Excellent. Um, so we'll do a quick roll call. Uh, we are meeting remotely as is still allowed by Mass General Law. Um, and we will do a roll call to make sure everyone's here. Uh, myself, I'm
present. Meg, >> present. I'm here. >> Bernie, >> present. >> Ken, >> here. And I will step off for just a second because I have to change computers. No worries. >> Pardon me. I will be right back. >> No problem. Andy >> here.
>> Raphael. >> There. Raphael. >> I don't see him. >> This is why why we do this. Um I It looks like camera I see his his icon,
but I don't see him. Um and his camera's off. Uh, we do still have a qu um and we will hopefully Can you log out and rejoin maybe Raphael? I don't know if that would help.
>> You may have stepped away. >> Yeah. Um, so I guess we'll just get started with the minutes and public comment and then I'll move back uh to Raphael. Um after that uh so Andy, thank you for writing
the minutes. Did everyone get a chance to look at those? >> Yep. >> Excellent. Um do I have a motion to approve the minutes? >> So moved. >> Seconded. Um okay, we'll go with voting myself. I'm an I. Me.
>> I wasn't there so I abstain. >> Okay, Bernie. >> But they look great. I was happy. >> Um Andy. Yes. >> And are you back, Ken? >> I'm back. Should I should Do I need to abstain because I wasn't there?
>> You don't need to. It's your choice. >> Yeah, I then I I approve. >> Great. Excellent. Um approve, too. >> Okay, sounds good. I guess that's a unanimous vote in favor of the minutes. Um >> so public comment. I don't see any
attendees, so no public comment. Uh, do we Raphael? It looks like he logged off, so hopefully he'll rejoin here in a minute. We still do have a quorum. Um, but I'll keep my eye on the attendees. I have not heard from Marcus. Erica is
sick and is absent um tonight, which is fine. Uh, and I just wanted to publicly say before we begin discussing the report, uh, thank you to both Ken and Erica, who's not here. Erica, if you watch the recording, thank you um for all your
work on the initial report. Uh it is quite a lengthy document and um it's great that uh so much work was put into it so quickly and we're making progress. So I appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Um >> yeah, ditto.
>> And we will move on with the outreach subcommittee update. Uh is Raphael here? Nope. Me? Do you want to give that update? >> Um, I don't think we've met since the last meeting. I'm continuing to try to create the outreach database. Uh, I'm
eager to schedule the public forum as soon as uh I'm the one on the committee who's been doing that kind of scheduling and database creating, but um but I haven't heard the okay to go ahead and do that like a date and the location.
The bank center is the only place that's free, although it's not available on weekends. But um so once we once we're ready for me to that's why I'm interested in the timeline because I think if we can anticipate when we want that, we can book it whenever we're feel
confident about the date. >> Great. >> But you know, we're heading into the holiday season. >> Y >> um I'm just eager to get make sure that we can do what we need to do in the time we have. >> Absolutely. Um Andy, any feedback subcommittee update?
>> Um no, we we have done that. >> Do we have a minute taker? >> Oh, thank you. Yes. Um minute taker for this. Sorry to >> interrupt. Don't worry about it at all. Thank you for chiming in. Minute taker for this meeting is Bernie.
>> Okay, >> great. Um, and the only other thing I was going to add is I saw your email, Meg. Um, did Ken answer your question? >> Yes. >> About Okay, great. >> About what?
>> About the outreach? >> Yes. Well, not yet. No, >> not yet. >> Okay. Um, I will >> I just sent it a little while ago. So, >> yeah, I just saw your email. Did Did Ken answer it at the beginning of the meeting? >> I didn't I have not seen the email.
whatever it's about. I don't I don't >> Meg asked a question about if there's a a timeline. Um >> Oh, that question. >> The answer is yes, there is, but it's not up to date, if you will. >> It's Yeah, the I think her question was I mean, my answer was yes, there is a
there's a in the initial report there was something we need to talk about is the uh the timeline that we agreed upon several several meetings ago. Um, but it's already out of date somewhat. Doesn't h have it's not completely out of date, but there are some things we need to adjust on it. Um, because I we
want to share that in the initial report with the council to give them >> some grounding uh some grounding ideas that we're still working on this. >> Yep. >> Does that answer your question, M? >> Well, yeah. My my feeling is we need to have an internal timeline. That means if
this is when we're going to get things produced publicly, what do we have to do on our committee to make that happen? Um, >> okay, great. And, uh, I'm just noting I also saw your email,
Andy, about I don't think it ended up getting posted in the packet, but about the Colin Center feedback. Um, that was posted in the packet for last meeting. However, their most recent the most recent thing they sent about proposed
language for municipal and school employees was not sent. um in the packet. So, some people may have seen that, some people may not have, but we won't discuss that tonight because it's not in the packet. However, because the
um other feedback was in the previous packet, folks, all everybody should have access to that if you go to the website and just look at the packet from our previous meeting. >> Um so, we can discuss that. Raphael, you've joined us. Can we hear you?
>> Hello everyone. Great. Thank you, Raphael. We're glad to have you. Do you have anything to add to outreach? >> No. >> Nope. Great. Um, so we will move on. Uh, we're making decent progress. Um,
to our first agenda item. Um, >> did did we finish with the feedback committee? >> Yes, Andy. Did >> we done that? So, >> yep. Um, so we will amend and hopefully tonight approve the initial report. Um,
does everybody have it pulled up or would you like me to screen share? >> Would you screen share? >> Please screen share. >> Absolutely. >> I'll need to point some things out. >> Um, and I I'm hoping everyone has reviewed this previously. I know I did. >> Yeah.
>> Um, >> and I'll let you take it away, Ken. Um just a reminder that we hope to vote tonight and before we vote just for a process. We'll have some discussion and if folks have amendments they can move
to make amendments. We vote on the amendments and then we vote for the entire thing approved with those amendments that we approved. >> Go ahead. >> Um can you uh Julian please actually not show this yet and show I it's probably
called initial report draft. >> Yep. right there. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Excellent. I'm just going to full screen it out so you can actually see it. >> So, the only things that that need to be discussed are in yellow. Um the submission date will take care of
itself. Um once we know what that is, um and maybe the only yellow stuff will Yeah. Yep. Yeah. Um I thought it was important to know when we hired Colin Center to give people a sense of how long they've been working with us.
Do you, Julian, do you know? >> Yep. That was um that was in January. I can give you an exact date, but we moved to hire them in January and I believe we signed the contract late January, early February. >> Okay. Yeah, I I'm not that particular
about the date. If you want to give me the date, I would love to have it, but great. I I will not hold my breath necessarily because it's not that important. >> Yeah. If you want to put late January, that's fine. if I can also just email you the date book looking back in my emails. >> Perfect. Thank you. I appreciate it.
>> Great. >> Um, so, uh, I mean, we must be doing something right because if it if it's down to something so specific like that, then we're we're doing okay. Um, so keep Yeah, keep scrolling down. I don't think we have anything else on this next page.
I think we're all feeling good about it. Um, yeah. Keep going. Mhm. >> There we go. >> And there and there's the timeline. >> There's the last >> because the preliminary report is was going to be sent today. So, we're one
we're one report behind. Um the the one the 1526 submit final report that stays that stays the way it is. Um everything else is up for discussion. Um, I really think this is an important part of this of of the initial report
both Eric and I do because we again we really want to ground the council that because of the feedback that I think we all saw at the last meeting when they discussed our extension. There's some tension there. Um, but I I don't I'm not interested in in in um I'm not
interested in in increasing that tension um or the pressure on us. So, uh, >> getting there's a good idea. >> So, when can we realistically get that
preliminary report out? Um, I guess is the first question and maybe that's not my my discussion to lead, but um, I think we need to have this fleshed out >> and to project forward a little. So, we're anticipating
Sorry, raise my hand. >> Yes, >> meg. Go right ahead. Just raise your hand and we can discuss. >> So, not only what date do we think we'll get the preliminary report out, but triggering then going forward when do we want to have the outreach meeting and
obviously we have to schedule that. >> Yeah. >> And so on. >> So the the the spread between those two things and our previous timeline was about two weeks. So once the preliminary report comes out, we should give people two we should give the world two weeks before we meet about it.
