You're all set. Please go ahead. >> Thanks, Athena. Um, okay. So, we'll do a quick roll call. Bernie, >> present. >> Me? >> Present. >> Raphael >> here. >> Ken, >> here. >> Andy,
>> here. >> Um, Ann Marcus >> here. >> Excellent. >> Okay. >> And I'm also here. >> Thank you. Excellent. Um, so we have
everyone here. Uh, I will go through the agenda. Um, first just recognizing this is an additional meeting. Um, and I saw your email, Meg. Uh, we will the agenda can always be found right on the town
website. Even if it isn't in a packet or in a document, you can look at it right on the website itself. >> Right. I just didn't see it, but now I No problem. >> I saw this called It was called 25. >> Yep. Um, so
okay. Uh, do you didn't send me the June 26th minutes yet? Is that correct, Meg? >> I What? >> Have you sent me the June 26th minutes? >> Yes. Two weeks ago. >> Okay. Excellent. Um, then I did not get a chance posted, but I sent them also
the one that I did the most recent meeting. I sent that al. So, I have a motion to approve July 24th um and October 2nd minute since both of those we have. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> But has everybody read them? I
>> I saw the July 24th. I I didn't see the October 2nd. Maybe that's me. >> I believe the October 2nd were just sent out today. >> Okay. >> I didn't I didn't record. >> Um let's go through and vote. I'm an I Bernie. >> I I have to say I wasn't present.
>> Okay. Um, may >> I wrote them. I thanks to Bernie. Bernie, thank you. >> Um, the 21st century was helped in by Bernie. >> I only reviewed the 24th. So, yes, that
the other I did not. >> Okay, great. Ken, >> hi. >> Andy, >> hi. >> Erica, >> hi. >> And Marcus, >> hi. >> Excellent. So, that approves those two sets of minutes, and I'll make sure to
add the June 26 minutes um and the minutes for this meeting um at our next meeting. So, that's excellent. We're getting caught up there. Um >> public comment. I do not see >> who's who's doing the minutes this meeting, Julian.
>> Oh, me minutes for this meeting is Ken. Is that all right? >> Ken, um thanks, Meg. Uh I don't see anyone from the public. Any public comment? >> There is someone in the >> Oh, there is. Excellent. Thank you. Um Darcy, would you like to raise your hand
and speak? >> I don't see any hands. Excellent. >> Um so now we'll move on. I'm not sure has the outreach subcommittee met at all since our last meeting? No, but we
continued our work on um as we did last time on the uh contact list that's ready to go for after their initial report is done. We don't have an agenda item for the initial report writing group that was approved last week, but Ken and I did
meet and I realize that's not on the agenda at all, but um >> Great. Do you want to give that update now quickly? Uh, I can just say that we Ken and I met and began organizing our work around the
content of the report, the sections that I shared with this group last time. Um, we divided up the work and we decided on a sort of a plan of action um, and some formatting for what the initial report will contain even though we have content
decisions still to make as a larger group. Ken, I don't know if you want to add anything. No. Um I mean I I added a piece about just add um kind of a ramp up or just a you could call it a history I guess. Um very very short history of because I I
am envisioning the person who hears about this report and goes there's a charter review committee and they're going to try to see I I want them to come with us. I want them to be with us as they read this and understand who we are just really briefly. Not go into detail um but just Yeah. So some of that
stuff >> it also will describe in some detail our process uh so that that's all clear and documented. >> Excellent. Um thank you. Uh I will now move us along. >> Wait, we have two two hands are up.
>> Oh sorry. Um Raphael >> Erica it was great to say you all are documenting the process. I think it's important for the public to know with specificity what has taken place in this process. >> Yes, >> I think there's a lot of sharing about
how it's played out. Um it's important to for people to know when it began where we are. I think there's been a lot of talk about this group. Um hopefully folks in the public are aware like these processes take 12 to 18 months. Um and
sometimes they're extended. Um I think hopefully folks here share that with many. Um that is the norm a year or over 12 to 18 months and I I hope um we can share with the public that we appreciate
their engagement with this process um and not only through the listening tours but we've gotten a lot of feedback elsewhere. So I think moving forward I think that's crucial to really engage people in this process. So I just wanted to share that. >> Thank you. We'll definitely be
highlighting. >> Yeah, it's a great point, Raphael, that the the the reviewing of the other charter reports that I looked at when I when I looked at them, I thought we were still going to be on a 12-month schedule and I saw some of these, I literally saw stuff that happened for that went on for two years.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Right. >> So, it's important to to maybe compare us and say there is there's lots of precedents. >> Yeah. or this in other towns and that >> because we were given 12 months >> that's doesn't really mean anything unfort
>> I would say particularly if you're trying to really engage the public in this process which I think should be a priority >> so yeah >> yeah thank you Raphael I think that's an excellent point me >> so the um outreach committee is making a
huge effort effort to do a very robust outreach particularly to neighborhoods and networks and organizations that have email lists. So, if any of you I appreciate some of you already can uh has helped a lot uh have neighborhood
email lists or you're part of a group and we could share with you the uh uh spreadsheet that we have. We're trying to find uh a whole bunch of different networks. If you have any ideas, please pass them on to any of the
three of us, Raphael or Erica or myself. >> Thanks. >> Excellent. Are there questions, comments on that? >> No. All right. Um feedback subcommittee. Did you all meet? Andy, >> we have not met since our last meeting.
Um, >> no problem. Um, I was just going to report that I spoke to and answered numerous counselor questions um on Monday uh at between 10 and 11
o'clock at night. And um we got some push back from counselors Mandy Johanni, George Ryan, and uh Andy Steinberg who had uh some concerns about how long the process was taking. Um why we didn't
have a report out yet, the accuracy of the reports, etc. Um and we did also get sort of what I think was a healthy discussion. And I think it's good that that the council is discussing this. Pretty much every member spoke or had
something to say. So, at least we're on their radar. Um, I just wanted to share that update with the committee and ask if anyone had questions. Ken, >> no questions. I just wanted to give proper credit to um council person Walker and I think it was council person
Devlin um Gothier >> who also just provided some support and some context and some perspective not speaking for us but just sort of saying hey the kind of a counter to the
to the the detracting statements or whatever whatever we're calling the other one the ones that you just mentioned >> I agree >> it was it was really good television. It was really interesting to watch. I'm so glad that Athena shared that with us. >> Yeah, thank you for sharing that, Athena. And um I agree. Councelor Walker
and uh councelor Develin Gothier as well as councelor Lord were excellent um and very supportive of our committee um and it's excellent and we appreciate their support. Alicia is actually my neighbor so I'll tell her if I see her around. Um, may
>> um I agree with everything you and uh Ken just said. I was surprised, maybe you can help me see if I heard this correctly, that they're expecting our recommendations to include the language appropriate for moving the action. So,
if it's a piece of legislation in the Massachusetts legislature, it would be the language of the bill. If it's something the council would vote on, it would be the language of the motion. uh if it was a something that had to go to a ballot question to the public, it would be the language on the ballot
question. That was a level of uh recommendation that I didn't think we were prepared to do. So I I'm just not asking us to discuss it more to say I heard this two or three times that the assumption by giving us this generous
extra time u they would expect our recommendations to include this kind of language. If that's the case, I think we need to dispel that ASAP. >> Thank you. Um, Raphael,
>> I don't know if I heard accurately, Julian, but did I hear that you shared uh details from the initial report with the council? >> No, that's incorrect. The memo was not correct. Um, we I did share basically
what we already have. Um, so we have the uh Colin Center feedback as well as the Greens list. Um, I did share that with the council. >> Okay. Thanks, >> Bernie.
Um, well, I I thought that um I appreciate what all the counselors had to say and I understand why some are concerned about the amount of time it's taking and um uh their concerns about getting a report out. I did note um
Julian that you had mentioned that we had adopted that was the word you use um several changes and that those would be in the interim report. That's not accurate. We haven't adopted a blessed thing. There's no vote at this committee to say these
are what we have to do. This is what we're gonna have to do. The recommendation that walked back the u the requirement or the belief that we were going to submit legislative language. Uh I think what they um
later in the discussion it got around to saying well you know if they made a good suggestion and we had to refer it somewhere to get the language that would be um that would be uh acceptable but I I was
a little bit u I was a little bit taken back by the expectation that we would have legislative language. >> Me too. Um that's not something that any of us on the committee are are equipped to do for one and for two um
the the uh the town's represented by a very capable law firm that's written lots of legislation. So it makes more sense for us to hand those suggestions to the council. If the council choose to chooses to act on them, they hand that then to KP Law who can then draft
something that uh will will survive the attorney general's review and the legislative committees and everything else that's going on. But I didn't, you know, I didn't begrudge people the uh their concerns about timeliness because I think it it's real.
So, we are taking a lot of time and we did spend a lot of time spinning our wheels, but that's that that's happened. Now, we're moving forward and let's just hopefully get this in report um out in a timely fashion and move up move on from
there. >> Thanks, Erica. Then Andy, then Raphael. I have a comment, but it's not about the um the legal language. So, if Andy or Raphael want to want to stay on that topic? >> I don't.
