Um, minutes would be Meg. >> H I was afraid of that. >> Yeah, >> I may have to there's get Bernie's secret or something. >> Get the transcript and then go from there. >> Yeah, you can just plug transcript into AI. It's not
>> what I just don't know how to do that that Bernie did it for me the last time. >> I can show you. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Um, you can also just scan it and it gives you the topics. So, >> yeah. Yeah. The uh
Oh, >> like I don't even know what app to get. You can tell >> it was Raphael, I think. >> Okay. So, we don't have those minutes yet. So, I'll skip right over that. >> Um, >> I'm just Are we the whole group that's going to be here? >> Yes,
>> cuz Erica um couldn't make it. Raphael had another commitment and Marcus has a work meeting >> and I had another commitment but it got cancelceled. So, that's Yeah. Great. >> So, um, it's what's the just one quick
thing. What's the group's opinion about the culture of eating dinner? Do you turn off your camera? >> Yes. >> I do. >> Okay. >> But I mean, >> so I'm here. I'm here. I'll be just as present as if you saw my face. But
>> I'm gonna I'm gonna be >> on your camera between bites. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Great. Oops. Um, so I guess I'll get us started. Roll call. Uh, Bernie >> here. >> Uh, you can start recording, Athena.
>> Great. Awesome. Um, Andy >> here. >> Myself, I'm here. Ken >> here. >> And Meg, >> I'm here. >> Great. Um, so guess I'll get us started. Uh Raphael hasn't submitted the minutes yet for last meeting, but it's just the
13th that needs to be happening. Um we will have a topics not anticipated section um quickly to discuss the scheduling of the form. Athena gave us some very helpful information about that. So we appreciate that and we'll
discuss it quickly at the end of the meeting. Um, other than that, uh, we're meeting via Zoom, which is allowed by the general law provisions and, um, I will get us started. Uh, public comment, we
don't have any attendees. So, if we have one, I will, uh, open it up again at the end of the meeting. Meg, you have your hand up. >> Yeah. Um, I just want to, you said we'll talk quickly at the end about the timing of the public forum. I want to be sure
that we don't talk too quickly about it and do it perhaps earlier rather than later so that it when the form is has to do with when the preliminary report comes out >> which has to do with how quickly we can do it >> and then we have to decide how much time we want
>> to get it out which turns and then how much time we want after we get it out for people to be able to read it before the form happens. So it's not not necessarily super quick. It's maybe not long, but I want to be sure we're we're at the final that the the weeks are going to matter now between now and the
end of June. So, >> do you have any update for outreach subcommittee? >> Um outreach? Uh no, we've just what I just said, we've been working on trying to figure out when we're going to do the public forum and the dates we originally
booked. Um I had booked one but had asked Diana Wheeler at Bangs not to publicize it until we were sure we could use it. and then booked a second one. Um, but now I've asked her to cancel them both because Athena helped us understand it would be better to have a
hybrid meeting and the only way we could manage that without a lot of difficulty would be to have it in the town room. There was a question of whether the town room will hold all the people, but given that we've had a hard time getting people at all. Uh I just think I
appreciate Athena's suggestion and can't I've canled the two uh evenings that they were holding at Bangs, but when we get this public this preliminary report done, we have to really all pitch in to
get it out there. Um, and you know, we can get it out in the current and the indie, but if we want to get it out to neighborhoods and some of the different civic organizations like the league and so on, it takes individual emails. >> Has the feedback subcommittee met at
all? >> No. >> Okay. Um, I'll just have us discuss this right now um with the public forum and that um and then we'll just spend the rest of the meeting voting on all the memo to suggestions.
>> Great screen share and we can spend maybe 10 15 minutes discussing this now and then the rest of the meeting until we adjourn will just be devoted to the Colin Center >> memo. Excellent. Do you want to bring up the memo from or the email from Athena
or would that be helpful or >> uh yeah, I can screen share it. Um or if you want to go right ahead. >> It it basically says what we just said, but yeah. >> Well, it has dates and stuff on it. So, >> well, those are the dates we gave her. The yellow are the ones that
>> I asked her to book asked her to book one a night that doesn't we when the town was free. >> Yeah. She gave us a bunch. >> They're Tuesday. Well, then we just picked one each week because we aren't going to need the 9th and 10th and 11th. >> Can you all see this? And we're meeting
the 12th. >> I can see Yeah. your email page. >> Yep. That's fine. I'm just going to scroll up >> uh to inform everybody of what Athena said. Where is Athena's email?