>> Right. But if we're confident we can get out it out on data X right now, we could schedule that for two weeks, you know, date X plus two weeks. >> Exactly. >> We don't have to wait. >> No, we shouldn't. Um that that should be
sent into, you know, the ball should start rolling once we set that preliminary report release date. and also other other ways we want to get input from you know the list that we've been creating and so on and uh Sam Gifin and so on.
>> I just want to chime in about the date. I just checked my email. I was incorrect. It the date is March 10th, 2025 >> for the calling center. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. March 10th. Thank you. >> Yep. Just jot that down.
>> Yep. Got it. Um >> um so sorry let me go backwards a little bit to understand what exactly needs to be done. I my understanding what needs to be done based on being an author of the initial report. >> The preliminary report to me and please
please um correct me um the preliminary report is at its most simplest is to add the rest of the columns feedback um and to update that list. um the history doesn't really change. The history that's in the initial report doesn't
change. The outreach committee charge and none of that stuff is going to change really. It could, but it probably won't. So, I think that's what the preliminary how the preliminary report is going to be different from the initial report question mark.
>> Or do people see that we have to do more with the prelim preliminary report? >> No, that that that sounds pretty reasonable to me. I would think that um we may want to dive into the
suggestions under consideration and prune that list down a little further. >> Um okay, >> I mean some of these can u um based on what we get back from the Collins Center, some of these will
probably go. Um, I I think the the other thing that we want to do in the preliminary report is spell out exactly where we want uh we want the we want town the town attorney
to review the entire document, but we might want to highlight um suggestions under consideration that really need the the town attorney's feedback soon. Um, I have a lot of respect for KP Law,
but they in the past sometimes are not quite timely. So, um, we want to get that to them as fast as we can. >> Andy, and then Meg, >> you're muted, Andy.
I was just going to look at the charts to see what they're what what what we're supposed to include with the uh preliminary report, but it I I'm thinking we should we should have language, you know, proposed language or is that in the final only? I I haven't looked at it lately.
>> Uh we're hoping to have proposed language in the preliminary report um is the goal for these amendments. >> So that would then at that point these become not just a list of suggestions, but it's more like proposals
>> recommendations that we're sending along. Right. >> I sort of I would say that like we have concrete proposals that are worded and then by the final report we have those concrete proposals reviewed by the
entire committee, KP law, etc. So the column so the council knows if we pass this with this exact wording it's done. >> Yeah. I guess my question is do we need to
>> go through the list again with the input from um Colin center and decide and turn these into you know and and decide which ones stay on and which ones go or turn turn them into final language. >> Yes.
>> Um for the preliminary. >> Yes. >> The answer to your question is most definitely yes. >> So we need to make sure we have a nice chunk of time to do that. >> Okay.
>> Um Meg and then Raphael. So, so these things that Andy's raising and the question of how long will KP law take are exactly what I'm talking about when I say an internal timeline like our internal timeline in order to meet the one we've given publicly in terms of
producing things. That's what I'm talking I just wanted to say that as an example of what I'm talking about. >> Well, um sorry I didn't raise my hand but sorry Raphael are you still hand raised? >> Yeah, it is. Do do you mind if >> Yeah, go ahead. Sorry. >> I think I'm reading it now and it says
proposed language presented in preliminary report, but it also says uh with comparison it I'll read it. So the preliminary report with recommended changes to the charter also showing a comparison of all proposed changes to
the present language in the charter. >> Wow. Okay. >> Yeah. I was also going to share like in terms of timing like folks referenced KP Law uh Collins
I I think we also should think about and I know there's tension there about the public opportunity to weigh in. Um so it' be great to talk about that a bit >> and I don't know if you want to include
The timeline also includes like we need a public forum and a preliminary report. >> Yeah, the public forum is is as we agreed upon last time with this timeline was going to be two weeks after the release of the preliminary report. >> Okay. >> Um and I wanted to add on to that
Raphael that since we're I I am like I can't be more committed to the 1526 final report submission date. I'm just like I am a hardcore about it. So, >> we've got to talk about the preliminary report and the final report in this conversation.
>> Yeah. >> My understanding sort of to go off of your your comment was that my understanding of the preliminary uh between the the difference between the preliminary report and the final report is that big in I would hope a big influx of feedback on the preliminary report.
>> But those that's that's the big defining thing. The outreach committee can meet as well. The feedback committee can meet as well. Yep. We adjust the the final report for that reason. But that's my understanding. >> Going to add I think the other difference is that it would be reviewed by legal counsel.
>> Okay. >> But yes, >> but when Yeah. >> Andy, do you have a You're muted. >> I'm just trying to figure out the steps here. We we we get this chart of stuff
and the narrative and a list of the you know suggestions out as our initial report and then we get the final report the final input from um Collins on the rest of the
suggestions that we've sent them and then we need to look at that I guess and say well what are saying about these suggestions and then figure out what we want to do with them in response, right? >> And then >> thank you.
>> We produce a revised list based on voting or based on our discussions and then we make that list is what goes into the preliminary and then we send we release the preliminary. So, so whatever time that
takes to get the stuff back, you we still haven't gotten the final stuff from Collins. So, we're hoping to get that by our next meeting. So, maybe at our next meeting, we need to be looking at the list and saying what go through the Collins, you know,
responses and say, what does this make us, you know, think about these various suggestions? And then then when do we take it to the public? Do we take it do we have a do we give it our best shot and then make that the preliminary and then we
have the big feedback on on the preliminary or do we have the feedback on the list of suggestions now and what's missing and whatever I don't know I'm not clear on that >> and this is the timeline sorry >> yeah
um I would say that's that's really up to the committee but I would suggest on the preliminary because that's what the charge suggests. But >> so we get the feedback from them on the preliminary. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um
Meg, did you still have a question or did you >> Well, I think we might want to consider when we do this internal timeline to get to here what we have to do. We might have to have some extra additional meetings. Not that I want to, but I like Ken am really eager to have this over by the end of the year. >> Yeah.
>> And I don't see how we're possibly going to do that where it's >> agree. I think it would be better better >> how it's going right now that's not going to happen unless we put in place a more rapid you know we all commit to sort of >> all movement a motion that at least for
this um that we meet weekly until the end of the year >> second >> okay um do we have a vote on that >> well if we need to >> yeah but that's the pos the possibility
that we plan on that. I mean, we could, you know, not meet on Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving's on a Thursday, but the >> word of God we finish early and we'll >> No, but it's I think we should plan on it. >> That's what I'm Yeah. >> Um,
>> I'll bring the stuffing, Meg. >> Okay. I'll bring the I'll bring the cranberries. I love I have a really great cranberry recipe. Could I offer a that we don't meet until we get the feedback from the Collins Center
because I don't think we need to until we get that right. >> Uh let me see my calendar here. Um so I guess we could clarify the dates. We would have not a meeting on the 6th, a meeting on
the 13th, a meeting on the 20th, and then a meeting on the 4th, 11th, 18th, and then we'd also skip skip Christmas, and skip Thanksgiving, those few days off. >> What a what a
You all need to need to form a union against me. I'm a pretty awful boss here. >> No, I'm a great >> Are you the boss? Are you the boss? No, be the boss. I mean, I I want to get this I want to get this done and I'm willing to work harder for a while and
just do it. >> Yeah, I agree. >> You just have to. We We want to and the world wants us to. >> Um yeah, read the comments. >> The little world of Ammerst. >> Yep. Um yeah. Uh anyway, um
Sorry. I'll have us vote on the motion um for the meeting dates set out with those two exceptions starting meeting on the 13th. >> Do we need to check with Athena? >> Yes, we should. Athena, are you there?
>> Nope. Athena left, but I'll I'll email her. >> Let's see. Let's set them up and then we can um you can refine things as you hear back from >> just tell her. >> Yes, we're sure she does not want to be meeting next February. >> Yes, exactly.
>> Okay. >> So, to vote on this, which will help us make our timeline, I'm an I. Meg. >> Hi, Bernie. >> Yes. >> Raphael. >> Yes. But I'm not sure I could make all those meetings. >> That's fine. Ken
Andy. >> Yes, >> Ken. >> Yes. Yes. >> Great. Um, so that gives us some timeline. Um, could we make the preliminary report due
to our committee to have us approve the preliminary report by the 20th >> of November? of November. Yes. >> Wow. >> Or do we want to do the 4th of December? >> So, we hopefully have the feedback by
the 13th. So, we can discuss the feedback on the 13th and then if we need to on the 20th and then we can let it go, I guess, right? >> If we don't if we don't do it till the 4th of December, give out the preliminary report and then the public thing is two weeks later.