>> Okay. Um >> did you >> Andy did you? >> Yeah. Um my recollection I was just going to pull up the scope and I didn't have time to do it. um that the scope asked us to provide langu you know basically redline language for
what would go in the charter rather than language that would go to the legislature. So I think we should make make sure that we're clear on what what actually the scope said but but my recollection was that that the final would be would include language for how
you know how the charter would look not how the legislative action would look. So, that might be an important distinction to clarify, >> but they they said legislative language, but sorry, I didn't get >> Well, they said legislative language, but I think um the charge said charter
language. >> Yeah. >> So, that's correct. The charge said charter language. I mean, obviously, we're picking at words. I don't want to assume people's intentions. And sorry to cut you off, Raphael. I just hear this again
and again. I think it's totally possible that one of the counselors simply misspoke and that they meant to say charter language but said legislative language instead and we shouldn't read too much into that at this point. Um Raphael,
>> yeah, I'm going to warmly disagree with Bernie about spinning of wheels. I think in terms of moving forward, like if we think about this process again, we've been meeting for a year. Um, I think moving forward in terms of engagement with the community, it's important to
frame things in terms of this process in many other towns takes longer than a year. And again, leaning into we want the public engaged. We could have jumped in and perhaps drafted things, but without feedback from the public, I'm not sure. Um, that would have been
ideal, at least from where I So, thanks. >> I agree. Thanks, Raphael. Um Erica, >> thanks. Um I wanted to clarify one important thing that I think came up at that meeting uh about the extension and
that is the confusion around um the request for extension with the timing of the election. And I think it's important because there was a lot of confusion in the discussion and it's an
important distinction to make for the sort of public record of our process. Um there's a there's a there's a difference and some of the counselors expressed their concerns about this difference in submitting to this council or submitting
the final report to the next council. And we may all have our separate feelings about it but we haven't had an extensive discussion about it as a committee. We had we realized that we were sort of be coming to towards the zone of the election season
>> and made a and made a call on which side of that to land. But that's really different from making an association between the timing of our report with election relevance which would be completely inappropriate. And I don't
want that to I don't want that to continue. I don't want to associate like what we needed as a an extension which has to do with the challenge of our meeting pace and the challenge of clarity around our process which we can analyze at another time.
That's very different from saying we've got to time the charter in a certain way as an election tool of some kind. Um, the charter review was never meant to be either in its charge or in the course of this work a a tool of election guidance
like point blank. That's not what we're doing. And I want that to be super clear. And I think to sort of casually associate those things, it stokes confusion and it sort of politicizes further politicizes our committee's
work, which is totally unnecessary. So, I just wanted to make super clear. They're two separate things. It happened that because of the pace of our work, we kind of ran up until up close to election season and we had to make a
call about what to do and that's what this is the call we made and the timing of the request came even closer because of the delay between when we wanted to request and when we got in front of council. So, I just wanted to say that for the record. To me, those things are
completely separate. Thank you. >> Thanks, Eric. I don't completely agree, but it's not on the agenda, so we'll move on. Um Bernie, >> I want to agree wholeheartedly with with Erica. It was never intended u was never
intended to be a political process and never intended to get caught up in town election. Um this is one of those things where the less politics is involved the better off things are because we really want to look at how the government functions
uh on a couple of different levels. There's the technical stuff that goes on and you know when they sit down and meet and how their agenda is organized and everything else and then there's the broader aspect of it is how people see this how people can relate to this and
how people ha can better understand the way the government works. So a lot of what we're hearing is it's like this there's this thing that goes on and people don't quite understand it. And I think if we can go
and help explain it, they'll they'll move us forward. >> Thanks. Um, so moving us along, I'm >> put your hand up. >> May, >> um, just very brief briefly, I strongly
agree with Erica and Bernie. uh the people on this committee have different perspectives and bring to this committee uh experiences where we weren't on the same page with each other.
And Andy and I, for example, were both on the charter commission and had opposite positions. We've worked really hard during this year to listen to each other, to work together, to have uh worked past that so that the issues that
have stupidly, in my opinion, divided this town have not, I hope, maybe I'm naive, affected our deliberations here. And I think that's really important to value and um hold on
to and continue. I I could say a whole lot more about this, but that was enough. Okay. I think I think in my mind the reality is that it's not an issue of we
want to be involved in the election. I'm not saying that we as a committee want to be involved in the election. If that's what you all heard from that, I apologize. But I think the reality is currently if you're a counselor voting to grant
this extension, it's a matter of if the committee is going to be doing its work in an election season or not. And that's something as town counselors that it's important they consider. they consider for themselves when running and it's
also important that they consider for the community of how heightened a process they want this to be. I think that's an important thing to consider and it's also important for the voters to consider and be able to ask questions of future counselors about what they
plan to do about the charter. Um, obviously it's just my personal opinion as chair, but I'm entitled to express my personal opinion um at council meetings. And I was very clear that I was not speaking on behalf of the entire committee.
Um, so I'm going to move us along if we don't have any other questions on this off agenda topic. >> No. Okay, great. Um so now we will move on to the non-voted
charter revisions that um are highlighted on the spreadsheet as non-voted and uh we will vote on them. Um I'll let Andy say a little piece and I'll start sharing my screen. >> Okay. Um are you sharing the white
you're sharing the weight list? Can you all see that? Yep. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Um, so we have what we have is that this is the the the issues that either when we voted we did not come to a determination. We flagged
you know we flagged them for further discussion or for for further for determination later. And then we have the NV ones that are that are identified in with the blue and the on the left side that came in after our voting uh session and they're largely Kathy
Shane's because the other counselor that came in afterwards was already represented in the other list. >> Can I ask you Andy, you're saying Kathy's things are integrated now into this in the yellow? >> Yes. Great. The ones that the ones in blue are largely Cathy's. the the ones
that are that say NV, >> they were not voted. We hadn't we didn't vote on those. >> Okay. >> But we need my understanding is we need to decide this whole list which ones we're sending to to Collins and which ones were not. Right.
>> Right. >> I was under the impression that there were some that we had already decided on to send forward to Collins. >> There were and and they they were taken off the white list. These are the ones that were not taken off the white list last time. >> Well, we did the last meeting. We
basically agreed to take the pieces under article 8, the voter veer veto stuff and send that to Collins. >> Oh, we on Kathy's suggestions tonight is what it appears. if the committee would
still like to vote on solely councelor Shan's suggestions. >> As I understood it, it's not solely councelor showing suggestions that there are others who have made similar suggestions. And I I really want to depersonalize this,
>> right? >> You know, we're not arguing about a counselors. Uh we're we're looking at the charter and what might be reasonable changes to make to the charter. Uh
listening to the counselors last night, at least Indie Steinberg would appreciate and I thought I thought this was going to be one of our things to begin with. um stuff that the council could do on their own as a vote rather than have to go through the uh the
amendment process for a home rule charter um or or worse you know have getting legislation. So, um, if if we can look at some of this and, uh, you know, some of this we've
already voted on, uh, some of it's new. U but this was all stuff that were undecided. So, let's let's fall off the fence here and say whether we're going to send this along or not. >> So, does the committee want to do everything in here or just the non-voted suggestions? I
>> I guess my question is if we don't decide what to do with the 8week late with with the lame duck one and the council size and the ones that aren't envy, what do we do with those? What what happens to those? >> They effectively would go in the no
column even though we didn't vote that way. So, it might be worth I mean I can see both both arguments here. I would I would vote for considering all of them and just just with with a mindset of like do we want Collins to give us input
on this or not. >> Is the committee okay with that? Voting voting all of them not just Kathy's voting everything. >> Yeah, I thought we were doing that. >> That's what I thought we were doing. >> Great. Okay. Excellent. Then let's do it that way. That's fine. Um I mean we're
sort of revoting but I don't see a problem with it. Um, so one, two, three. Um, basically, do folks understand how to vote and what their votes mean? Three is effectively a no. Um, you can flag
it, uh, if you're unclear. Um, or abstain. Uh, and then two is, uh, I support this to an extent, but it's not a high priority. And one is I would really like to see this implemented. >> What What do we I'm sorry, I have a
question. Go right ahead. Um, >> what what do we do if we don't know and we want Collins to Right. feedback. >> Flag. >> That should mean flag in in this round in my opinion. >> So, to me it seems like we're just voting. Do we send it to Collins or not?
>> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> So, why don't we just say yes or no? >> Just make it yes or no. Okay, great. Um, that's fine with me. We'll just do yes or no votes. Um, and I'll start with this lame duck. uh and we'll go down and
try to be as efficient as possible. If folks have questions, please raise your hand and try not to interrupt the voting process with your questions. Ken, >> um just for the sake of the fact I'm on a laptop and I cannot see the right I I
reviewed all these. I made my votes, >> but I made them by um by line number. If you can just pull out the line number, that would be helpful. >> Absolutely. Um no problem. Currently, we're on line number seven, and I'll do it every time, and if I forget, chime in and remind me. >> Thank you,
>> Bernie. >> If we're not going to interrupt the voting process, can we have a discussion prior to that? >> Yes, I will say each one, I will ask for discussion before we vote. >> Okay, thank you.
>> Um, so starting with line seven, reduce the 8week lame duck period. Any discussion, Andy? And then Bernie, >> you're muted, Andy. >> You're muted, Andy.
>> I I I believe that we should send it to Collins, but my my concern is that in in the argument against it talks about that the council needs to come up with budget guidelines for the town manager in November.