>> Here. Great. Um And thank you, Athena. This was this was very helpful. >> You're welcome. >> I think the whole committee is pretty unilateral on it makes sense to have it hybrid and in the town room. Um, and two
dates have been scheduled as of now. I hope. Yeah, we canled the bangs. I canled them today. >> So, >> which dates have been scheduled? >> The 9th and the 16th from 6 p.m. >> I picked the Tuesdays because it's not
when there's a when the room's free and it doesn't conflict with the count one of our meetings. >> Yep. >> So, then um we did get something from Erica that said she thought the 16th would be better. Mhm. >> That's all we have to decide on is
whether to do it for the 9th or to do it for the 16th. I um don't really mind. Uh either way, I plan to have the initial or the preliminary report to you all by
December 1st, and I can make it a little bit sooner than that. Uh Meg said Tuesday the 26th. Um that also seems doable for me. Uh, I Raphael is planning to have me um a narrative on
uh on Monday and I will have and I already do have a cover sheet done and the preliminary report for Colin Center memo one done. So, I would just really need to do Colin center memo 2 and then
add that to the preliminary spreadsheet to the preliminary report cover page. Um, I believe I sent that to Raphael and Andy and it's in the packet if folks want to see what progress has been made. Um, I included that in the packet for everybody, both the cover sheet and the
other um, and the actual preliminary report. So, either is fine with me. So, >> so whether you get it finished on the 25th, which is next Tuesday,
>> or December 1st, which is And we we don't meet again until the 4th, >> correct? >> To to approve it. So if we approve it on the 4th, um we certainly cannot have a public meeting five days later.
>> We won't have gotten it out yet. Right. >> So why don't we do it on the 16th? >> Then let's do it on the 16th. >> That's even Yes. And that's still very very short. I mean, we have to really whip it out there on that Friday, the 5th. we'll just have to be working on
the final report >> and the and preparing for the public form. There'll be a little bit of overlap in those two things, >> but other than that, that's fine. Um, and we can do it on the 16th. >> I just don't see how I'd love to do it
on the 9th. I just don't see how it's possible. >> Totally. Let's do it on the 16th. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thumbs up from everybody. >> Yes. >> Great. Excellent. >> So, do we announce this? Do we announce this? >> Yeah, share it far and wide and um talk
to the folks on the outreach committee and I'm sure Athena will give that information as well. >> What time >> can we? >> It's 7 to 9 >> or 7 to 9. Okay, perfect. >> I thought it was 7 to 9 with some >> preparation. Maybe >> six is just sort of unreasonable to
expect a lot of people to come. >> Seven to nine is fine. The other uh we should let people know that we're expecting to have the preliminary report ready for review on December se 6th. Is that accurate? >> On December Yes. If we vote it
theoretically if we vote it. Yes. >> Well, if we don't What do we do? >> Yeah, that would be an issue. >> I mean, we have to, you know, we have to do it. >> Athena's hand is up. So, >> go right ahead.
>> Hi. Thanks. Um, once you send me an agenda, then I can post the meeting notice for the public forum. >> Great. >> And, um, and I can share out the Zoom info so that, uh, folks can put that on their calendars, too. So, I'll be there to run the the Zoom part of the meeting.
>> Awesome. I um I can even send you an agenda tonight or tomorrow if that works. >> That would be great. Earlier is always better. >> You got it. Um, excellent. What is what is the agenda going to be? I mean, is it basically just here's a presentation on
the on the report and then, >> you know, discussion with the with the public, right? >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> Um, that's why I figured I could just get it out tonight. It should be pretty straightforward. >> Yeah. >> Um,
great. Uh, >> I have a hand up, but I >> may. Yeah, go ahead. Um, do we want to do some kind of press release or will are the outreach committee just write an email that says we're planning this for, you know, blah blah blah. >> If the outreach committee wants to write an email, I think that's sufficient.
That's good. >> Okay. Yep. >> Because I'm the only one of the outreach committee here. So, >> no problem. >> Helpful. Thank you. >> It's all you. >> Um, >> yeah. Go ahead. >> I was making a joke. >> Oh,
I laughed. I thought it was funny. >> I didn't hear it. Sorry. Um, so we have the memo from Collins uh about the budget which we'll get to. Um, preliminary report preliminary. Okay,
great. Agenda. So, we'll move on to uh the second memo from Collins um with the right to postpone. I just wanted to before we start this memo to officially tie up all our odds and ends and let Andy if you do you want to explain the
email you sent about 1.7. Um >> we met with Collins me and Andy met with Collins and had a sort of got a better understanding of that and what would be the best move. >> Yeah. So this is something that we went through the the memo one last time and
we tabled this one discussion which was on the majority vote um issue is item B in article two under memo one. So um basically
the issue was raised was should we change uh the majority vote needed to pass bylaws to be a majority of the people of the counselors there or should
we leave it to be um the majority of all of the full council? So seven seven votes. Um, so there's there's two parts to their response and basically they suggest that we don't need to have
the definition of a majority vote in section 1.7. So they suggest removing that and then deciding whether we want to change the current status in sections 2.6 and C and 2.10A.
um which currently uh they they say and I I haven't double checked this but I assume that's right is that the bylaw the bylaws require a majority of the full council and other measures require only a majority of those attending. Um, so I think you know what they're
suggesting is that we vote on both whether we should remove the definition in section one point in section one in article one um and let whatever definition needs to be done happen in the council section section
two article two and then within that decide whether we want to change anything in in in sections 2.6 C and 2.10A 10 a or leave it alone. And I I um I'm wondering if Athena has any context for this.