That's the 18th of December. >> Yeah. That won't work. then we don't have any time to write the final report. >> That's why it won't work. So that's why >> we have to work faster now. >> That's why I'm suggesting the 20th rather >> rather than the 4th. >> I like
>> unless it's impossible. >> I mean it seems like I I understand people might say that's too quick, but that's why I'm suggesting the 20th, not the 4th. So um do we have to vote on that or do we just agree as a committee? thumbs.
Okay, great. Um, so that will give us our new date for the preliminary report. >> Um, outreach meeting would be on December 4th. >> Got it. Great.
>> I'm going to shall I Sorry. >> Yep. >> Should I wait to schedule that? Erica isn't here and Raphael's, but to schedule it uh to to see how we succeed with our >> November. Start now. No. >> Okay. No problem.
>> Um thank you. Uh new date that would I would send over the Thanksgiving break. I'll send KP Law what we have. Um and we'll have the stuff from Collins by that point. Um,
and I'm just looking on here. Draft report with feedback or draft final report with feedback. Let's push that to the 11 to the 11th with a final vote on the 18th, a week to
edit it. We could schedule one additional meeting um by the end of the year to submit it. Does that make sense? Okay. >> Sorry. Um Julian, sorry. Um >> yes.
>> What was the last what was the last um I I got preliminary report submit on the 20th >> outreach meeting on 12 on the 4th of December. >> Draft final report with the preliminary report feedback on the 11th. What was was there something else that was just
added? >> Approve the final report on the 18th. and ideally send it to the council by the 5th and if needed schedule a meeting sometime on the winter
basically between Christmas and New Year's if needed, >> i.e. that Monday or Tuesday. >> All right, I will I'm going to leave that bit out of the initial report. >> Yep. >> I totally agree with it. It's not a comment on it. Yeah,
>> just I'm not going to like throw that out there. >> I agree. I agree. >> So, >> make us look good. >> Me, >> I'm going to wait to schedule the December 4thish event, but I'm going to wait to say
anything publicly about it until we're 100% sure we're going to meet our >> 1120. Start scheduling now is what I would recommend given how difficult it was last time. Start scheduling now and if you need my help on it, please send me an email or a text.
>> Yep. Um, okay. Is this helpful, Ken? Is this what you need? >> This was the This was all that was missing and needed a a discussion. So, >> excellent. >> I have no other comments about this initial report. >> Great. Um, do we want to go through this
cover sheet or the suggestions at all? Ken, do you have anything? Um, I mean, sorry. This this was I mean, I I looked it over. This was Erica's territory. Um I think that the the um
cuz I asked her, it's not on this page. It's on page three. I bet I I can see page three has a red area. I think she said that that was um that was something that needed to be discussed
>> on page three of this one. Oh yeah. Um I'm This is three. I'm just seeing that this says that this it looks a little bit different just because this is for the resident members suggestion whereas the
language changes that appear here are not the resident members. >> Yeah, this is the language. This is actually um because we're saying move section 5.5B to 2.8.
This what the resident members language is actually at 5.5B right now. >> Right. >> And so this is the language from 2.8 which is is not relevant. We need to >> Yeah. So this is incorrect. >> Yeah. >> So I'll make the motion to amend this with the five. Is it 5.5? Five
>> 5.5b I believe. >> Thank you. Yep. 5.5B. Um, hey, at least I got the 5.5. >> Um, so, uh, yeah, I'll move to amend this with 5.5 rather than this. Um, and remove the voting.
Were we providing voting rights? We may have >> It's Yeah, it's I mean, it's it's up for grabs. So, I think it's still in. >> Okay. Yeah. So, we will I'm going to make the motion to approve this with 5.5B
included. Do I have a second? >> I I just before we >> Could we just walk through it because I think maybe there was a few things that could be changed and that could be one motion to change them all. >> Okay, great. That makes sense. >> Thank you. Appreciate that. >> Yep. Yep. Yep.
>> Just starting maybe. >> Here's some red. >> And I Yeah, I read I'm sorry. >> Yeah, go ahead Bernie and then Andy. >> Yeah, I just wanted to say if the color
coding >> um is going to be part of the interim report or the preliminary report here. >> No, it's won't. Okay. >> No, >> because I was going to say you're going to leave the color code again. You need a explanation at the bottom. No, it'll
go. >> Erica wanted to to to to um >> discuss and get rid of the color coding. >> It'll go. >> Okay. >> Andy. >> Yeah. I mean, I sort of read through it and and there's just, you know, some of it's formatting stuff and some of it's
just like little clarifications. If we could just sort of go from the top. >> Yeah, sure. That's fine. Yeah, that's totally acceptable. >> Um, let me just get there. Can you make it a tiny bit bigger? >> Uh, yes I can. Um,
>> yay. Perfect. That's >> Is that better? Me? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Great. Um, okay. Uh, I'll just scroll and people tell me when to stop. >> Just the first the first one. Sorry. >> Yep. >> Um, it talk this is a a summarized
statement. It says intergovernmental joint powers. I'm not sure people will know what that means. And what it's really referring to is um mand okay there's bolding down below and I think bolding would help here. So if
we bold it mandated and then >> intergovernmental collaboration instead of joint powers because it's I think it's what it what it talks about now is you know may collab jointly cooperate
maybe cooperation but >> y >> um >> and so this joint powers thing you know I just don't think people know so if there was if we changed if we bolded mandate and bolded into governmental coop cooperation. That would be clearer
for people, I think. >> Sure, that makes sense. Any objections? >> Nope. >> Great. Um, do you want me to take notes of this, Ken, or >> to be honest, Julian? Yes. I'm I'm not
to be honest, I'm not really following >> um just able to do this in in real time. >> Yep. No problem. Um, can you repeat the suggestion, Andy, so I can get it in my notes? >> Sure. >> Mandated. Go ahead. >> Bold mandated
>> and and then change joint powers to cooperation and bold intergovernmental cooperation. >> Join bold and move the joint. Great.
So yeah, mandated cooperation. I don't have anything else on this page, but other people >> uh yeah, I'm just going to scroll and feel free folks to stop me. [Music] I just wanted to flag this because we
have new wording from the Collins Center, Ken, that I'll send to you if you don't have it already just to put in here that will help. >> It's rationale. >> Um, it is both language and rational.
>> Um, on this one then, um, I I think we should have something bolded for each one so people can just sort of guess what the thing is about. So this one I would bold part-time employment. >> The Collins here I'll read out exactly
the Collins sent this and has it in bold. So if we just insert what the council what Collins sent it will be quite easy. Um and I know Collins didn't send it to everyone. >> No. Uh this should have gone in the
packet, but basically they have it bolded and very clear language uh provided for this. I think it's in your email, Andy. >> Yeah, I included it. I It looked It
looked like a a good description, so I don't have a problem with that. >> Great. Um so we'll put that in there. Um, revisit. Okay. >> And I have a bold majority vote on this one.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um, >> hello everyone. Sorry I'm late. >> Hi Marcus. Um, glad you can hear us. Uh we have approved the minutes and are midway through approving the initial report. >> Great. Thank you.
>> There was minimal feedback subcommittee and uh outreach subcommittee updates. Um okay. So uh number nine we might want to say call this require finance committee or
something like that. Add to section E doesn't really say much. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, at least three meetings. Um, >> yeah. >> Yep. I would bold three because it's
increasing the number of meetings. >> Yep. Or >> it could just be or it could just be district meetings because there's a variety of things in there. But whatever. >> Is that number nine you're talking about? >> Number 10. Yeah. >> Can Okay. >> The finance I would I would just
explicitly say that it gives the finance committee broader scope and authority. >> Well, that's that's in the the rationale, but maybe just this one would be move finance committee definition. >> Yeah. >> Hold it.
>> That way they at least see it when they're reading, you know. Okay. >> And this next one we talked about, >> yeah, >> get rid of that charter language and >> change it to 5.5B, I guess, or or
somehow indicate >> that if we move five that it's 5.5B that we would be moving to 2.8 and this is the language. I don't know but >> yep um right to postpone >> uh >> bold.
