. >> That would be great. Just in case. That's great. Thank you. >> Okay. Um future agenda planning. I guess we can also do that at the at
the retreat. Um, other comments, questions before we adjourn. >> Erica has a hand up. >> Yeah. How are we handling minutes? >> Minutes. Um, members will have to take
minutes. Um, I was thinking to divide the day into three different sections. Um, and to have Otter AI write a transcript. Um so three members would
rotate um and we'll have the um a recording device on my computer that will assist us in writing minutes. >> I have a like a conference phone thing that's USB I'll bring as well.
>> Excellent. May. >> So, we won't record it. Obviously, that's okay. >> It does not appear that the town can record it. And I did call and ask Ammeris Media and it's not part of their contract to record these types of
things, >> but we'll have a transcript. >> Correct. Raphael. >> Yeah. Thanks again to the feedback committee. That's a lot of work that you all did and yeah >> each committee appreciate your efforts with me. Um it's a lot of work. So
thanks. >> Thank you. >> Yeah really really thank you. >> Comments questions we have a motion to adjourn. >> I would just say that you know all of the input came from the efforts of the outreach committee. So I appreciate you guys too. Oh,
>> the love fest at the end of the quarter. It's needed at time. >> Great. >> Um, excellent. Other comments, questions before we leave? If not, does someone want to make a motion to adjurnn?
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> Great. Second. >> Second. >> Okay. You can take the second if you want. Um >> I don't care. >> I >> um myself I'm an I. Andy >> I
>> Marcus >> I >> Ken >> I >> Erica >> I I All right. Um we'll end on that note. Uh, good night everybody. >> Good night. Thank you. >> Take care.