>> Athena, go ahead. >> I'm just hearing this now. I didn't review this memo before. >> No problem. >> The meeting, so just give me a moment, please. >> Yeah, I was just going to say that's a good recap. Andy. Um Ken, do you have any Did you have
>> Yeah, I I kind of put my hand down, but I was just um sorry to ask such a basic question, but um Andy, what's a bylaw? Can Can you just briefly describe what a bylaw is so I understand the pecking order here? >> Bylaws are the are when when the council
makes a decision. It's something like changing the zoning or, you know, uh it's basically passing a law. the council passes like a law. >> So it's like a law for the town. So rather than like I don't know state law >> or as opposed to like approximation
approximation or a you know a vote on approving people for a committee or whatever. probably the most serious piece of legislative action that we would that the council >> it's like basically like I'm trying to think when they change the speed limits to 25 that's like a town bylaw because
once you're in town there's a new law that's different than if you're in Belchure Town. >> Okay, thank you. I was I was giving it much less credence than that in my head. No >> problem. Think of it think of it as an ordinance >> and in cities it is referred to as an ordinance.
>> Okay. Yeah, that's that's an easier term for me. Thank you for clarifying that. >> Could you please repeat your question, Julian? of Andy, what was >> my question was basically that you know
um I I attached an attachment to my email that basically um it had been suggested um that um we should um change the um
the majority needed to pass any measure to a majority of those there as opposed to a majority of the full council. And so, um, currently in article one, we have a
definition of majority vote, which says a majority of the full council. And then in article two, there are several places where it says, you know, what kinds of votes need a majority of the full council and what kinds of votes need just a majority of those who are there.
And so, um, I guess the the question for you is, have you seen this being being an issue in the council that requires that kind of clarification, or is it basically we should just follow
the the recommendation of the Collins Center that we don't need to have a specific definition for majority vote, but that that in in the article two where it talks about the council voting that if we want to if we want to say if we want to change it to you know just a
majority of those there we can do that or we can leave it alone. >> So I I think I shared this with you all before but if you look in um the council's rules under rule 9 there's there's a whole
section about how many votes are required for different things and the council decided to put those in the rules because this part of the charter is so confusing. Um, and so every in every instance there's,
you know, I I write the motion sheet for every council meeting. And in every instance, I'm checking to make sure, you know, does this mean does it mean nine or seven? And does that change depending on how many people are there? And does it change if somebody abstains? It's it's um, in my
opinion, could be a lot clearer. And I think the way we've interpreted the charter so far has been majority of the full council means um majority of the full council. And if it just says majority then it's the a majority of those present. Um but it but
there's a difference between a majority of those present and a majority of those present in voting. So I think the abstensions is the thing that makes this an issue in a lot of cases because counselors have
it's it's been said by counselors that other counselors use abstaining as a way of saying no without voting no. We did we did discuss that with the C with the with Pat from the Collins Center and she was like everybody knows if somebody abstains on Sunday they're not voting
yes and that that that's not an un unusual thing. Um it'd be nice if they, you know, if they were So whether they vote no or whether they vote uh abstain in general, if you just say a majority of those there, um abstensions
don't count, right? >> I would just say that's something we all understand. It probably isn't something the general public watching or reading about council meetings in the news understands. Well, I I don't know that
>> I don't know that we all really means we all because if if you look at the rules, it it says um and this is under 9.5. So, items requiring at least a majority of counselors present whether or not voting to vote in favor for P for
passage. abstensions count as no are votes on non- bylaw measures like orders, resolutions, proclamations, appointments, or other adopted proceedings. And then items requiring at least a majority of counselors present and voting to vote in favor for passage abstensions don't count. And that's
votes on non-measures filling a counselor vacancy to amend the meeting scheduled to approve council minutes. It's like, >> so based on that, would it make sense to put the rules u language in the charter
or would it be um helpful to just say a majority vote of those present or you know what what's what's the given I mean the issue of of people being abstaining seemed to be less of an