So that that affects unless that timeline can change in some way. That would be brand new counselors coming in to to to give guidelines. And so I'm leaning no as far as sending it to the council, but
I don't know enough to say that for certain. So that's why I'm saying yes to send it to the Collins. >> Great, Brian. Yeah, I um I I I would say no to the reducing the 8week period. Uh
I think there's a uh the opportunity here for new counselors to go through some training and do some research and reading and get up to speed before they actually have to sit down and vote is valuable. You can't do that in three
weeks. uh the town manager has arranged for training for new uh new new counseling uh or provided it and uh that happens during that that 8week period. Um I I
don't have a I don't have a problem with the >> uh outgoing council wrapping up its business because um one session of the council can't um bind
the next session. So, if the new council coming in doesn't like what the old council going out did, assuming there's that much of a change, and my doubt there will be, uh, then they can they can modify it. They can amend it. So, I don't see it as a challenge. I see it as an opportunity for folks and having been
new to office. Um, I can uh tell you that having that ramp up to to to to do do some training, do some reading, uh, talk to your your future colleagues uh, before you're
sworn in works really well. And, um, I also think that we have to pay attention to the budget process. Andy raised the issue that we basically need to have council needs to have guidelines uh for the for the town manager in
November, but um again the the the chapter 43b specifies that a budget has to be ready within x number of days from the council being seated. So seating the council a little bit later on
um gives us a gives an opportunity more of an opportunity to begin to to shape the budget and uh and move forward. So I would say no to this. Thank you. Um so we'll begin voting. Uh myself I
am an I uh >> Erica. >> Yes. >> Ken abstain. >> Uh Rafael >> no. Andy,
>> I'm saying yes to send it to um Collins. >> Um Bernie, >> no. >> Marcus, >> no. >> And Meg? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Send it to Collins.
>> That was one, two, three, four. Four yes, three no and one abstension. So that will count that will send to Collins um even though it's close uh
because extensions were not counting. So that is headed to Collins. Um number eight I was a little confused about because it says decrease the number of counselors and increase the number of counselors. Andy, are we
comfortable skipping over this? Did you want to talk about this? Um well the note says need to split and discuss individually. I think in either case um this is going to changing the number of counselors would require I believe a
new charter commission. >> Correct. >> So I think if we know that we don't really need to send it to >> right >> I'm in agreement. Are folks comfortable with that? >> I'm seeing a lot of nodding heads. Great. >> Yes. How do you see
>> now? We're moving to nine. Um, which is new wording that says in addition to a finance committee. Um, uh, any comments? No. Okay, we'll vote on this. Uh,
>> oh, sorry. Did you have a comment? You didn't raise your >> Just could you say something about what it is? >> Um, it has the rationale right there. Um, >> okay. Got it. Got it. Okay, great. Andy and Bernie, did you guys have comments again?
>> Well, just just that the this is basically to say that there will be a finance committee and then the the council can add other committees if they want, but it's basically specifying that there will be a finance committee of the council. >> Bernie, >> yeah, that's that was my point exactly.
Thank you. Um, so voting uh starting with Bernie because you're the first on my list >> to send this to council. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Um, Erica, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Um, Meg,
>> I guess so, but seems pretty okay. Yes. >> Um, I'm an I. Raphael. >> Yes. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Marcus, >> yes. >> Okay, this will get sent to Collins. um moving finance committee definition from
section 5.5 to 2.8 um which will give the finance committee investigative authority and other authority. I'm presuming that means it has more authority but I'm not completely sure. Any comments >> Bernie?
>> Bernie. Yeah, this is um I think a reflection that the finance committee has been challenged that uh as to whether or not the finance committee has the right to ask questions about other um
other governments and other departments um budgets and ask for information. I would think that in a rational world because the uh the the council has the right to ask those kinds of questions and to seek
that kind of data that a committee authorized by the council would have the same right. But this may be helpful to spell it out so that in the future um there's no there's no prospect of disagreement
around what the authority the finance committee has. Thank you. I personally have a comment. I don't support um giving the finance committee increased authority over what it already has. I think that the finance committee um has
been overstepping its bounds into the authority of other committees such as the school committee and by virtue they could but choose not to um for whatever reason with the library trustees as well. Um, and I think that realistically
we should not consolidate power in town council when we have other elected offices in town that are meant to be a check and a balance on the council committees and provide their own budget. Um, so I think increased authority to the finance committee is not appropriate
here. Um, Andy and I'm presuming Bernie you don't have another comment. >> Oh, I do have another comment. >> Okay. Um, basically the the council has to has to vote the the full budget of the town and
the finance committee is the subset of the council that really digs in and explains to the full council what all the budgets mean. And if they don't have the ability to ask questions of all the different parts of the budget
um then then we get into sort of a question of it's sort of a constitutional crisis in a way where it's like we want to understand this better but if if the school committee or the library trustees are like no we don't want to tell you I think having
this clarification and this you know came from somebody who was on the finance committee along with Bernie um I I I just I think it's important for the finance committee as an arm of the council that will be voting on on the overall town budget to have the ability
to ask questions so they can clarify and explain things to the full council. >> I'm going to let Meg talk first just because she raised her hand and we've already spoken. Bernie, >> um does this how does this relate to the proposal that there would be members on
the finance committee who are not counselors? So I know that's a separate question but um what does that >> mean? It would mean that they also would have that increased level of authority um as >> and that will come that will come as a separate proposal down the road there.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Right. >> Uh Julian, you misunderstand the finance. The finance committee is advisory in nature. And as Andy said, it's the ex and I I've been on the finance committee for five years on this committee and I
was on the finance committee in front of town meeting for an equivalent amount of time. In both cases, the finance committee is advisory. It's their opportunity, their their business, their opportunity to understand what's being proposed in in a
degree of detail that the council may not have the opportunity to go into. So the finance committee doesn't say yes or no. The finance committee says this is a good idea, this is maybe not a good idea. The finance committee doesn't have any final authority. and to sit there
and have someone say to me, "You can't look at my budget because it's my budget even though they're spending the town's money." Um, is a problem. And this is just intended to clarify that. Uh, you know, if you if
you diss the finance committee and say you can't look at my budget, then it could fall back to the council and the council could order it. So, you know, let's just get away from this. The finance committee has too much power. authority stuff. Um, you know, it's a real misunderstanding of what goes on in
the finance committee meetings and the finance committee should have the opportunity, the right to ask and look at whatever it deems necessary to advise the the council as a whole about the
budget. >> Thank you. I I watch pretty much every single finance committee meeting that happens. Um, I see what you have to say and I fully understand the finance committee. I respect and understand that you disagree with me and that's okay.
Um, but I completely understand the finance committee and my concern here is that they basically deeply analyze the budgets of two departments and give everyone else in my personal opinion a blank check um to
move forward. But then with with all due respect that's >> Let's move on. >> Sorry I've offended you, Bernie. It's just the reality. >> No, it's not the reality. It's your perception, your misperception of what's going on and your continued injection of
your own personal politics into this stuff. And like making comments before the council is not helpful to any of us. So you misunderstand it sorely. You may have watched it and you may have thought you understood what's going on, but I've been there. I've lived it. I've written
those reports. I've analyzed the departments, different departments as thoroughly as anything else. And so that's that's an insult to say get they they we buried bore down on on those poor people from the regional school, but let the highway department
uh walks. That's not true. It's absolutely not true. I mean, >> I think it's inappropriate to say that basically write off anyone who disagrees with your personal perspective as uneducated um or misinformed. Uh that's
not really a good way to dis debate the merits of a proposal in my opinion, but that's really up to you. >> You you have your you have your opinions. >> It's not appropriate to go back and forth to the You have your We'll just
let them go. >> Let's Do other people have questions. >> Am I mistaken that this item appears twice in the spreadsheet? >> It does appear twice in the spreadsheet. >> You are not mistaken. >> You are not going to vote on it twice. It just appears twice.
>> Um, other comments, questions? No. Okay, we'll vote on this. Um, Erica, >> just passing for one moment. Yep. No problem. Um, Raphael, >> so this is whether or not to send the Collins, >> correct?
>> Uh, yes. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Myself, I'm a no. Um, Meg, >> yes. >> Uh, Marcus, >> yes. >> Bernie, >> yes. >> And Andy, >> yes.
>> Okay. >> And Erica, >> yes. >> And Erica, sorry, I skipped over you. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um line 12 the change from may to shall for resident members and provide voting rights. Um any comments questions
on this proposal? I have one >> Andy. >> I think this is two separate things. One is should they should we require um resident members on on the finance committee and then two should they be
able to vote. So I think we should if we send this to Collins we should ask them to comment on both of those aspects separately. >> Thank you. >> Sure. I agree. Um I think that when it comes to members resident members of the
finance committee I mean I personally think that the finance committee should be a separate elected committee in town that advises the town council. It still would advise the town council on what to do with town finances, but that it be a separate elected committee. Um, that
could include counselors, could include others, uh, but that really specific citizen oversight over the taxpayer money rather than delegated oversight is more appropriate. Um, so I think that
using that logic, allowing for some resident members to vote makes sense to me. Um, >> Bernie, >> the resident member, um, I want to say that's that's an Amoris innovation. I'm not completely sure. It's a nice thought
to have resident members on a on a on a key committee and, uh, I've certainly enjoyed my time on it. Um, so I would be in favor, very much in favor of continuing resident members. um in terms of providing voting rights. However,
um I think there's a problem when you give someone who's an appointee the same authority as an elected official. I I I don't think that's appropriate.