>> Yeah, this should be bolded. The other thing I would just say is is it is this explicitly asking for a second or are we suggesting that it be more than a second required to postpone?
>> I think this was a second. >> Yeah, we just asked for a second. Okay. Okay. Um >> and yeah, >> read at two meetings. That's good to be bolded.
>> Yeah. >> Um >> and we have language from the cause about >> Yeah. Yeah. This is just >> a sentence from the college. >> Incredibly broad. Seven. this 17 through
20 or maybe even through just 17 through 19. >> Yeah. I mean >> just very broad. There's no >> we have um there we have proposals for you know >> Yeah. >> We almost want want to add something that says like >> language for terms you can't stagger.
three-year terms would require >> spring vote and fouryear terms could happen but in November with special act or you know something to let people know >> adding language for coming 17 through 19. Um
I would highlight our bold mandate constituent meetings. >> Yeah. And maybe move that maybe we maybe move that up next to number 10 because we already have a suggestion in number 10
for constituent. Maybe those two should go together. >> Yeah. Especially because it doesn't have a home. Yeah. >> Um >> so 19 go together. >> Okay. >> Um
okay. Why was this red, Ken? Do you have any explanation here? >> Sorry, I don't have >> There's a question in the far right. >> This is meant to add to section >> 2.2.
>> I believe it would be revising 2.9 because that's the appointment authority. Okay. >> I mean, we can always just Yeah. make it a statement >> either section D or revise two, you
know, 2.9, whatever. Okay, a lot of these are just sort of finding something to bold. >> Yeah, this is um could go back up to the resident advisory committee
that we just was just below what we were just talking about. Is this because people want to see have the interviews be public of open meeting law or the resident advisory committee meetings? Because the resident advisory committee
only meets about once or twice a year and an individual from our committee sits in on the interviews and I'm wondering if this is I I thought we were already I'm on that. I thought we were already uh subject to open meeting law. You're you're a
>> a resident advisory committee as far as I know >> is a committee that the manager appoints to help him with um >> interviews >> managing managing the town. So it is not subject to the open meeting law
>> but we act as if it is. I mean we have public's comment which nobody we've never had any >> other meetings get posted like every other meeting right >> it's just that the interviews themselves don't get >> that doesn't mean that you can't do that >> right okay
>> what it means is the town manager committees are not subjects to the open meeting law if one of the committees or any of the committees feel that they need to do that then they can simply do that >> that's why that's why it's clarified >> yeah it's good to be clear I mean ISIS
suspect somebody who mentioned that wants the interviews to be subject to open meeting law which of course they aren't never going to be they're and only because only one of us our committee sits in on those interviews so we're we're not a quorum by any means >> and I mean it's tech they're technically
special municipal employees I guess >> yeah right >> um >> anyway okay um >> we just had our annual [Laughter] number 26. Um, that that's like the same
as number 17. So, we should just say C number 17. >> Oh, okay. Oh, I see. Yep. Okay. Yep. That's purple. That's probably why, but we're getting rid of the >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, okay.
Five. This is lengthy. This should be bolded. This is a pretty major change. replace BCG as currently written. >> Yeah. Okay. Um the rethink timing. I wish we could give
them a date that like rather than just rethink. Um >> maybe that's what we come up with in the preliminary >> in the prelim. Yeah, I guess that's fair. Um >> do you want to add in there then you
know date um additional something in the preliminary or you know so that people don't just think >> what the hell are you doing? >> Yeah. Yes. Exactly. What was >> Okay. Um >> number 34
>> add >> question. Yes. This I don't know what it means but we voted on this so it's a yes. >> Yeah. I mean I think it's the question is whether whether it's legal, right? >> Yes. and we I'm pretty sure we found out
that that it was because Boston did it, but it was just new. But we'll look it'll be interesting to see the Collins Center advice on this. >> Okay, just one one thing to note that the Boston is frequently an exception to everything else in the state. So, um because Boston has some authority
doesn't mean that the legislature would has extended it to everybody else. Do we want to um instead of say add new budget items, say increase budget items? Because it could that could be just it might not be a new item. It might just be adding.
>> Yeah, I would say I would agree. Let's amend to to increase and that will sound better. >> Increase budget items. Yeah. >> Yeah. And may and maybe the rationale should say something like checking if legal or something like that. But I'm in agreement.
>> But something would have to be decreased if they're adding it and it can't >> Yes. >> change the sum. >> That's why it says while not increasing the sum of the total budget. I guess we could add >> add or add and subtract. Town meeting used to do that.
>> Yeah. I'm just gonna put IE decrease >> something else >> proportionally >> or just change >> slash take >> adjust could be one word like adjust change
>> I'm just gonna say decrease proportionally because that will make it clear like say theoretically the council couldn't say we want to give a hundred 50,000 to this agency, but we're only going to take a 100,000 from this agency because then they're pulling 50,000 out
of thin air. >> What Bernie >> Hard to hear you hear? >> Yeah. Well, the thing to keep in mind with town meeting is is it didn't have to produce a balanced budget, >> right? Gone. town had to have a balanced budget by the time you the town needed
to set the tax rate. >> So, um that may well be true of the council as well. You you know, so town meeting didn't have to produce a balanced budget and town meeting also was limited. Any town
meeting is also limited in how much they can increase and decrease. Um, I I got into this with u uh the uh the former uh town attorney of of Ammerst about this stuff. So, um
I I think we just we're going to whatever we say here, we're going to refer count to to our attorney. >> Yeah. Um Okay. Okay, great. Um,
clarify. >> So, you're just going to add bolding for each of these things, right? >> Okay. Yeah. Um, >> um, number 39 and number 40 are covered more specifically in 41. So, I don't know if we want to just leave 41 in and
or or say see number 41 or I I don't know. But I don't know that we need to say one says extend the time and the other one says increase the time and and then we have a specific suggestion in 41. So, I guess
>> I got it. Yep. Um okay. So, >> but it's more detailed. C41. Yep, I got that. >> Okay. >> Um, this says revise voter revise
um measures ineligible for voter veto to include, but then it says delete exceptions. So, it's >> those are two different things. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, okay. Resident vote should be
That's going to be I I mean it's a good idea. I just am trying to think logistically how that we'd have you'd have to round a percentage because the council's 13 members and the people who vote could be you know thousands of people.
>> Is that I'm trying to understand this. Does that mean if it's like it requires a twothirds vote um for a zoning change to veto it would require a twothirds vote or or or killing it would require or not you know would only require a
one-third I'm just not quite sure. I think the the challenge is or the the problem they're trying to solve is if the council has to vote twothirds to change say zoning or to approve borrowing that a voter veto could could
reverse that with just a majority vote unless it's saying >> you need to reverse it with the same percentage. >> Yes. So like take >> like take the school vote or the library vote it would be 2/3.
>> So yes >> um simultaneous translation uh yeah um require timely. Yep. Okay.
And we don't suggest anything besides we don't suggest what should be added. So it just tells them to add, but it doesn't say what. >> In those cases, we'd probably hope that the Collins Center could give us some language. >> Yeah. Okay, great. Um,
Ken, >> one of the things about the public comment piece, um, >> hold on. Ken has his hand raised. Um, I'm sorry. >> No problem. >> Um, just a a point of clarification.
When you guys were talking about bolding things, what is what does that mean? >> It just literally the font itallic bold like you know what I mean? >> So it's easy to read. So they'll people will read it and they'll just grammatical type thing. >> The bold of phrase in the like at the
beginning there's bolded phrases. >> Uhhuh. >> And then it stops being bolded. So you know you have to read the whole thing as opposed to oh this is about voter veto or this is about >> highlight bold simultaneous translation. So just yeah >> it's like underlining something to give like a hint of what it's about
>> to help the reader. >> Yeah, you could just go just go to the f first page Julian and just highlight what you're talking about. >> Yeah, exactly. >> I mean I consider all these are children so I don't want to pick a favorite. So, I'm trying to make sure we're not
drawing eyes to something that >> Yeah. >> Um, >> it's like this. >> We're not editorializing. >> No. >> Yeah. I sorry. My view I see no difference whatsoever and I'm not sure why that is. So, that's why I was confused. You guys are talking about bolding and I don't see any bolding.
Okay. >> Um, Bernie and then Raphael. >> I'm just wondering what public comment if in fact public comment is >> can't hear you. You got I'm sorry. I gota I I gotta learn to lean into the mic here.