issue. I mean, it's it's an issue of like it's more it's more a matter of do we want a full, you know, a a solid majority of everybody on the council versus do we want a majority of those who are there, right? >> Well, it's like it do do you want it to
make do you want to make it harder or easier for something to pass if people abstain? When people abstain? And if you want to ratify this definition into the charter, I mean, I I think a charter ch I think the
the thrust of the suggestion for this charter change was to hold counselors who are abstaining maybe more accountable. And if the Collins Center opinion is that you can't really do that because that's just the way things are and the committee agrees, then I would suggest just not voting to recommend
that change. Yeah, Bernie, go ahead. >> Am I wrong that at least in theory a four counselors could pass a resolution or >> Yeah. Yeah. Theoretically. >> Yeah. Because I mean the the thing that
says that um whatever statement was made that an abstension counts as no isn't doesn't follow Robert's rules as far as I know. Well, the council's rules supersede Robert's rules. >> Well, yeah, I
>> we it's >> Roberts is usually the fallback on all those. Yeah. Okay. >> But when when the rules when the council rules don't speak to a specific issue, then we go to Robert's rules. But in this case, the rules do speak to this issue. And so the council has said we
want to do this rule rather than Robert's rules. Well, I mean, if the if the the um um if everyone is comfortable with the notion that four people
can make decisions other than bylaws, then let's leave it be. Um the uh I I I like the idea of having a majority of the council um have to vote to pass a bylaw because that that
gets us into law enforcement and and and a more if you will more complicated level of uh of legislation. >> Is that the current status? Currently, you need seven votes for
uh a regular bylaws. Most zoning bylaws need to a twothirds vote. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. And then there's a list of other things that need seven. >> Um and then there's a lower threshold for some of the other items like
voting on non-measures >> me. So those seven have so it's always seven even if three people are absent from the meeting. >> So for um for general bylaw changes you need seven votes regardless of how many people are attending the meeting you
need seven yes votes. >> So I'm I'm kind of with Bernie or your the implication of what you said that you could have something passed with only this not a bylaw with only four votes. I guess that's how it is because if you said the abstensions count as nos
then u >> you know you said >> count as nos for for orders, resolutions, proclamations, >> appointments and other adopted proceedings. So if you had something that didn't require
uh abstensions to be nos they could you could have something passed by four people reive you know if there were only but I guess if you said the abstensions it has to be a majority of the people present regardless of whether they
abstained that's basically saying an abstension is a no. So, you'd be taking away the power of the abstension. I guess it's not I don't know. I just >> it's it's it's it's making some of the things that the the way I read the rules
is that the council decided that there are some things that the council is okay with a lower vote threshold. >> Mhm. >> Um non-measures can pass >> three or four counselors if a bunch of people decide to abstain. But a
non-measure is maybe a vote to refer something. >> Yeah. >> Or to amend the meeting schedule or to approve the minutes. >> Right. Right. Um >> so it's okay. Let's just move on. We have so much to talk about. >> This is I just just in the interest of time. Does someone want to make a motion
for what we want to do with this? I'll make I'll make a motion that we delete um section you know the section 1.7 the definition of a majority vote and that we
leave the other sections the way they are. >> Meg, were you raising your hand a second? >> No, I just lowered it. >> Okay. >> Oh, second. >> Or I second. I happy to second. Um, let's just vote on it. Um, myself, I'm
an I. Me. >> I. >> Andy. >> I. >> Bernie. >> Yes. >> And Ken. >> Hi. >> Great. Um, that passes unanimously. Thank you for your clarification, Athena. Um, it still confuses me
somewhat, but I think I have a better idea. Is there further? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Um, Andy, can I ask a question? What do you think deleting the definition of a majority vote does? How does that change
>> in there in the memo from the Collins Center? >> I don't know if you have it available here, but >> yeah. >> Yeah. Can you can you pull up the memo one? >> Yeah, Julian. >> Yep. One more. >> Because that that's what was >> Yep.
>> what I was basing it on. They were basically saying you you know they prefer to have definitions you know if it's only apply applicable to one se one article then they prefer to define it in the article rather than have it be a standalone definition. So
they felt like um the sections on voting in article two were enough to stand alone and they could pull and we could pull the definition which is sometimes confusing because it sounds like it applies to more stuff than it does. >> You all see that?
>> Great. Um, >> so >> majority, >> uh, I think if we go back to the 1.7, you go go up to that. >> Scroll up a little bit. Yeah. >> Full counts. >> Full full counts.