Um I found and um I'm sure you can talk to others who've been on the resident members that we get um treated with great respect by the finance committee. We have more than our say and then we also get to say whether we support or
disagree with the proposal that's in front of the finance committee and and so I think uh the resident members had a positive effect on the committee but I don't need see the need to give them the right to vote. I think >> uh that's a problem with having uh
someone who's appointed having the same authority as a counselor who's been elected. >> I have my hand up. >> Julian, you're muted. Sorry. Thank you. Marcus, are you there? >> Yeah. Uh, thank you. I was going to just
agree with uh Bernie's point about, you know, having resident appointed residents uh being able to, you know, provide it uh voting input. I don't agree with that at all. uh but also I believe you know from our discussions
with Collins that there are limitations on what may and may not happen in the finance committee in terms of you know resident members um and being elect being a separate elected um committee that is for a town not a city and so as
a city we have to have our um councilors on it. So, um just something to think about and maybe something we need to get clar clarity from from sorry too many froms uh from um uh Collins. Sorry.
>> Um Andy, >> I I' I'd like to I don't suggest or move or whatever that we divide this and that we vote separately on >> having resident members and having the resident members have voting rights. >> Thank you. lower my hand.
>> Um, so we'll first vote on having resident members uh in the charter. Um, I am an I. Andy, >> but are we voting to have that in or to go to council? >> Excuse me. Thank you. To go to um
Collins, >> do we need to vote to start with to actually vote to see if we want to split it? I guess technically, but there's no reason that we can't just vote it as two separate items
>> if folks are comfortable splitting it. I don't think we need >> Does anybody object? >> No. >> Yeah. No. >> No. >> Great. Um, so I'll start with voting uh that we include resident members on the finance committee. I'm an I. Andy.
>> I. >> Meg. >> I. Yes. Bernie, are you there? >> Yep. I'm plumbing. Yes. >> Um, Raphael, >> yes. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Erica,
>> yes. >> Marcus, >> yes. >> Unanimous. Excellent. Now to ask Collins about providing resident members voting rights on the finance committee. Um for the sake of time, is there any
discussion? Randy, >> I'll make it I'll make it brief, but um I think that this is a subcommittee of the council and I think they are elected representatives and so I think the elected representatives should have the
votes and to put appointees on the same level as elected representatives is problematic. So I'm voting no. >> Um okay. So any other comments? >> You're no? >> I I didn't understand your point, Andy. I'm sorry.
Um basically this the finance committee is a subcommittee of the council and so we have counselors on it and we're also to get more input we're bring we're bringing in uh you know people from the comm other people from the
community but they're not the voters have not elected them and so I think when it comes down to the vote like like Bernie said they get to talk they get to have they get to influence the other members But to have them have an equal equal
footing with the people who've been elected to represent the people, I just I I think there's something different about being a counselor on a finance committee and being a community representative who can add perspective. I I I think it's going a little too far
to give them the vote on on the same footing as council members who are were elected to be on the council. >> Yeah, I I hear that, Andy. You're you're persuading me, Marcus. >> Yeah, I just wanted to add to that
point. Thank you. I mean, the public has no recourse, right, uh, to disagree with somebody's recommendation on the finance committee if they're not elected. So, you can vote somebody out for the decisions they made on the finance
committee. You can't vote out a representative. So giving them the ability to vote on something that they have effectively no, you know, no qums doing. They've got no payback just doesn't make any sense. So
>> Okay. >> Could I just ask? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Um, so we're voting whether to send it to Collins or not. So to send vote it I'm understanding something now. Voting not to send it to Collins means we're voting
not to recommend this. >> Not necessarily. There's a opportunity to flag something. >> Okay. Because I I don't need to speak because we're going to be here all night, but I'm going to vote. I think it's worth getting their opinion on this one. But you'll hear that when I vote
yes. >> Great. Any other comments? >> No. Okay. May. >> Yes. >> I'll send it on. I just want to know what they say. All the issues that were raised would be >> I'm gonna abstain um and lag this. Uh
Bernie, >> no. >> Muted. I got muted. >> Um Raphael, >> no. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Andy, >> no. >> Marcus, >> no. >> Excellent. Um
>> I would like to vote. >> Oh, Erica, sorry. I will flag this one. >> Great. Um, >> okay. >> So now, um, >> where did we end up on that?
>> So that is no, it is not sent. Um, this does not move forward. So line 13 um also suggest whether to make the town manager the appointing authority for resident members and
specify that there will be three-year staggered terms. Any questions on this? >> I'm any questions? I would think >> right >> I would think that the council would want to
uh make appointments to its own committees. >> I I understand that the there's a belief that uh with the town manager you get a much more thorough um interview. Um
I'm not sure that that's necessarily true. >> Correct. Um u but I I would think that the uh I I would think that the council should be able to appoint appoint members to its own committees and
appoint um council a council representative to a multimember committee which we'll probably get to in another another part of this. >> Marcus >> Yeah. I was just saying I think we should split this up. you know, we're
talking about the appointment, but also the length of the ability, I mean, not the ability, the uh making the term staggered. So, I think there should be two parts to this. >> Great. Um, other comments, questions?
No. Okay, we'll vote on this. Um myself I am a no. Um Marcus um I'm
I without splitting it up. >> Mhm. >> One thing overrides the other. That's my problem. Uh, I like the idea of staggered terms because I think, you know, just um bringing in people bang bang bang does not necessarily help.
It's good to have continuity especially, you know, I think to me that's what the uh the um resident members bring. Um but I don't agree that about the town manager making the appointment. So,
>> okay. So Bernie, >> should we split it? >> Sure. I'm just being cognizant of time here. >> About an hour left and we're really only through three or four of these. Um but we'll split it. Uh I guess we'll start
just voting on the town manager and then we'll vote on the three or staggered terms. So I'm gonna vote on the town manager if there's not any comments on that and then move on. So, so I have a question. If the town manager doesn't appoint make these appointments, who
does? >> The council. >> Wow. >> Can you raise your hand next time? >> Sorry. >> No problem. Um, okay. Uh, Bernie, did you have a question? >> I'll I'll make a comment on the staggered terms.
>> Okay. Um, Bernie, your vote. >> Um, I'm going to vote no. >> I'm going to vote no as well. Uh, Raphael, >> no. >> Ken, >> no. >> Andy, >> no.
>> Marcus, >> no. >> Erica, >> no. >> Meg, >> no. >> Okay, now we'll vote on threeear staggered terms. Any discussion? >> Bernie, raise your hand. >> Um, yeah. Well, right now it's two years
staggered terms. >> Okay. So it would add one year. >> It would add extended by one year. And there there was one term when um it I was threatening to be the most senior person on the finance committee, but but Andy got reelected, so that that made it
all better. >> Um other comments? >> Nope. >> Sorry, Julian. Again, I'm on a laptop and I just can't see that. I don't know
how how to how to magnify. >> Oh, thank you. Yes. 13. 13. >> Can you read it out for me? I'm sorry. >> Yes, absolutely. And to specify that these members will have threeear staggered terms. That is what we're voting on. >> I see. Okay. Thank you. >> If you need a minute, I'll call on you
last. Um Bernie voting. >> No. Uh, myself, I'm an I. Uh, Raphael, >> I'm a no. >> Ten,
>> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Marcus, >> yes. >> Um, Meg, >> yes. >> Erica, >> yes.
>> Great, that passes. Um, okay. Uh, line 14. Um, add sentence clarifying regarding the president versus council appointments. Um, I also suggest deleting ad hoc
committees from the president authority. Um, that's sort of unclear that last part, but if we just take it for the first part. Any comments? I >> I think Oh, sorry. >> Yep. Raise your Yeah. Okay. Marcus then
Andy. >> Yeah, I would just say I think the second part is just basically saying don't allow the uh president to form ad hoc committees. It it points it forces it back to the council to agree as a whole. Um which is you know fine by me. Um
but that's really kind of it just fills into that first sentence. >> And yeah, this is basically we heard from some people that they felt like the president maybe had a little too much authority. These are council. This is basically saying when there are council
members uh that are appoint that are appointed to multiple member bodies that should be a vote of the council rather than just an appointment of the president. >> Great. Um
comments other comments? No. Um okay. I am an I. Andy >> I >> Bernie. >> Yes. Raphael, >> yes. >> Ten, >> yes. >> Erica, >> yes. >> Me, >> yes.
>> Great. We will send this. Um, moving on to article three. Uh, wow, there's a fair amount of suggestions here. Um, okay. Uh, strengthen checks and balances between the executive and legislative
branches, possibly by limiting the town manager's powers. Line 17. Um, we already voted this before, so we're voting this again to send to Collins. Uh, comments. >> Um, Andy,
>> this is very vague. >> Yes. Right. >> It doesn't tell us anything. So I I I don't know what what the language would be and I I I so it's basically just a a wish for a different
a different arrangement, but it doesn't specify how or what lang and I can't imagine what language would be involved. So I would I think this we could dispose of this one pretty quickly. >> Okay. Um Andy, >> no. >> Bernie, >> no. >> Raphael, >> no.
>> I'm a no. Ken, >> no. >> Megan, >> no. >> Erica, >> no. >> Excellent. Um, >> I have a I have just a quick follow-up comment to that one even though we're not passing it on to Collins is it's not
a specific uh very specific suggestion. This might fall under the category of something that we a criteria that we use to analyze the body of suggestions that we do pass on because it's even it's not specific. It's in the spirit of >> like can we review all of our
recommendations for are they in the spirit of strengthening checks and balances? >> Yeah. >> Excellent. Um so the next one is relatively similar. Uh >> I um I vote no as well. Sorry. >> Okay.