>> Oh, your speaker's weird. >> It's Yeah. Try to get the mic out there on that ocean behind you. You sound like you're way out there. >> Okay. All right. How's Does he sound okay? Can you hear me? >> Now you're not out to sea.
>> Okay. As long as you can hear me in the back, I'm all set. Um I I'm wondering with this one why and maybe we could just postpone this for discussion for another time. Why you'd privileged public comment over because the statutes
require a timely posting of the minutes. The old meeting law does they don't say 24 hours and public comment that opening where people could show up and talk about anything. um why that that should be privileged
over everything else and why that even should be part of the meeting other than say so and so appeared to speak about this is a a question I think we need to take up with >> either with council or with the secretary of the commonwealth
>> okay Raphael >> yeah two things um I'm with Ken in terms of bolding things I think this report is supposed to just have like draft changes to charter recommended. Some of that is here. I think in terms of our timeline,
I think it's good that we have the original charter language in here. It'll help with the preliminary report. What I don't want to lose sight of is we have this list of suggestions to consider. How are we going to reduce this number?
Um what's our process? Um, so we need to really surface that and be clear about what's our process in terms of making decisions about what stays, what goes. So it would be great to carve out some
time to be clear about that. And just reiterating what I keep saying, like maybe Julian can weigh in, but we really need to be clear about like who is making these decisions about what will end up in the final or preliminary
report. So, you just want to keep that on our radar. It's great that we're paying attention to language tonight. Some folks have engaged with Collins in terms of recommended language, but I think this report is much about like recommended draft changes.
>> Thanks. >> Great. Um, okay. Uh, just looking here. Um, >> just hand up. >> Sorry, I didn't see your hand. >> Yep. Um, I thought we talked about that
that we were going to we're going to wait a couple weeks to start meeting, but then we were going to review the I mean, we're going to get this out now. And then we're basically talking about formatting. >> So, >> or or any major things that just need
clarification, but we talked about getting the feedback from Collins and reviewing each of these things with that feedback and then I guess voting, right? So that within two meetings or whatever a couple of meetings after that we're going to have a preliminary report that does
that does uh winnow this down based on the feedback from the column center. >> Let's just name it. So, so I I think like um we should be clear about so recommendations from Collins and then these individual members are
just making decisions about how to whittle it down based on >> No, we would have to just vote on each one. >> Yeah. But but there are some processes that involve a little more perhaps
how can I say this? Um maybe you're leaning into like um quantitative elements when it comes to like the public like the public has a lot of support for X. I'm not sure we're there but let's just name what our
process is. So individual members are just weighing in. >> Correct. >> Well, collectively we're weighing in. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I mean, then then we're going to have a forum on the stuff that's been sort of vetted by the consultants.
>> Right. >> I mean, we we'll probably hear of things that should be that that people think we missed, which we also need to consider about putting in. So, Yeah. >> Yeah. I I mean,
sorry. >> I just think I just I just think in we're we're >> there's timing elements in play, but I think and I'm not saying we should consider this, but I think there are ways that these processes could sort of
play out where here's the list, the public knows, weigh in. And for some, that's a part of the rationale. So if folks are weighing in and they're saying we like X and there are number of folks who are saying we like X. My rationale
might be large percentage of the public loves X. I'm voting on that. That's just how sub might approach this. But I want to just name what our approach is. >> Yeah, >> of course. Okay.
Um, does that finish us off for our for this document? >> I I also want to know, Ken and Erica, do you all want additional help with editorial stuff or you feel you're good? >> Yeah.
>> Uh, what do you mean by that, Rob? Be specific. >> So, for instance, like form, >> format, >> uh, grammar, mechanics, >> that type of stuff. Does it matter? online >> in terms of like the init like like the
initial report that part. >> Yeah, the initial report like the cover page stuff. >> There ways to enhance, but I don't know if you feel like you have the time. >> That's and that's it. Thank you for saying it for me. We don't have time. Um
that should absolutely be a part of the next report. And I that that hurts me because it hurts me to say that because I'm an editor by heart and I want it to be better, >> but we're just under the gun here and >> but but I would say Ken, let's think about the preliminary report and sort of
>> process with the writing and two of you handled a lot. It's a lot that you appreciate it. >> Um, but there could be a different process that sort of helps with that editing like doing it here. I saw you say like I don't necessarily feel like I
could do this here. >> I feel the same way in terms of like the specificity and sort of flow clarity of a document like this doing it in this format in it's tricky. >> So let's think about that for the next
report. >> Okay. I'm willing to help. May >> I agree strongly with Raphael and thinking ahead uh you know who might write something like a kind of framing introductory document of or you know the
kind of ways of packaging this that possibly others of us could help with >> can I'm just agreeing with Raphael and all of you some you know different ones of us have done >> different things but this is the time for us all to pitch in
if we if it's helpful not if It's just more chaos. >> Great. >> Like, oh, Raphael and Meg, want to help, man. What are we going to do about that? >> We have to give them something to do. >> Yeah. >> No, no, but I I do think like the the
the folks who took it on, Ken and Erica, it's a lot of work. And when it comes to like writing, it's tricky in terms of flow if there's not clarity. And a lot of people are jumping in. That's just tricky. >> Um, And I would say like my recommendation
would be I know people said let's meet weekly but for the writing of a report like this maybe we need to carve out a little more time >> and collectively sit with this >> okay >> for a longer period of time. We had a retreat where we did some voting
>> but maybe for preliminary report we need to just carve out some longer chunks of time where people could hunker down. I don't know. >> Yeah. Um, Andy. >> Okay, I'll be waiting. >> I I just thought we also have that one
pager of the >> Yeah, I want to get to that. >> Can we look at that too? >> Yeah, that's what I was sort of thinking, Ken. >> Um, I want to make it like sort of very clear and I and and I am speaking for Erica when I say this because I know that we we've discussed this. Um
Erica and I do not see ourselves as the report writers >> for the preliminary report and the final report. >> It doesn't mean that we're going to recuse ourselves completely from those those processes, but we >> we do not want to be seen as the ones
who are going to pick up the report and do that. >> Great. >> Just to make that very clear. >> Make I Good boundary setting. Yep. Great. Um, I will move that we approve
the initial report with the amendments. I will send the amendments to Ken, Erica, Raphael. Um, get me back a sort of get me back the
documents we have with those amendments maybe by the end of the week and I'll send it off to the town council. Is that a plan? >> You mean the end of what week? This week. >> The end of next week. Sorry. >> Okay. >> Yeah. End of next week. >> That's fine. That's fine. That's fine.
>> Great. Um, >> and you're fine with that in terms of >> No. >> You jumping in the mix at this point? >> Uh, I don't know. I don't I I don't No, I don't have a problem. I had a problem with like
Eric and I were quite sober when we made this decision, but we really wanted it out of here. >> It's a lot tomorrow. >> We wanted it out tomorrow. >> It's a lot. >> Yes. How about yesterday? >> There's not that much change, right? I mean, it's just put, you know, bolding a
couple things and deleting a little language. >> Take half an hour. An hour. >> But are we bolding things, Ken? >> I still don't understand why. I mean, if we're building things to like for eyes to catch >> to sort of like be catching things,
>> then you got to do it everywhere. >> Yeah, >> that's the point. You You started doing it. You started doing it. So, that it should be everywhere. >> It won't take long. >> No, it wouldn't take long. >> I'm happy to to do it if if that helps. But
>> I don't want to be belager, but but the reason for bolding things, Andy, are >> so people can skin can understand comfortable >> with this. >> That's what the cover the cover sheet is for skimming. >> Are folks comfortable with this? If not,
that's okay. >> But that to make it easier and quicker this weekend, I can make the edits and send it to town council if we approve me to make the edits and send it. Do you want to do it that way?
>> No. >> Sure. No. >> Okay. >> Sure. No. Okay. People disagree. Marcus, >> no. I just think um we either go one way or the other. Right now, the document has some bolding and some not.