>> So they basically said in general, the project team recommends defining words in the sections where they are 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 definition of full counsel comes
into play in the legislative sections regarding council votes. So, the motion was to do what they're saying here for section 1.7. And then if you scroll down to majority vote, >> so it really doesn't change the way the
votes are counted at all. It just change changes where the definition is. >> Yes. >> Yep. So your recommendation is to delete it from 1.7 and put it somewhere else. >> Um so in in the no just delete it from currently they're saying unless
otherwise an an affirmative vote by the majority of full council is necessary to adopt a bylaw while an affirmative vote by a majority of members present is required to adopt other me measures. >> So >> is that the case? Is that in align with the council rules
currently? >> Well, an affirmative vote. >> No. >> Yeah. I was going to say didn't sound right. >> Is that what the charter says >> right now? >> Yeah. But isn't it misaligned with what
the rules say? I mean, which I guess the charter would supersede the rules, but >> there's no guessing about it. The charter would supersede the rules. >> Of course, >> the rules are established within the context of the charter. So, presumably they
>> are consistent. >> Majority. So you're I'm sorry this is taking me a moment to >> No, it's okay. >> This is was really good. Thank you. >> I don't understand it at all. >> Thank you, Athena. That's why you're here. >> Yeah,
>> you're our Collins 2.0. So So the suggestion is whether to change the language so that all affirmative votes require a majority present. So deleting that would require that all
affirmative votes require that all affirmative votes require a majority of members present. >> So that would just mean there has to be six members for a vote. Is that correct? >> Seven. >> Seven. Sorry. >> Um no.
>> But we what we say okay >> four could be a majority of members present. >> Right. But you need seven as a quorum. So you know that's your your base >> but you have if you have seven then a majority of those pres seven is a quorum you need seven to have a meeting a majority >> majority is four
>> you could still pass something with four >> but if there were >> that was the suggestion >> right >> right >> yes >> and to change what what we have now which is the full so currently in the
charter now in section 26 It says except in the event a higher quantum of vote is required by general laws or the charter the affirmative a vote of a majority of the members present is required to adopt any measure. Mhm. >> I I I guess I'm wondering like
>> so then maybe we should maybe we should um change that to be the majority, you know, the majority of the full council is required to adopt any bylaw and majority of those present is required to adopt other measures or non-measures, >> right?
>> That would make more sense because >> Right. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that makes more sense. Um, so you're saying that you want a majority, you want seven to pass a bylaw
and seven to pass other measures. No, this is saying um seven to pass a bylaw or you know the higher number if it is required or a majority of those present to pass
you know things that don't rise to the level of a bylaw >> things that don't rise to the level of by >> so measures >> wait hang on so non bylaw measures like orders and resolutions and so on that that is already the way it is
>> bylaws require seven, those non bylaw measures, orders, resolutions, etc. That's a majority present. >> That's the way it is in the >> That's the way it is now. >> What are we changing? >> Putting that in the charter if it's already in the bylaws. If it's already in the rules,
>> it's in the rules. Right now the right now the bylaw says I mean right now the charter says um in the except in the event a higher quantum of vote is required by general laws or this charter the affirmative vote of a majority of the members
present is required to adopt any measure >> majority present. So, >> so that if we leave it this if we leave it this way even bylaws >> could be done with four >> with majority people present
>> but not zoning bylaws because that >> zoning is a higher threshold in that state law >> and that's listed. >> So again, I don't have the council's rules in front of me. Um, >> yeah, >> they're they're sitting on a portable
hard drive in another room. Um, but I would think that if we specified that to pass a bylaw, you need seven votes. You need a majority of the council as a whole.
>> Okay. And then anything else is a simple majority. And that sort of clarifies that clears things up. >> Yeah, >> it's already like that. 2.10A requires the nonzoning bylaw changes. >> Yes,
>> you need seven votes. And then 2.6 C says majority present for non bylaw measures. >> Okay. >> The way it is now. >> No, it says >> it says it says adoption of measures which is a bylaw is a measure.
>> Oh, >> yeah. >> 2.10 >> 2.10 10 is is what you say. 2.6 um C says Oh, okay. Well, maybe it says is
required by general laws or this charter, but it just it's inconsistent to have 2.6 say, you know, that you would have to get to 2.10 10 to figure out what a final passage of a bylaw would be
or do you think it's okay the way it is? >> The way we've the way we've interpreted the charter right now, the way we've been operating since the council was established >> is that bylaws require seven votes regardless of how many counselors are present. If only seven counselors are
present, you need all seven to vote yes >> to pass a bylaw. and non bylaw measures, you only need a majority present to pass. So if you only have seven present, then four could pass a non bylaw measure
like a resolution. >> Yep. And that's I mean I think that's okay just to just to reiterate I think what you're saying. Section 2.10 says to pass a bylaw you need,
>> you know, seven votes. Section 2.6 C says um >> the affirmative of vote of a majority of the members present is required to adopt any measure >> and a bylaw is a measure right
>> pardon >> it a bylaw is a measure >> but so in in 2.6 Six, a majority of members present is required to adopt a measure, but for measures that are
bylaws, you need a majority of the council. >> And bylaws are specifically referenced in section 2.10. >> Correct. >> So, I think we're okay with the existing language unless unless we want to specify in 2.6 C >> that the affirmative vote of a majority of members present is required to adopt
any measure except that bylaws will require. So, if we're okay with the existing language, wouldn't that mean we would have to resend the vote we took? >> No, because we said we said the existing language is okay. We're getting rid of the definition in 1.7, which is fine.