>> The reason why it's here is because you got seven votes. I wanted to go through that again. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. Yes. Thank you. Um, the next one is line 18, uh, which is a comment that is similarly
vague, I would say. Um, do we want to start voting? >> Andy, >> did you just read it? Which is 18? I can't see the numbers. >> Um, do the town manager and staff pay attention to committee recommendations? >> Um,
Andy, >> I vote no. I vote no as well. Bernie, >> no. >> Marcus, >> no. >> Hen, >> no. >> Meg, >> no. >> Raphael, >> no. >> Erica,
>> no. Um, all applicant should be, this is 19, all applicants should be informed when the candidates have been selected for interviews and when the final choice has been made to town council. That's just common courtesy. Um, I agree that is
just common courtesy. However, I don't completely know if this is charter relevant or not. >> Right. >> Questions. >> Well, I I have >> Me. Go ahead. >> There's a difference between letting them know when the interviews have been
schedu I'm looking um candidates have been selected for interviews and when the choices have made. I think it's appropriate to let people know, thank you for applying, we've selected someone else, but they don't have to know when the interviews were scheduled and they were not. That's just an administrative
thing. It's not worth the effort. So, the question is letting people know you applied for something and you didn't get picked, that's a courtesy, but saying you applied for something and we're not going to interview you is just rude.
Should we vote >> chart or wordy on that? Yeah, >> I think people should be should know when they when their application failed, but not they don't have to know every step of the detail. Anyway, what's happening right now?
>> That's that's totally relevant, Meg. I completely agree with you. This is not a charter issue, unfortunately. >> Yeah, totally. >> Yeah. But the town manager should be told people apply for a position and they never hear anything.
They should hear they should, you know, the end result. It's not a charter thing at all. >> Wait, what just happened? >> Um, yeah, we just wait. >> Julian, Julian, >> he's got to get a better connectivity thing going.
>> Yeah, he had that going in his um council. >> No kidding. Wait, why am I to get him a new computer. >> He has a new computer. >> Is it a computer or is it a >> I have no idea. >> Does he need a new Wi-Fi? >> I don't know. I'm just >> Who knows?
>> Maybe in like the leverage um whatever black hole of Wi-Fi connected. >> Well, hopefully it's not le >> you can't start those rumors. >> So, >> did we continue? People should know when they apply for something.
>> Why Why don't we Why doesn't Erica just pick it up and we could continue? >> That' be great. >> People should know that they applied for something and didn't get picked. They don't have to know when they didn't get interviewed. >> Yeah, agreed. >> Okay, we need to vote on this one. This is not
>> Take it away, Erica. Our vice chair. >> Is someone recording the votes? I think Julian was recording votes. >> We could do it on paper. paper. >> Go ahead, Meg. Meg is now vote. >> I will record it.
>> Okay. We're voting on line 19. Applicants should be informed, etc. >> Pass on to comments or no. Marcus, >> uh, yes. >> Ken, >> no. >> Andy,
>> I think it's a good idea. I just don't know that it's charter worthy. So, I'm gonna say no. >> Bernie, >> no. Raphael, >> no. >> Meg, >> it's a good idea. So, I don't want to
drop it. I'll say yes. It's not chartered. Yeah. >> And I will say no. >> Okay. So, it is five to two. >> It's not going >> pulled out for my little sheet of paper.
>> We can record Julian's vote when he comes back. Okay, >> keep going, Erica. Excellent. Keep going. >> Line 20. I'll read it out. Uh um it's about section 3.3 >> at a minimum to say appointments to
multi-member bodies except for town counselor slots on multi-member bodies including the joint capital planning committee and the BCG if kept the town manager shall appoint members of multiple member bodies. Add the town manager shall also appoint resident members of the council finance
committee. So this is I think dependent this second part at least is dependent on what we voted on earlier. Um >> right. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Hello. Sorry about that. Um >> Julian, we were just starting to discuss
line 20, but we voted on line 19. I think it was five to two. No. Would you like to add your vote? >> Okay. Yes, I would. Um let me start screen sharing again for folks. Um,
but yes, I do plan to add my vote for line 18. Thank you for filling in. >> Okay, so it's three three to eight. >> He hasn't voted. >> Three to five. >> I haven't voted. How do you know? >> I thought you said I thought you said yes. Sorry. >> Um,
okay. Uh, >> okay. So, line 19. Um, is that the only one you guys have voted? This is line 19. >> Yep. 0 to 20. >> Okay. I'm a
uh yes vote to forward this. >> So three to five. >> Three yes, five no. >> Okay, understood. Thank you. Um >> I was temporarily the recorder. >> Okay, I appreciate it. Um line
>> took up a collection to buy you a new computer. It'll be arriving tomorrow from Amazon. >> Um, any comments on this 20? >> Just kidding. >> Andy, >> yeah, the the point of this is basically
that uh the current language says the town manager shall appoint all members of multiple member bodies except if otherwise provided by the charter. So if there's counselors on a multi-member body in practice, the council selects the counselors that would go to that body and then they give it to the
manager who actually appoints them officially. Um this this is to say it would be clearer if just the the sections on appointment on these types of appointments of council members to various uh committees um would just
allow uh the council to do the appointment without jumping to the manager. Um I'm not convinced it's a big problem and uh so I my sense is that they figured out a way to make it work
and you know maybe you know I I suppose if there was division between the council and the town manager. Um but basically this is saying that um we streamline the process, skip the middleman, let the council appoint their
own members of multiple member bodies. Right now they've got it worked out. So, they basically appoint, but then the town manager officially appoints because that's what it says in the charter. >> I understand. Um, are we good to vote? Uh,
no. Yes. I um we'll start with myself. I'm a yes. Andy, >> I'm I'm a no. I don't think we need to. I think it's working. Okay. >> Me, I'm not voting. I abstain. >> Okay.
>> I >> Raphael. >> No. >> Bernie, >> no. >> Ken, >> no. >> Erica, >> no. >> Marcus, >> no. >> This does not get forwarded. Um,
line 21, change wording to indicate a community participation officer position that can be shared. Um, okay. Any comments? I don't see why. Sorry, raise my hand. >> Go ahead, M. >> I don't see what why this is necessary
because it's what's already happening and I'm not I actually don't think sharing it is wasn't the intention. The intention was to have someone who 100% of the time focused on community participation. So, I' I'm a no. >> They're sharing it anyway. don't need to
say it can be is >> on their >> I'd prefer if it wasn't shared >> and it was a full, you know, full person identified as someone who just did that. That would be wonderful. >> If only the town spent money
differently, Meg. Um, >> well, I know. I'm just saying. I'm not >> So, >> no. >> Okay, Andy, >> I have my hand raised. >> Sorry, Erica. Go ahead. I have a question because I'm I'm looking at this section and I don't see where it says
shared unless I'm reading something wrong. >> It doesn't say shared now. Sorry. >> Sorry. >> 21. >> It doesn't say shared now. It's but but but what's happened in practice is that the position has been shared among several staff. So this change would just
indicate that that's it would enshrine that possibility. But it's happening anyway. Thank you. >> Other comments? No. Okay, we'll vote on this. Um, I'm with Meg. I'm a no. Andy,
>> no. >> Um, Raphael, >> no. >> Bernie, >> no. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Marcus, >> no. >> Um, and Erica, >> yes. >> Okay. I I didn't I Wait, I didn't vote.
>> Yes, you did. You said no. I thought >> Oh, >> sorry. Um Okay, you're a no. Correct, Meg. >> Yes. Correct. >> No. >> Yes. No. Um
>> Okay, so uh Whoops. Sorry. Section four. Um we basically >> just wanted to clarify something here. Go ahead. >> This in this section under article 4, these suggestions are not the ones that
came in uh not voted on yet. So I just can you remind me of the the sort of like where these came from? Yes, this comes from our last um our basically we
voted to flag all of these. Um and we voted to flag them because folks weren't really sure and wanted more clarity on the issue. Um Andy, you have your hand raised. Go ahead. Yeah, I was basically going to say that um
this is bas the first two are basically questions about term limits or changing the length of the term and so maybe we just want to send a general question to them to say can you tell us what you know what the authority is to impose term limits and then we can take it from there. Um
>> and then the housing authority one is more of a technical one that um we could also just say we want to know what the pros and cons of that are. The other ones I think we could vote on, but um >> I was gonna say, what if I make the
motion, and I don't know how folks feel about this to send all of these to Collins for clarity. >> Bernie, >> um I wanted to make a comment. I wanted to make a quick comment on the housing authority and then I'll make comment on
the last two. um the housing authority under the statute which I actually read um in a city it requires that the housing authority be appointed. Our charter uh under the home rule provision
basically said we're going to continue as if we were a town. So, um, if we'd have to we'd have to get into a discussion as to whether or not the housing authority should be,
um, appointed. Four out of the five members should be appointed. Uh, one member is the governor's appointee or or should they continue to be elected. And I don't know if we're prepared to do that. But that's that's the the nut of
this is is that how do we amend the count how do we amend the charter to bring it in line with what the general law says for a city. Um I'm not sure how you do that. Uh the other two the planning board non-resident members finance committee
elected by residents uh or planning board and zoning board of appeals are elected bodies. I think um I I don't those get back to the question of u again what process if if we find
those are desirable what process do we use to accommodate accomplish that >> um >> so I mean I I would send the first three to to Collins the second two I would just I' I'd vote no but
>> I'll move to refer the first three to Collins so that you can vote separately on the other two. Um Andy, >> that was going to be my suggestion. So I second. >> Great. Excellent. Um okay, so let's vote on that. Myself, I'm
an I. Andy, >> hi. >> Bernie, >> yes. >> Um Raphael, >> yes. >> Ken, >> yes. May >> May >> Yes, I was muted. Sorry. >> No problem.