>> So, um it just needs to be >> blank or fully bolded. >> So, >> yeah, >> I I don't really care, but I think there is something to having it bolded just for sake of reading. Bernie,
>> I I agree with Ken's point that there's a cover sheet for people to skim and then refer back into the more detailed uh proposed recommendations. Um I
as I'm listening to the discussion and looking at the document, I'm getting more and more uneasy about calling attention to certain pieces. Um, I I understand that you want to attract the attention of the reader, but u I I I
I'm uneasy about highlighting certain pieces. >> That's a little little bit too much of editorializing. I think >> that's what it feels like to me is editorializing. >> Andy,
>> uh, that's fine. I I just I just noticed that they were bolded on the fir that certain phrases were bolded to help the reader on the on the first page. >> So, >> and so I was like, well, why don't why aren't we doing that elsewhere? But we could also just not bold them on everywhere and just have it be that
might be easier. >> Yeah. Sorry. I don't I don't I I absolutely don't remember seeing that. I mean, it was there, but it wasn't something that that caught my eye and it was not meant to to suggest that we should be bolding everything. That's I think that's the miscommunication.
>> So if we don't bold anything, we just don't bold anything, that leaves only like three or four little wording changes. I understand the feeling that folks want to get this out and done with, and I appreciate that. How would we feel if
me and Raphael made those small wording changes and then sent it to the town council by the end of next week approving this report? I actually don't see it as the I I'd
like to help with the the cover page of the the beginning of this. Um, and not a lot, but just some recommendations. And I think the if Ken and Erica want eyes on it, I don't think that's a big deal. I think the things we just
reviewed, it would be great to have the additional Collins Center stuff here, but I don't know where we are with that. Um, so I don't know. >> Sorry. We're So sorry. Go ahead, Julian. I'm sorry. >> No, go right ahead. Go. I'm interrupting you, Ken. Go ahead.
>> I'm No, I I'm I'm going to say I feel and and I'm going to speak for Erica as well. I really think she would agree with me that that yeah, it would be great to have the call and center stuff here, but we don't have the time for that. We just don't. We got to move this We got to move this out as it is. And I
unfortunately I'm thinking about like the discussion in the town council where they're like they don't get an extension. We need their final report in two weeks like you want a piece of garbage. Um >> yeah really that was so ridiculous. Well sorry. >> So I'm I'm like I I'm but I am but I
took that away and I'm sensitive to it. So >> we should not wait any longer than we have to. I certainly respect I completely respect the ability or sorry the um the the offer to help to format and make it make it better. I just I by
the end of next week that's just it's too too way too much time to me and that's again I'm speaking for me and Erica right now. >> I have to agree with Ken. I think like there is a time for detailed grammatical
>> Thank you. revisions. And as much as I would love to do that in an ideal world, we're not in an ideal world. And we need to get this report out to the council so we can move on to the next thing and have our committee work more
efficiently, which is something, like it or not, we've been criticized for not working efficiently. So, I would ideally like to get this approved tonight. Whether a little bit more editing happens before we send to the council or not and who volunteers to do that, I'm
happy to discuss. Bernie. >> Yeah, my my suggestion would be that um Julian, if you feel comfortable doing that to make the changes that were discussed u as we discuss the suggestions under consideration that document to make the changes. Um, I'm
assuming that Ken has plugged into the uh the narrative the dates that we agreed to um put them together and along with that cover sheet and get them to the council um as soon Monday.
>> Yes, that's my hope. you you know that's I have to I as much as I bristled at some of the stuff the council said I have to respect their opinion they they uh they want to see this and they want to see this done
well and they want to see it done timely. So, I think um I I think uh uh you know, we've got a really we've got a really good initial work product here. Uh kudos to uh to to Canon and America.
Uh if we have to do a little tweaking, just a little tweaking and get it out the door. >> Yes. I don't often say this, but 110% of what Bernie said is spot on in my opinion. Um, Andy, you hear one?
>> Yeah, I just want to be clear. I mean, I'm I'm sorry for all the bolding discussion, but I just thought that was just, you know, very easy formatting, and without that, there's not a lot of changes, but there are the ones that are marked in red. So, those, you know, we're referring to the wrong section of the charter that needs to be fixed. my
my proposal I'm comfortable doing it is approve this and I will go through and change the stuff in red and one or two other things that we have talked about as a committee that I have taken notes on since I've already taken notes >> that I understand
um it it will be a pain for me to send someone else my notes and explain it to them because they will not understand what I have jotted down on a piece of paper. Um, and if we want, someone else can review it afterwards before we send it to the
council. But that's my proposal. That's where I'm at. I think that's an appropriate next step. Meg, >> I agree with you. Um, a couple of quick things. Bernie said the council wants it well done and timely. I'd say some people wanted it timely and some wanted
it well done. They weren't necessarily >> Yes. They weren't the same people, but that's okay. >> I I think the idea of writing some framing thing is a great idea, but not now. This is something we can mow over and think about when we do our final
final kind of a I hate to use the word maybe not the word preamble because that sounds like part of the document, but a kind of a framing essay uh about the spirit of what we heard uh and not but not now. I think that's an
interesting idea for later. >> And and if Raphael wants, I can run this through like Grammarly or Chat GPT just so it doesn't look horrible. >> I wouldn't let it change it. >> I I wouldn't I wouldn't I wouldn't change the report. I just make the
changes that we talked about. >> Yeah. >> In the um suggestions uh session and let it go. >> Great. Um Raphael, Ten, and Andy. >> Yeah. Chef Julian, you're down with that. I'm cool with that, too. I think
the factchecking the suggestions under consideration important. Um, it seems like people here feel pressed about timing. Um, it makes sense to me, but let's just circle back to the plan for preliminary report. Let's just be clear
about that. Um, but a lot of good work here. Um, appreciate the work that's done. >> Um, thanks. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't >> I am gonna say though, I'm gonna say like I have to say because people keep
bringing up the council. Um, and these processes though in some towns aren't quick. Maybe some people are about expediency, but I'm not sure that's the only thing that's important in this process. >> I'll just say that. Sorry, I wasn't I
wasn't saying oh god you said it >> saying it at my email because it keeps changing my screen. You guys probably saw that when I'm screen sharing. So it's not you, it's my email. >> But but thanks folks for working on this.
>> Um Ken and then Andy. Um, just to be clear that all the all the shading and coloring that's there now needs to be removed when these I mean those those red parts are really like to
to draw your eyes and say something something's up here. So the the final report will have no >> shading whatsoever. It's all boring black and white. I'm going to p copy paste this all into a Google sheet, unh
highlight it, make the edits, put it back in a PDF, and send it to Lynn and Athena and the other town council members. >> Wonderful. >> Thank you. >> Uh, >> thank you so much. >> No problem. Um, well, thank Ken and
Erica. I'm doing it all and >> put all this together. >> Um, Andy. Yeah, I I mean I have I have another comment, but I but first I I don't think we should worry about uh the the time
frame for the council because they've already given us the time frame. We have until January 5th. So whatever whatever we need to do for the intervals between now and then. They've already approved it. So a couple people didn't like that, but the the body voted to give us till
January 5th. So So we're fine. But I also agree that this thing should go out yesterday. So that may be uh you know in inconsistent but whatever I I think we should do what we need to do and not worry about >> anything other than getting the final thing to the council.
>> The committee be aware that there will be an equally long email to this report written by Mandy Joeing. [Laughter] >> Um so >> can't wait can't wait. The other thing I wanted to bring bring up though is that
we had said in our initial letter to the public that that we would include things that were not if we heard certain themes >> that were not within the original scope that we would um include a section on
those. So if we've heard, you know, if there are certain themes that we've heard, >> you know, whether it's transparency or whether it's uh >> participation, >> people want a mayor or or whatever, I think somehow we need to collect that kind of stuff for the final report.
>> Totally agree. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's that's I think that's always been in play. >> Okay, >> I completely agree. And I would love for it to be in the final report. it probably won't make it swing into the initial report, but that's sort of a third thing that can make the final
report final. Um, okay. Uh, do we want to vote to approve this um with the amendments that I will make and send to the council? Uh, and I'll promise to do that by Tuesday.