>> So, the existing language in 2.6 and 2.10 is fine. >> It It's okay. It's just a little confusing because >> and we're just getting rid of the language in section 1.7. Okay. >> It doesn't make sense to me to delete a definition if you're not looking to change the way we count votes.
Right. >> I mean, it's up to obviously it's up to the committee, but >> they basically just said that that they prefer to have definitions happen in the art in the article if possible. And the articles do define what the vote is
required. So, it's unne it's unnecessary to have a separate definition for majority vote >> in just this general definition section. But then >> vote is for the council in two.
>> But then wouldn't make a change here. Okay. >> Yeah. up to you if if you think it's >> I I I think it's I think it's clear the way the column center is suggesting it that you define what you you you take
the definitions that can vary by paragraph and plug in those definitions in the section of the bylaw it responds to. Um, you know, there's also a sort of a standard practice that as you write any legislation, you get more
detailed as you go further and more restrictive as you go further into it. Um, to my mind, it just makes it easier to get rid of a definition until you need it and then you put it in the context where it works so thato you avoid any u
you avoid discussions like this. Yeah. Yeah, I understand that. I think from from the perspective of someone trying to understand what's changing in the charter, >> it's confusing why you it it takes a lot
of explanation to understand why you would take that definition out. >> Not that that's a reason not >> not to remove it. Right. Right. >> You you have a considerable advantage over us in as much as you've been living with this document since it published
>> passed. So you you you know you you got to you got to allow for those of us who are relative newbies coming in on this going hey well maybe we should be but I think there is a there is a reason >> there's a reason to take it out >> there's a reason to take it out because
it says the phrase majority vote when used in connection with a meeting of the town council shall mean greater than one half of those present and voting provided that a quorum is present unless a different quantum of vote is required by this charter bylaw or law and we are
requiring a different quantum of vote later. And so this confuses people by saying, "Oh, it's just a majority of those president voting." So it's actually clearer to just not have, you know, this one definition which is not the actual one that gets used for
bylaws in the definition section. >> So people can read one definition rather than >> they can read the definition voting section. The other thing is if if you say definition of people present and voting then those who abstain
are basically not voting. >> They're not voting. >> They're not present. >> Right. So um you know it's just as if they're not present or you know so it's easier and cleaner if we just have the definitions in the sections where um where
>> if if the if the committee agrees that you want to take that definition out then my only suggestion would be to go through the charter and make sure that the votes that are defined in each section are the number of votes that you
actually want and that it's clear in each section where it says the council vote that it's clear in that section. If you're relying on the the subsequent sections to define how many votes, then you should make sure that the sections define the votes.
>> I don't that would be consistent. >> Yeah. >> In practice. >> I don't >> I think we have a section on the number of votes needed for a bylaw. And um
>> that that is you know the majority of the full town council that's section 2.10 and then we have >> adoption of measures which says except you know as required by the charter the affirmative vote of majority of the
members present is required to adopt any measure. So between those two they cover it. We could clarify further in section 2.6 6C by saying the affir affirmative vote, you know, to pass a bylaw is,
you know, a majority of the full council and the majority of other measures require >> I'm just saying I I searched for the word vote in the charter and it appears 141 times >> and I'm looking at some of them and and
it's like voter too. So yeah, you know, I just I'm I'm just my suggestion is just to go through and make sure that it's clear in the sections if you're taking out the definition >> to make sure that the definitions in other sections are clear for
>> and and just, you know, I'm 17 in and it looks like it is, but I would just >> just double check that that makes sense to me, Andy. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Okay. Others any other comments? Meg, Bernie, Ken.
>> Okay. Um, >> okay. So, I'm sorry, just one example that I found right now. >> Number 21 of 141. Um, 2.9 uh B I think >> assigned by the this charter or other
vote of the town council. It doesn't say how many votes, >> right? So in sections like that you want to >> so we would want to specify >> it says the the section 2.6 says by any
measure unless specified elsewhere is by a vote of those >> uh 2.9 >> looking at 2.6 C says the affirmative vote of any adopting any measure is the affirmative vote of majority of members present is required.
Um, but it's not a measure. It's duties performed by the clerk of the council as may be assigned by this charter or other vote of the town council. It doesn't say that's not a measure, is it? If you're defining the clerk of the council's job, the I I'm not bringing
this up because it it just happened to be the one that came up. >> No, no, no. Of course. Yeah, go right ahead. >> But in this instance, 2.9A, it doesn't say how many votes. The word measure shall mean any bylaw, order, resolution, or other vote or proceeding adopted or that the town council might adopt. So, a
measure is pretty much anything they're voting on. >> But we don't, but there's a there's a whole list of things in the council rules that are non-measures. Filling a counselor vacancy is considered a non-measure.