>> I have a sneezing attack here. >> No problem. Marcus, >> yes. >> Erica, >> yes. >> Great. Um, so now we'll move on. Uh, that says that these three groups should
be appointed. This is line 27 by should be elected by residents, not the council. I fully support this. I think this is an excellent proposal. Um the more democratic options the voters have in my mind the better. Um and this is
done in many other communities that are officially towns but like I don't really see why we can't do it as well. We're many communities that are much larger than we are populationwise do this. Um so I think it's definitely worth it.
Andy. Yeah, I just wanted to note that 27 and 28 are basically the same thing. They're both saying elect make them elected bodies. They're just adding the finance committee in 27 and 28 is just the planning board and zoning board of appeals. So >> if you like the idea in one, you're
probably going to like the idea in the other and vice versa. So maybe we could I don't know if we want to consider >> vote on the I think that's a good idea. Um, okay. So, comments on this before we vote? >> Is this
>> Yeah. Is are we saying that we're going to forward this to Collins for some technical advice or are we uh um proposing? >> No, we'reing this to Collins. >> Okay. >> Advice. >> Uh the the piece about the finance committee needs to be dropped because
that's a a committee created by the council. We we just agreed to vote on this as one. So if you want to vote now, that's fine. Um >> myself, I'm an I. >> Uh Meg, >> yes. >> Uh Erica, >> yes.
>> Raphael, >> yes. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Um I'm an I. Bernie, >> yes. >> Andy, >> no. >> Okay. Um so this >> I'm a yes.
Oh, thank you Marcus. I appreciate it. Sorry, >> Mark. How did Marcus vote? >> Yes, she voted. Yes, this is getting sent. Most definitely. Um, okay. So, now we move on to the budget. I'm sorry, I'm scrolling down because I
just want to see how much we have left. It looks like we have the budget and then one thing in article 8. Um, so, uh, considering we're we have some discussion after this, I just want people to be mindful when they're
commenting to try to limit back and forth. Raise your hand and to I'm not saying don't make a comment, but just be mindful of time. Um, a very broad enhance transparency in the town
budget process. This is line 31. Uh, I feel like this can be sort of handled. Um, myself, I'm a no in >> Erica has her hand up. >> Sorry, Erica. >> I just wanted to make the same comment that I made at the beginning of I think
it was section three that this is a a value as opposed to a specific recommendation. >> Absolutely. Um, I I can't always see when folks raise their hands. I guess if your camera's off, I can't see when you raise your
hand. Uh, so just shout it out. Um, any other hands? No. Okay. Uh, myself, I'm a No. Andy, >> no. >> Bernie, >> no. >> Raphael, >> no. >> Marcus, >> no.
>> Erica, >> no. >> May. Um, I'm a no for sending it to Collins, but I think it's an important thing to explore somehow the transparency in the budget process, but I'm a no for sending it to Collins.
>> Absolutely. Uh, this next one we So, that will not get sent. This next one is 32. We looked at modified language and um myself and Meg with some help from Andy drafted modified language and I believe that language has been sent to
Collins. So I am skipping over this uh because it's already been decided and discussed. Um 33 uh which >> this is the same one we had before. >> Same thing we already don't see any need to vote it again.
>> Um okay 34 uh which is delete. Basically, this would recommend getting rid of the budget coordinating group and >> increasing the authority of the finance committee to take over the role of the
budget coordinating group. Um, which for folks who don't know, that would just effectively mean that the school committee has two representatives and the library trustees has two representatives who would not be get a
vote at the table because the finance committee doesn't include them where the budget coordinating group does. And it would also limit the discussion first because the budget coordinating group discusses before the finance committee. So, I don't know what this
would mean for the budget process, but it would do something to it. Um, I will I have my own comment on this personally, but I'll start with Andy, then Meg, then Bernie. Yeah, if you look at the language that's suggested um it's
basically saying um that instead of having the budget coordinating group which generally meets and has has had has a couple of members of the fin of the school committee and a couple of members of the library trustees. It says that the that um there
will be a meeting of the council, the school committee, the school superintendent, uh I can't read uh let's see the the chair of the regional school committee and the library trustees before the commencement of the budget process to review the financial condition of the city revenue and
expenditure forecasts and other relevant information. So in order to inform the development of budget guidelines and a coordinated budget that that this would happen in the fall of the calendar year no later than November 1st or the first Monday in November and then following this presentation the finance committee
will draft budget guidelines for the council consideration. The council will finalize the budget guidelines for the town manager by the end of the calendar year. So instead of having the budget coordinating group which has only a few members of the school committee, this actually requires to have the entire school committee, Emer school committee
and the regional chair and the school superintendent involved. So I don't see how it's less involvement of the school committee. Um, and then it basically says that in part B there would be guidelines. And then in part C it says in the event of significant new
information about revenues, the town managers will call a special meeting of the town council, school committee, school superintendent, and library trustees to share the new information and suggest a budget strategy. So I think the goal was or the sense was that the budget coordinating committee worked
well in the old form of government but that in this new form of government it hasn't worked so well this year and this is a suggestion from somebody who was working with the you know the finance process to try to make sure that everybody's in the room at the very beginning of the process um informing
the budget guidelines that the fi that the council is charged with doing. So I think it's actually more involvement of the school committee and the superintendent rather than less. >> Yeah, I see this new language. Um,
doesn't BCG currently work with helping or assisting in developing budget guidelines or at least making a recommendation about it. >> My understanding is that it's more of it's it's been sort of a horse trading thing in the past when we were less when less formal. you know, it was a couple
representatives from schools and a couple representatives from library and a couple representatives from the town. And the the finance director would say, "Here's what it looks like we're gonna have." And then they would all say, "All right, well, we could start with 3%, but maybe the schools need a little bit more, so maybe they do three and a half,
and the rest of us do two and three quarters or whatever." So, this just formalizes it, I think, in a way that would have more >> um, you know, be more predictable. >> Yeah. I see I see what you mean. I I'm
just getting a better understanding of this. Meg, go ahead. >> Is this one of Kathy's suggestions? >> Yes. >> Yes. A lot of these are um Is that your only comment? >> No, I'm I'm a yes.
>> I'm a yes, >> Bernie. And then I have a edit that I'd like to make in here. Well, the the budget coordinating group is another Amorest innovation. Um, usually not found elsewhere. Um, it's a good idea.
It worked well, but it was basically advisory to the town manager and advisory to people who were on uh various committees that this is what the budget situation is. This is what we may
do. It didn't vote up or down. and says, you know, we we'll take two and a half percent or we'll take 3%. That didn't happen in the budget coordinating group. It was a conversation about the budget. Uh this substitutes um
two larger meetings, one large meeting and then possibly a second large meeting to share all that information with everyone else. Um, so I I you know I I it the advantage
of this is you you do tell everybody all at once what's going on. You have a cast of thousands. You explain it to everyone. The budget coordinating group is a smaller working group that meet may meet several times and go back and
forth. I don't know that um that one is an improvement over the other. Um, I'm agnostic on this. >> Great. Um, I was just going to say >> upon further consideration, I could
support this if we had the budget guidelines that rather than just the finance committee drafting the budget guidelines that we have the larger group meeting um, draft the budget guidelines.
at the meeting where the meeting is called with the council, school committee, school superintendent that that entire group would be in the room drafting the budget guidelines rather than solely the finance committee. So, how would folks feel if similar to what
we did last time with Meg um where two people work on potentially drafting a way to send Collins um to include these other people in the room when we're drafting the budget guidelines uh being library trustees,
school committee, etc. Marcus? >> Yeah. Um I think it's better for a smaller committee to put together guidelines and then bring them back which is kind of what is in this um proposal here. Having
everybody try and put together guidelines is going to you know we think that this committee took a long time. Um that would be years in the making. So, I think it's a it's a it's a noble idea to have
a big party involved in putting together such an important idea, but it is very often good to have a rock that is then sent out. Um, I think that's kind of what this is getting to and that's more
where I would be rather than, you know, plans by committees often take a long time. Andy. >> Yeah. I um I think that the the this this large meeting would be publicized and I think
it would be it would get everybody on the same page at least about what the financial condition of the city is or the town and um and the information will be prepared by the town finance director
who uh and and basically the budget guidelines are something that the council needs to finalize for the town manager. So, um the finance committee is the arm of the council that delves deeply into
financial things. So, so that they can then say, you know, we've looked at stuff and here's what we recommend to the council. The council is the one that is has a responsibility to actually give the budget guidelines to the town manager for all the spending in the
town. So, I think that it's it's appropriate. What I like about this is that it brings everybody together at the beginning in a very broad way and in a way that can be publicized so that if the finance committee were to ignore a certain percent a certain portion of the
budget or of this funding um that would become clear. So the the finance committee I think is the appropriate small group to draft the guidelines based on what happens at that larger meeting and and what is produced by the town man finance director and then the
council has to finalize it and send it to the manager. So they're going to get pressure to support various aspects of the budget. So >> thank you. >> I have another >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> No, I just I I think it's appropriate as
written. Um, yeah. I'm just I'm not sure I agree. I see it as why like I get what you're saying, Marcus. It would be a cumbersome process, but I don't see any real negatives besides that it would be
a cumbersome process to include school committee library trustees to include all our elected officials in town given that all of their budgets primarily rely on what Ammerst decides to do with its budget. So they should be in the room as
elected officials and it is true that it will take more time. Um however I think more time is worth it over cutting 20 something educators each year. Um so I think that that is worth our extra
time here as a group. Um and that's why I wouldn't support this as it's currently written but I would make an effort to amend it. Uh, so how do folks feel? Other comments? >> I don't know. Erica, did you have your hand up? >> Erica,
>> no. No, I took it down. Um, Andy, >> I I would like to see if we could vote on this, whether whether it's worth sending to Collins as is, and we could append something that says there the question was raised whether instead of
the finance committee, the the the full group should set the guidelines and see what they say. But I I I just send this as is to them and, you know, get their opinion on it. Bernie, >> um the regional school is a separate
government. There are four towns that fund the regional school and that's driven by an agreement and that agreement um allocates how costs go. Uh so I'm not sure why in the world you'd want a regional government uh dict dictating
how the town of Ammer spends its money when it wouldn't do the same with Lever and Shootsbury and Pelum. Um, I I also this it's impractical to have a large group like this try to compile a budget.