>> They meet Monday if you want. Well, they're not going to talk about it Monday. Never mind. >> Yeah, they're not going to talk about it Monday. Yeah. Okay. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Great. Thanks, Meg. Um, okay. Uh, myself, I'm an I. Andy,
>> hi. >> Raphael, >> hi. >> Ken, >> hi. >> Um, Meg, >> I >> uh Bernie, >> yes. >> Marcus, >> yes. >> Excellent. Thank you guys. Perfect. We
will be sending this off. Um, so next time someone on the street runs up to you and says, "You haven't done anything." Show them this. >> Are you hanging out with Julian? >> Yeah. No, nobody's running up to me on
my street, so just fair. >> Yeah, we had a bear in the yard today actually at Scat. We had Scat right in the >> Oh, wow. Yeah. How cool. Anyway, I digress. Uh, so next on our
agenda is um the discussing Colin Center feedback. Um, I will screen share the document we have. Um, if I can find it uh
in our prior documents. Um, the only other thing that we sort of we sort of have already discussed preliminary report plan and timeline. Do folks feel comfortable having the Colin Center feedback be our last agenda item?
>> Um, there are two people in the audience. I don't know if we want to have a second public comment. >> Thank you. That's a great idea. Um, >> or at least there were. Maybe there's only one. >> Now there's one. I'll have a separate public comment before we adjourn. Just remind me. >> Okay.
>> Um I will make sure to do that. That's a good catch, Meg. Um so we won't have preliminary report and timeline. We'll discuss Colin Center feedback, have public comment. Um and then we'll adjourn. That should probably take the next 40 minutes. Um
let me just find uh >> Andy Andy, didn't Andy send it out a little earlier this afternoon? Would you mind screen sharing, Andy, if that's possible? >> Uh, sure. >> Okay. If not, that's okay. >> I think uh
need to see which one it is. >> Yeah, I got it here. >> I I have it, too. If you need it, >> right? >> Um, let's see. Do you want to un unshare
the minutes or do I just start sharing? >> No. Um, >> I'll stop sharing. >> Yeah, you got to stop and let go. >> Everyone got big. >> Okay. >> You see that?
>> Yep. >> Yes. Thank you. >> There were two Collins memos, right? One October 1st and one yesterday. >> Yes. This is the one that that we've >> the first one. >> Yeah,
>> this is it. Thank you, Andy. >> Um, okay. So, a lot of this is language. Some of it is uh sort of discussion. Um, we'll just scroll article by article and folks can raise their hand if they have anything
to point out. So, >> could I ask a question? Sorry. Go ahead, Andy. Sorry, I didn't raise my hand. >> Raise my hand. >> Um, go ahead. I mean, do you want me to I think Meg has a question.
>> Yeah, Meg, go ahead. Sorry. So, some of these things as I've read it over uh they suggest going to KP law and my question was how long will that take and how soon do we need to put things in get their attention on some of these things.
It's a good question and I do not know the answer, but it should be sent to them soon >> because I know when we had the regular the first charter committee commission, >> it took longer than we thought and um because of our timeline, we might want
to flag things in this memo that we want to send to them sooner rather than later. Yeah, we could send it to them now on or we need to send it to them after Colin has their whole document. So yeah,
>> soy >> this first one is basically this is where somebody had suggested mandating intergovernmental um cooperation um where you know and in this case they're saying
including a directive in the charter to mandate regionalization may be too prescriptive for a charter provision. in its place. A committee could consider recommending a committee to discuss to study and report back on regionalization opportunities either by requiring it in the transition
section of the charter or recommending it in the committee's report. So, I mean, we have a we have a qu right now. We have language saying the town may cooperate or the town is uh
um uh may exercise its powers to cooperate with any uh you know, municipality or the state. And this this one is said the the the recommendation was to make that mandatory whenever it made s whenever it
was seemed like it would you know offer benefits to the town. Uh they seem to be saying that the current my sense is that this says that the current language would be sufficient but we might also want to have a committee study on re study
regionalization opportunities. Um so that I'm just I'm just translating what they're saying. So, I'll just editorialize that. I think I think having a committee to study this would be a great idea. I can think of we've
had discussions about Graanby joining the regional schools. The state doesn't maintain certain sections of Route 9 and 116 that we could get their assistance doing the potholes and paving and like lever and Wendell. I think they combined
their police forces. So all I'm saying is there's creative things that a committee could explore if we had the time. So I think having a committee would be a really good compromise here. >> So it sounds like keep the language as it is but put put something in the transition section suggesting a
committee on regionalization. >> What I would support. Yeah. >> Anyway, that's that's what they're suggesting. Anyway, the next one is the public forum definition. And the problem that was run into was basically we said
it needs to be 50% the public talking. And if only two people show up and they don't have much to say, uh then you're sort of anyway, it becomes a mathematical thing that doesn't work well. So they they're suggesting um
um they suggest language here that's in red. >> Mhm. >> Great. This makes sense to me. I mean >> designed to facilitate two-way communication between the town government residents. >> It makes it makes a lot more sense
because it also explicitly says like this is a conversation not a >> right >> talk at us. >> Right. So this seems fairly unremarkable and and probably useful, >> but it it gets at the point which is people don't people want to have a
conversation. >> Yeah. >> And also people want them to make a comment. They might want the council to respond. >> We originally, I think, said something about two-way communication, but it it it was clunky. So >> I agree, Meg.
>> Uh multiple member bodies. Um they're saying uh what are they saying? Um, oh, this is about the whether the manager appointed body such as the resident advisory committee
must be confirmed by the council committee may charter language in section 3.3C appears to state that the resident advisory committee is not subject to council confirmation under 211. By the plain language requires town manager to establish a resident's advisory
committee, but the Collins Center recommends the committee seek a legal opinion on this issue if the matter is in dispute. The committee could clarify the appointment authority for the town manager advisory bottles bodies and the definition of multiple member bodies by making the following change. And then
they suggest the phrase multiple member body shall not include the residents advisory committee or any other committee established by the town manager for the purpose of advising the town manager on functions within the town manager's authority. So that's language they're suggesting
>> and that's I think a reasonable way of handling that. Um so then section D or D is about the definition of clarifying the term measure which is
currently defined as any bylaw order resolution or other vote or proceeding adopted or that the town council might adopt. Um it's fairly broad. The committee would need to assess which items it would be interested in including in the term measure and the
reasons for making such exclusions. The project team does not have enough information to opine on this definition. Um although it appears the question is being asked to determine which items are subject to the full majority provisions
of the charter in article two which they get into down below. Um definition of emergency. We have a definition in quotes here. When emergencies are defined in charters, amorous division definition is
nearly identical to definitions in most other council manager charters. This language has been defined by courts and vetted by the attorney general's office. project team does not recommend making any changes without consulting the town's attorneys. I
>> I'll just add something here which is I guess it's a question we would ask KP Law. I don't know, but I just don't know. And maybe this has been defined somewhere else that I'm unaware of, but
I don't know what how there the difference between a October snowstorm, the council needs to authorize emergency money for clearing the roads or whatever, and
a we're missing a grant deadline or a financial deadline or something like that. something the public isn't thinking >> 911. You know what I mean? >> Yeah. >> It was poorly worded, but you get what I'm saying.
>> Totally. That Yeah, that was in the the list that we have. >> Yeah. >> So, I don't know. Maybe we can just talk to KP law about that. Um these are definitional things so they're kind of >> dry but um
so then the the full council the question was whether votes in and they they talk about votes being uh requiring a majority of the full council meaning uh seven out of the 13 for a majority. In general, the project team recommends
defining words in the sections where they're used when possible for clarity rather than the definition section. In this case, it would be appropriate to delete the definition in article one and define it where it is referenced in article two. The d the definition of full counsel
comes into play in the legislative section regarding council votes. So, that seems fairly straightforward. town employment of council members. Um they've they followed up on this one in the other memo that we got recently.
So um we might want to hold off until we can review that one. >> Let's hold off on this because that can be included in the next packet and I know not everybody has seen it, but once folks do see it, it'll come across as pretty straightforward and a pretty
reasonable solution. >> Yeah. um majority vote. So this is again the question about the an affirmed by a majority of the full town council >> is what is currently in there. Um
>> and the question of abstensions. >> Yeah. >> Is this >> is the question about I mean is the question about abstensions or how the abstensions are treated?
>> Yeah. If they're treated as a no vote, that's an error. >> Or they treat it as a reducing the quorum. >> I feel like reducing the quorum makes more sense, but they've been treated as
a no vote before for political reasons, shall we say? >> Because someone might abstain for a reason unrelated to opposing something, >> right? In fact, I have before on this. I mean that's the whole point of abstension. Yeah. Yeah.