Amending the council meeting schedule is a non-measure. Approving the minutes is a non-measure. Entering into executive session is not a non-measure. Like there are things that are that the council votes that are not measures, if you will. >> That's not consistent with the charter
then because the charter says anything you vote anything the council votes on is a measure. >> And often the word measure, that's what the word measure means. So if if if the if we have a definition that says anything the council votes on unless we specify otherwise
um will be um passed by uh the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present. And then we have this other section that says bylaws require a majority of the full council. I think we're covered. I just don't know where the definition of a non-measure
came up because it wasn't it wasn't specified in the charter. >> But the non-measure comes up in the rules is what Athena is saying I think. >> Yeah. >> But I mean even the chart the charter says even things that are non-measures are measures because they're things that the council is voting on.
>> Well the word measure isn't exactly a legal term. >> It's more descriptor if you will. >> Yeah. What we're trying to get at is just anything, you know, what are the rules for things that the council votes on? And I guess what we've what we've said is that the rules are, you know, a
majority of the people present unless it's a bylaw or, you know, >> which would mean something could pass with four, >> but >> as long as it's not a bylaw. >> Yeah. >> Y >> although we don't generally have that kind of attendance. >> Oh, no. No.
>> I don't I don't I don't know if you defining something as a non-measure is is meaningful because if you're going to go into executive session, you're still going to need a majority vote of the board.
>> So saying it's not a measure doesn't >> I mean I'm blocking on the term, but these are sort of administrative tasks >> that the council has to perform. Um, and so that what I'm I'm I'm hearing is a non-measure is basically um uh you
know some kind of ministerial function and but in in regardless you you still need to have you can't go into executive session by just saying oh it's a ministerial function we're going to do this. You need a majority vote. um you know so
some of those some of the the the non-measure rules may um may need to change >> it might um >> I mean regardless you're going to have a vote of the majority of the people there so
>> yeah and and some of the you know some some of these some ministerial tasks may not fall into the category of measure uh you know and you you u you sign an invoice you necessarily have to sign it in invoice at the meeting and everybody
vote on it or if folks decide make a decision that they'd like the clerk of the council to do some x instead of y and z. Um you know the those are sort of ministerial kinds of things and those can be done informally or they can be
done on their own time frame. Uh but by and large if you're going to need you know a majority of those present a majority of those voting uh it's a measure. >> Okay. >> I just want to >> want to make sure everybody we've they're spending a lot of time on this
and we have a lot to do tonight. >> Yes. >> So I encourage us to move to a decision. >> Andy are you suggesting and I'm I don't mean to belabor this and um >> No, go go go ahead. Andy, are you suggesting that any vote the council takes is a measure?
>> Um, that is appears to me to be the definition of a measure in this. And in the GL in section one, it says the word measure shall mean any bylaw, order, resolution, or other vote or proceeding adopted or that the town council might
adopt. So basically any vote. >> Any vote is a measure. >> Okay. If that's how you define a measure, >> that's in the that's in the charter. It's in the charter. And if if you define a measure as any vote of the council, that means a referral is a
measure. An adjournment is a measure. That just doesn't make sense. >> Well, any of the all we're saying is that any of those need a majority of those present to pass, which is how any vote happens anyway, right? >> Present or present and voting. Present
or present and voting. >> Nobody's thinking of a measure as we're voting to adjourn because there's nothing that comes out of that except the meeting ending. >> Well, that's what I'm trying to clarify with Andy because he said that any vote of the council is a measure and I'm
trying and I'm trying to give examples and I understand that that's your reading of the charter, but if you define every vote of the council as a measure, then it starts to not make sense in my mind. It it just mean I mean I think the word measure is actually is
that's how we're measuring the uh opinion of the charter of the council. So it's basically saying we vote and >> I guess in the in the sense of the word measure it's saying that it's a
measurement of where the council stands on something >> right so it's it's making a decision. So you know are we going to adjourn if a majority says so? Yes, we will. So, I mean, you have this distinction between we would have to change language if we
wanted to say a majority of those present and voting. Right now, the the the language says a majority of those present unless it's a bylaw in which it's a majority of those in the council. I don't I don't think it really changes much unless
you you do you say the rules have some way of of leaving out uh abstensions in some cases. So that we'd have to amend the charter to accommodate that if that's the case. >> Do you have a thought on this?