Uh, it it just it's it's unworkable. So, I wouldn't mind having this revision as written go to Collins. I would object to any attempt to amend it to include
other governments in dictating the town budget of Emerst. >> Okay. So, we'll move forward with voting on this. I'm a no. Um Bernie, >> I'll I'll vote yes to Senate as written.
>> Andy, >> yes, as written. Marcus, >> yes. >> Raphael, >> no. Okay, Meg. >> Yes. >> Um,
>> yes, >> Erica. >> Yes. >> Is that it? Okay. Um, I will now um I will now move us to 35.
Rethink the timing of the budget form. Um, which would be to move it earlier theoretically, which makes a lot of sense to me. >> Comments on this. >> Which number is this, Julian?
>> 35. I don't see any comments. Um, >> is this a is this a charter question? >> Yes. >> Andy, >> I think Bernie had his hand up first. >> Bernie, sorry. I >> The charter the charter, I believe,
requires that a forum be held no later than March 15th. >> That's correct. So, um I'm not sure why this is here. I mean, if if if the belief is that the budget form should be
earlier than that, then that can be uh talked through with the manager and the finance director if we if he ever shows up. And uh uh we'll, you know, I don't think we need to amend the the I don't think we need to amend the charter over
that. I other comments, >> Andy? >> I guess I'd just like to hear what Collins says. We had this We had this We have the budget forum in there. Somebody
is suggesting do it earlier. Um, what do they say about that? >> Um, yeah, I would agree. I think that I think the form needs to be moved earlier. Basically, currently the when the form is held,
it's a here's our plan to do X, Y, and Z with your tax dollars. Tell us why you don't like it, but tough. We can't do anything about it is basically the message to the residents who already pay very high taxes and are seeing some
things that they don't like. So I think that this is very reasonable to say your public should put should be able to come at a time when it can actually make an impact. Uh I think maybe a January 15th
deadline might be more appropriate here and we should send that off to Collins to see what they might think is appropriate and how this could be changed. So I totally support it. Other comments, questions? No. We'll start voting. Myself, I'm an
I. Andy, >> yes. >> Megan, >> yes. >> Ken. >> Uh, yes. >> I'm I'm looking at the section 53 public forum and I'm going to vote after reading the charter again. I'm going to
vote no. >> You're Can you clarify how you're voting? Sorry, I couldn't hear you. >> I I No. >> No. Okay. based on my reading in the chart. >> Raphael, >> I'm unknown. >> Um, Erica, >> yes.
>> Marcus, >> no. >> Okay, this gets sent off to Collins by one vote. Um, okay. Uh, we are now on to section 36.
Uh, okay. We have three left. Um 36 is suggest expanded wording below to clarify that the finance committee budget role and that the committee is authorized to request additional financial information from the town,
schools or library public form could be combined with the hearing. Um comments on this? >> Well, is this what we talked about before? >> Sort of some more. any
>> I think this is um a further suggestion. Um let's see it's it's specifically it it basically talks about um how the budget okay there's a public
hearing and public forum. There's budget review, finance committee budget review and recommendation and the finance committee will review the budget and make a presentation recommended to town council within 30 days of referral. So in part B where it
says budget review and recommendation. They will thoroughly review the budget with the authority to ask for additional information from the schools or town or library as needed. The finance committee shall have the authority to consider any or all questions it deems appropriate for the purpose of considering the
budget. The finance committee shall also have authority to request additional information and to investigate the books, accounts and management of any town agency and via a request to the town manager, superintendent or library director when reviewing the budgets as appropriate finance committee may
require officers and employees of the town to appear before it and provide supplemental or updated information. So basically it's saying that um making clear that um the uh committee is authorized to request additional
financial information uh if things are unclear or if they need more in order to be able to do their work. I don't know if Bernie would have any inside information on that. Uh, you know, this is
again, I think this is just reinforcing the idea that the finance committee has the ability to u get whatever information it needs to uh to process the bud, review the budget. Um,
I'm again I'm probably agnostic to this >> in in my mind. We are we sort of already voted this to an extent, but so do how do folks feel about just skipping over it? >> The only thing that's new is that it it
it clarifies the ability to ask for more information. >> I just don't know if if if Bernie's agnostic about it, maybe that means they already feel that they have that. I I just don't >> Well, I I already feel that we have that, but I thought we had addressed
that earlier. Okay. >> With the finance committee having the uh let's see >> so >> uh I I would I want to make sure that um
the language that the the finance committee has the authority to um to seek whatever documents and information it needs is clear. And I'm doing that on the on as I'm looking now,
I'm going back up and looking at what we voted on previously tonight. So, I I would I would change my mind about this and say I'd like to move this forward. >> Okay. So, I guess we'll we'll vote on this. Um other comments, questions? I
have my own comment. Um, I think it's appropriate for the finance committee of the town council to request information from the town and I think it's appropriate for them to have discussions with the schools and the
library. However, the schools and the library per MGL chapter 72 are responsible for managing their own budgets and the bottom line is that is what state law says. And I think that we
ought to follow that to say the finance committee can have discussions with the school committee and the library, but at the end of the day, they're responsible for their own budgets. and putting the finance committee's authority on this specific issue will in effect
given the current climate of our finance committee mean that the finance committee spends almost all of their time doing close audits of the school budgets um and not really spending
adequate time evaluating our library or town municipal budgets. So that is why I'll be voting no. >> Um just clarification >> go. >> I'm looking at the current language in the charter. Um finance committee shall consider any and any any or all
questions which it deems appropriate for the purpose of considering the budget. Finance Committee as a whole shall have authority at any time to investigate the books, accounts and management of any town agency and via a request of the town manager, superintendent or library as appropriate to require officers and
employees of the town to appear before and to provide information that seems pretty similar to what we have here. So maybe maybe we don't need this. >> Okay, other comments, questions before we vote?
No. Okay. Um, I'm a no. Andy, >> I I think we're good. I'm a no. >> Okay. Ken, >> no. >> Raphael, >> no. >> Erica, >> no.
>> Meg. You there. Me? I can't hear you. I'm going to move on to the next member. Um, Marcus, >> no. >> Bernie, >> I'll go along with the group. No.
>> Meg, are you there? >> Like we lost her. >> I think Meg's having some technology issues. Um, I'll come back to her. Uh, so now we're on to 37. Um,
now you're muted. No. Okay. Um, so Meg, is there any way I can help? Okay. I'm not sure. Um, we're going to move on to 37 and I'll have Meg either once she gets
back online, maybe try closing off and rejoining and um and I'll allow her to vote on these two as well. Okay. Um,
so 37 suggest insert new wording regarding JCPC to indicate the flow from town manager to town council. Add the requirement of an updated table on debt service and wording regarding state and
other support of the capital improvement plan be documented. I would like to split this up because I don't think that the J that the capital plan should flow from the manager to the council. I think it should originate in JCPC and then go
to the council and the manager. Um I think that it's not really appropriate for the manager to just put forward a proposal. I think it's most appropriate for our elected officials to decide where our money is spent and to tell the manager that that is where we would like
our capital funds spent as opposed to the manager telling the elected officials how he would like to spend our capital funds. Um in addition, I think that uh this other requirement of an updated table on debt
service and state and other support be documented. I think that makes a lot of sense. I would also ask to add to this an updated table on uh an updated table on funds that have not been spent yet. Uh oftent times
funds go unspent for years. Um folks have sort of secret pocket savings accounts for certain things like the town hall roof. Um and sometimes vehicles go unordered for long periods of time just because of delays in getting them. So, I think that the
latter part needs some clarifying, and I'd like to split this up to two different votes. So, I will have us vote on inserting um new wording regarding JCPC and indicate flow from manager to council.
Um I will be voting no because I think the flow should go in the opposite direction. Uh, comments. I see Andy. I don't Hold on. Meg. Then Andy, if you can speak, Meg. Nope. You still can't speak. Strange.
>> Me. Check your check your audio settings in the bottom left. >> Um, >> I think they're having some trouble. I'd suggest rejoining. Um Andy, >> uh this is this is uh pretty technical.