>> You're not prepared. You're not or you're Yeah. Have a conflict of interest or >> Right. Exactly. Yeah. >> No means no. Abstain means me. >> Yeah. >> Means I don't vote. It It might mean mixed or it might mean >> Yeah. Exactly.
>> I'm not voting because my wife my wife is the one who's being hired or >> whatever, >> right? Um, and it's also like, isn't it like a legal way to get out of conflicts of interest and stuff? >> Yeah, exactly. >> Exactly. Like my wife is
>> right. >> Or my partner. >> Yep. Uh, >> or that's a contract with me. >> Yep. There's Yeah. Didn't somebody's somebody's brother at UMass got in trouble about that? Um,
>> no, it was um No, it wasn't. It was a director. She Yeah. Anyway, >> didn't she hire her brother or something? >> She did. She did. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Didn't mention it at all. Yeah. >> Wow. Tisk tisk. >> Yeah, exactly.
>> She was on the hiring committee, >> not just like hired them. She was on the committee itself. >> So, this these these bullets here, I think, are the are the meat of this. They're they're saying that >> they need us to uh make a recommendation
and then they can give language. So the question is when deciding whether to change the current charter language, the committee should consider whether the current requirements relating to an affirmative majority interfere substantially with the council's functions such that the change is warranted and then whether the committee
recommends a change to permit passage of all measures bylaws or otherwise by an affirmative vote of a majority of members present present at a meeting. So, if a couple people aren't there, then you need six people to pass it
rather than seven or do you still need seven people even if a couple people aren't there? So, I don't know what we the language in the charter says you need a majority of all the members
to pass bylaws and um things like that. But but the suggestion that came from one of the counselors was saying you generally have most of the counselors there and you know you get into this question about
you know if people are abstaining or um whether that counts or not. So they were suggesting a a per you know um a vernative motive vote of a majority of members present to make it simpler but
that's a judgment call on our part. >> Okay, perfect. Um >> it might be nice to have them present to discuss this but I don't know. >> Yeah, I'm trying to think here. Yeah, this makes sense. Okay. >> But it's there there it's either we keep
the language as is or we change it to say a majority of members present, >> right? I guess I'm in favor of changing it just to be clear about um bylaws.
What? We're We're walking through this, but are we going to just sort of walk through it and then or are we going to ask them for cl for for to give us language on one or the other or >> Yeah, I think we should ask them to give us language. I mean, >> but they said they they need us to to
make a choice before. >> Yeah, I would say I personally support the second, but how do other folks feel? I >> agree with you. Okay, great. Um, >> I feel good. I feel okay with that. I
mean, >> I think we just need a vote on one way or the other, but yeah, >> I'm neutral. >> Okay, so I'll I guess we can ask Collins for the second. Um, here. Uh, next
>> bylaws are read at two meetings. Um, that seems fairly straightforward. Um, >> I guess it's we said that they should be read at two meetings, but then >> uh people are like, does that mean that that there need to be two votes or that they just need to present it in the
first meeting and vote at the second one? >> I think it's just it's been interpreted as just present it because and that works relatively well just because folks can it can get out in the community and have some time for like public comment and whatnot.
So they're saying the charter appears to be clear, but the following alternative language may be used if the committee finds the current language unclear. No ordinance will be passed finally on the date it is introduced except in the case of emergency measures as provided in section two. >> I don't think it needs clarity. It's
been working okay, but if it makes folks feel more comfortable, we can >> I don't remember the language, but this seems like a belt and suspenders approach. So >> yeah, >> I don't see a problem with it. >> Yeah.
>> Um, so that's what they've given us so far. >> Great. >> Is there do we need to sort of >> are there any other decisions that we have to make in here? >> Yeah, that's the question. Yeah, >> I mean looking back at them, the first
one there, you know, they're saying don't make it don't make it a requirement, but maybe have that study committee or do we want to say yeah, that's the direction we want to go in or
>> Yeah, I can Why don't we give a thumbs support study committee? >> Sure. >> Yes. Okay, great. I'm in agreement. It's an excellent idea. Um, >> the public forum. Do we have language? Do we like the
language? >> I support >> I think dropping the dropping the dropping the time frame requirement is fine. it makes a lot of sense to get rid of it
and just say um you know there's there'll be at least two times u and and again the council can at its will say we're going to have a public forum on this topic as part of this meeting you know they they can do
that um but the the the language that they offer for public forums I think is is is fine >> every so or or are we just consensusing that one? >> Those ones.
>> I'll defer I'll defer to you, Julie. >> Yes, thank you. Um, yes, I would say this makes sense to me if we just keep it as is. Sorry. >> The language that they're pro that they're proposing.
>> Yeah, just keep it. That makes sense. um multiple this is basically just adopting that language. I'm comfortable with that. >> Are people generally good with that? >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Fine. >> Yes. Yes. Absolutely. >> Measure that's fine.
>> They don't they're basically saying what >> what's an emergency, >> right? They would need to assess which items. They're basically saying we're fine, honestly. >> Yeah, that's sort of how I interpreted
it. >> Okay. >> Right. I mean, everybody else is kind of doing it. You're fine unless you want to be you go your own way. I mean, >> that's that's the emergency one, right? >> Right. Right. Right. Sorry. >> The measure one, I'm not sure what they're saying.
>> The measure one again is just like it's fine. >> Yeah. It's interesting, but I mean I I honestly I I would like to sit on it for a little bit and just to kind of think it through because there's been,
you know, when we were talking about it at the retreat and, you know, all this, we had a lot of issues with measures, but I don't know. I kind of want to sit on this just you know personally and think about it a bit more but
>> in our in our chart we do have a the discussion talks about the different types of measures so >> I feel like with both of these they're sort of basically saying it's okay as is >> it I think committee members should send to me because I have questions on
emergency what um what we can ask KP law what we can sort of be like hey what's what does this mean give us some clar clarity, but I feel like if it's fine from Colin's point of view, I think it's okay, maybe that's not the right
approach to take, you know, but >> yeah, >> and if it's okay being a normal, you know, a uh an average, it's okay. >> I guess is I guess it goes back to the question of if everyone goes 70 on 91,
can you go 72? [Laughter] Um, >> all right. So, this this one is a it may be fine. It may be that we need to think about it some more. Measure. >> Yeah. >> Emergency. They're saying it's basically
fine. The question that came up is what other than a you know a storm or something or a flood? What you know is missing a grant an emergency? >> Right. And you know, and then uh we talked a little bit about
the full council, which actually they were saying to delete this section and just define it in the next section. >> Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me. Are folks comfortable with that? >> I think so. Yeah. >> Yes.
>> And then the town employment we'll talk about next time because we have a specific memo on that. Um, bylaws read at two meetings. Sort of extra, but >> I think we sort of decided just to not do the extra.
>> Oh, I was thinking maybe. >> Oh, we decided two. Sorry. >> We just do it. Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah, sure. >> It's like Andy said, it's the belt belt and sub suspenders kind of. >> Yeah. Okay. Yep. Yep. That makes sense. That's fine. Um, >> that's it.
>> Okay. Excellent. Um, public comment. Uh, does anyone in the public I just see Darcy. Darcy, would you like to make a comment? Raise your hand. No. Okay. Um, future agenda items. I
think obviously we'll be putting what Colin sends me on the agenda. We'll be putting the 2.3 issue for the public employees on the agenda and we'll be putting the preliminary report on the
agenda. Do folks have anything to add? >> No. >> Nope. Excellent. >> Um topics not anticipated. I don't have anything. Does anybody else? >> It's like that we're getting that report out. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Yeah, this is like really really good.
Really good. Thank you everybody. We're we're doing stuff. >> Well, I mean, don't make it sound like that. We We have always been doing stuff. We actually showing that we've been doing >> our labor
the charter family when you have dinner tell them we have something. >> You know, the charter commission also was tight on time at the end, right Andy? Remember? So, but is Julian, are you gonna tell
Athena that we have a meeting every week now? >> Yes, I will. >> She's she's involved in that. I hope >> I will email her the dreaded news. >> Great. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Uh, do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Uh, second.
>> Okay. Excellent. Uh, Bernie, >> yes. >> Myself, I'm an I. Andy? >> Yes. >> Marcus? >> Yes. Raphael Meg. >> Yes. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Have a great night, everybody. Byebye.
Bye.