Um but it's the the goal of it is to make sure that you know all the money that's coming from the state is um is on the table and is visible. Um
so I mean as far as the flow from the joint cap from the capital the JCPC um I mean that's what's in the charter now. So the town manager with the advice of a joint capital planning committee um
shall create a capital improvement program uh you know and the joint capital planning committee at a minimum has representatives from the town council school committee and library trustees. So um I'm not sure what this does
versus other than to say we want more information uh shown. >> Yeah. >> So I I Maybe maybe I would say put it send it to Collins to ask them how this differs from what we have now and what the what
the difference is. I it's pretty technical to me. >> Marcus, >> yeah, I mean I don't see an issue with delegation. I think delegation is a key to success. So I'm fine with with this.
Bernie. >> Yeah, I'm a little puzzled about this because uh the as it uh the JCPC as it stands now as as it stood before uh with under town meeting was an advisory body to
the town manager. Um it seems like this will still be an advisory body to the town manager. Um and um uh um in terms of I understand
the argument and I think it's a good one that when you do a a capital budget um or you do any budget you should have all sources listed so you know what the full volume what the full funding is because grant money
or u chapter 90 money which is sort of a grant um should be accounted for and people should understand what it does. Um, so um I'm not sure that this really is an improvement. I think much of
what's being asked for here could be handled by simply greater detailed reporting on the part of the uh finance director and the manager. The other thing this is talks about a five-year plan. Um, we've in the past we've always or
I've leaned towards having a 10-year capital plan, although in the out years things get very very fuzzy. Uh, actually for a fiveyear plan and stuff that's in the out years, it's still pretty fuzzy. But, um, you know, we do have a five-year plan
now. We have um equipment lists. We have replacement schedules. Uh, things have been things have been tightened up. considerably um from uh you know the time I was under the JCPC to uh to to
now. So I'm not sure that this does anything u that useful. I you know I wouldn't mind sending it to Collins and saying tell us what the implications of this are. Uh but um I I'm not excited
about it. >> Thanks. Meg, can you talk now or not? >> Can Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. >> Oh, good. Okay. What am I? No, I have nothing to say. I just wanted to make sure. Oh, my earbuds. >> Awesome. Do you want to vote on 36?
>> Yes. I'm a Yes. >> Great. Um, so that still means that we uh do not send this. Um, okay. So, we're not sending that. Um, 36. We're not
sending 37. Do you have a vote or comment on this? I was just mentioning how I feel like we should as a committee discuss reversing the order so that the town council and
JCPC create the capital budget rather than the manager just because it's important to have elected officials uh working with public funds as opposed to appointed officials making the sort
of final decisions around public funds. Um, do you have any comments on this, Meg? >> Well, I've heard everything everyone has said. You just couldn't hear me. >> So, let's vote. >> I have a comment before we vote. >> Erica and then Andy,
>> uh, were you suggesting that we revise the language before we send to Collins the way we did with another item? >> So, is that the vote or is the vote to send as is? >> The vote is to send it with my revised language. of basically having JCPC and
town council um and remove the town manager's involvement. >> Andy, so a yes vote would do that, a no vote would not. >> The council um currently approves the
budget that's handed to them by the town manager for the operating budget. I don't know why the capital budget would be different. >> They do approve the capital budget. They just don't have a authoritative role in forming it. Meaning like the town manager, they could deny it in full, but
there's no way for a counselor to vote to say we don't want, for example, this year we don't want funding for the roof, or funding to replace uh police cars that were bought like two or three years
ago, um, etc. If a counselor wanted to specifically nail down a few million dollars that they believe to be being spent erroneously, they do not have the authority to do that because the finance committee or excuse me, because the
manager proposes this rather than the council and my proposal would allow the council to shift money around within the capital budget as needed. The council can't do that with the operating budget either. I mean that that the point is the manager proposes
the budget and the council either approves it or doesn't. So I guess I'd like to see a vote on whether we change the language before we decide to have the vote on what we're sending to on whether to send it to >> That's what we're voting on. We're voting on >> we're voting on whether to accept your
change your motion. >> Correct. Okay. >> That's why I said split it up. Okay. Um Bernie and then Marcus. >> Well, the requirements of 43B are being ignored. Uh the manager is responsible
for the budget. Period. Um the um uh c the you know the council um has the ability to vote up or down. they have the ability to to go down the budget and go give it hand it back to
the manager saying um we'd like to see these changes. The other thing is is the council writes the budget guidelines for the manager. So if the council wants to see capital spending directed in a certain
area, that's where they write it into. They write it into those budget guidelines. Budget guidelines are far and away more than everybody gets X percentage. The budget guidelines give some specific instruction, sometimes conflicting instruction
to the manager on what the council wants to see as priorities. So the council has the ability to condition that and say to the u say to the manager, we want you to focus on this. So there's
been a time there's been one year when uh equipment purchases were were almost zeroed out because the money went capital funding went elsewhere to to what people saw as a higher priority. So
the the council's not powerless in this. And to have the notion that the council um the council's going to sit there and um 13 of them and develop a capital budget I think is is wrong. So um if we
want to send the language as written on the Collins, I'm okay with that even though I don't think it makes a lot of changes. If you want to propose that we ignore chapter 43b, we ignore um this we ignore the statute and and sort of
reverse things, then I'm a no. >> Marcus, >> yeah, I just kind of more I'm interested in your point there, Julian, where you say that the council has no opportunity to influence the capital improvement
program. because I'm reading, you know, section 57E and it specifically states that each amendment can be voted up or down separately. So if there's no agree, you know, if a council, a particular council
doesn't agree with that area, they have the opportunity there to return that to JPCPC and the town manager. Right. Um or is it am I I'm missing something. >> Is that I did not know that. Is that
specific to the like say like a counselor could say I vote to remove $1 million in capital funding for this and reallocate it towards road paving for example. So adoption at any time after
the public forum but before June 30th, the town council shall adopt the capital improvement program which may be amended provided that each amendment shall be voted on separately and then >> Okay, that makes sense then. Okay, never mind. >> Yeah,
>> I withdraw my motion. Thank you. >> Um that makes sense. Then we'll just vote on this as one. Um other comments, questions? Good catch. Um, I'll be a yes. Marcus, >> yes.
>> Bernie, >> yes. If it's the language that on the spreadsheet, >> this language on the sheet. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Erica, >> yes. >> Meg. Raphael.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Okay, excellent. Thank you. Um, last one, folks. Last one. >> Okay. Um, change voter veto. >> We we disposed of that at the last meeting.
We agreed to move this to Collins. >> Oh, yes, we did. You're right. So, we're done. >> Excellent. >> Um, >> our next meeting is next Thursday, right? >> That's correct. Uh, our next meeting is next Thursday. Um,
okay. Agenda. Um, >> will we get more from the Collins Center by then, do you think? >> It's quite possible. Uh, I'll send um Do you want to send this off to them, Andy, since it's your sheet? Or do you want me to?
>> Um, I didn't get all the votes. So, if you want to tell me which ones we're sending, I can I can make the amendments and send it. >> I can send it, too. I'll send it. No problem. I can send it tomorrow. >> Okay. So, you'll just tell them these are the ones that we for that that we >> Sounds good. I think that'll be easier.
Um, >> so >> you just so I can change the the the full chart. >> Huh? >> Can you CC us when you send it so that I can change the full chart? >> Sure. Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Um, okay. Uh, it's 9:00. We've been here
for two hours. Um, do we want to discuss the initial report further or move to adjourn? >> I have my hand up. >> Go ahead, Meg. >> I would like at the next meeting to talk about our timeline for writing the preliminary report because the outreach
committee is very busy creating a plan for the different reports. I'd like to have a sense of our timeline so we don't get slammed up against, you know, none of us thought we'd be doing this January 5th and over the holiday. I just like to have a timeline and some goals and some
things we intend to accomplish by certain dates. >> So, okay. So, do we want to discuss the initial report now and >> No, I'm saying at the next meeting on the agenda. >> Okay. Sure. Yeah. >> High priority. The next high priority the next meeting timeline, >> goals, deadlines.
>> Sure. And it's really relevant for the outreach committee because we're planning when to get feedback and how long that'll take and then incorporating that into our different reports. >> Sure. Um
>> it's really we really need to have that. >> Gotcha. >> I don't want to speak for the whole committee but subcommittee but I think >> from the point of the outreach committee we need to know what the timeline is so we're not suddenly stuck find suddenly sunny out. We should have done something two weeks ago.
>> I I got you, Meg. Um, okay, Andy and then Erica. >> Yeah, I think I think we need to build in time to review what the Collins Center says so that we can actually get our final list together for the initial uh report.
>> Absolutely, Erica. Um originally the timeline and the proposal for the work plan for the initial report had us um aspiring to submit a draft for the October 16th
meeting to review in total. Um we had enough content to go through tonight that that is not likely to be possible. Um, so I we can submit to uh I'm not trying to speak for you, Ken, but just
to say we can submit what we have as a draft uh up to that point in advance for the agenda for the October 16th meeting and that I think we should review it for content and as a draft format and then whatever continue we can work with
what's what we've got from Collins and what continues to come back from Collins can then be incorporated into that >> right >> format. Yeah. So that you will get a draft uh in the agenda packet for the next meeting.
>> Great. >> Sounds good. Ken, did you have anything to add? >> No. >> Other comments, questions before we adjourn again. >> Okay, good. >> Okay, great. Um, a second on that. >> Second.
>> Okay. Uh, Erica. Yes. >> Myself. I'm an I. Ken. >> Hi, >> Marcus. >> I >> uh Raphael. >> Yesterday. Yesterday. Yes. >> Andy.
>> Yes. >> Meg. >> Oh, yes. >> Okay. Have a nice day. Bye, everybody.