>> I think this is um a distinction that has come up many times in the past how we define a measure and what the quantum of vote is like I like I said sometimes it gets a little murky how many votes are required I think defining
everything as a measure like I said >> doesn't make sense in some cases and our reading of the charter in the past has left out some votes from the definition of measure because
they're you know, a referral isn't an adopted proceeding. So, defining everything that the council might vote as a measure, it doesn't make sense in that way. Um, >> I think clarifying
some of these things would be useful. Um, it's hard to do on the fly right now, but I think if you're going to make changes about vote, the def definition of votes and measures that you really want to go through with the fine tooth comb and make sure that what you're doing is what you want to do and
the way the votes are counted are the way you want to count the votes. and and saying that the council's definitions and the rules and the way we've been operating for so many years is um incorrect or in violation of the charter. I think we should have more of
a conversation about that, especially with the members of the council who have written the rules, some of which are still seated and have served on the charter commission with you, Andy. Uh I mean the suggestion was to um to delete the definition which we've
done and then the s suggestion was to make everything um by by you know passed by an affirmative vote of the members present. And I I mean I don't know why we would do that. I think that having bylaws be
something different be require a majority of the full council is important and otherwise if you're voting on anything uh of a lower level I think a majority of the people there is is fine. So I'm not I'm not quite sure what the issue is.
>> Bernie's patiently raised his hand. Go ahead. >> Well yeah I I was gonna ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pen. Um I I think that that the issue here is me the term measure is very very very
broad. So I think it might be helpful for the council at some point if not in this process to draw a distinction between um those
minor or you know to draw a distinction between what is a a measure that requires a vote >> and a u non-measure or some some kind of
distinction that doesn't require a vote. But as long as you you as long as you as long as you need a majority of the the council to to agree on anything, it's a measure. So yeah, there may you may people may
want to parse it out later or as as an you know as a followup to this process, but the term measure and I'm just looking it up, you know. Um >> I just looked it up. >> It's used in city charter. It's it's
it's exactly what we have in in our charter and it's it's everywhere and it means everything. So the definition of word the council rules can always be amended I guess if it's not clear >> what if we what if we move on from here
table you know right now we have deleted >> we've made we have a vote so we've done something >> we we deleted the we deleted the definition and now we can ask you know we can accept any input if this is still not specific enough or something we can
always take that on for in the next wave >> I would say that for for the purposes of the preliminary report we have removed the definition >> and 1.7 and kept 2.6 and 2.10 intend the
same. And in the final report, we can seek more input from Athena is going to be a good person to talk to, more about this, possibly the town manager, um, other former members of the charter
commission, etc. Um, we can talk about it for another half hour. >> You get some idea. And this is sort of almost what that final report is for to parse out the things that we don't completely
understand. How does that feel? And feel free to add anything, Athena, because this is directly related to how you do your job and counting votes at 11 o'clock at night. So, we want to make it easy. >> I wonder if we want to Sorry. Go ahead.
Sorry. If we want to create a list of things we want to bring up with some counselors that not the public forum probably wouldn't be interested in addressing something like this >> or with Paul or with Lynn or you know
get some uh some of the council members to weigh in on this. >> Sure. >> Okay. Just one last thing and then I'll shut. >> Don't shut. >> I think I think the the way you want the charter to operate ought to be crystal clear, right?
>> Yeah. If it's not clear in the charter, then I think your recommendations for any changes um if if your if your recommendations for changes in the charter don't make it absolutely crystal clear
or you want the council's practice to change, then I think you could also recommend a change to the rules. But I think trying to figure out what you want it to do and then kind of working backwards from there and looking at the the charter and the rules and our past practice al together
would be helpful. >> I don't really think the council's past practice has been all that problematic. Maybe I'm incorrect in that assumption. If you if you if you don't think it's
problematic, then don't change it. >> Right. Exactly. >> All right. I'm gonna be >> We're not We're not changing it. We're just taking out a definition that is confusing. >> Yeah. >> And the and and and the definition then is in each of the Yeah. I mean, we should check each of the vote sections.
But as far as the ones for the council, I don't see any any conflict. >> Okay. Unless unless we need to change the definition of a measure if that is if that has become um confusing, but that's a different thing. >> Okay. >> I think there were comments about
measures in some of the counselor comments that were sent. But um >> there was >> I think I think it would be helpful if that's if that's where you're landing. I think it would be helpful to just go through and make sure that every vote of the council is defined in the charter in
all the other sections and that if you want the council to operate in a different way when it comes to defining measures and how votes are counted for measures and how they've defined non-measures, then that's something that should be
considered so that what the charter says and what the council does are in alignment. I'm going to step out on a limb here and say I think the committee is generally comfortable with how the council has interpreted this in the past. Um,
and what would be helpful, Andy, if you're interested is go is is going through and looking at where some of these definitions elsewhere in the charter might need to be changed.
Um, sure. >> Okay. Does that is that a fair resolution spot, Athena? >> Yeah, totally up to you. >> Okay, great. Excellent. Um, any other committee comments, questions on this
before we call it settled and move on to memo two? Nope. Great. Excellent. took longer than expected, but at least people understand a little bit better because I I was as
clueless as you can be about this. Um, so now on to something that I'm not as clueless as you can be about, which is the right to postpone. Um, this language has us discussing making
it two members instead of one member with the rest of the language kept the same. So it would basically have to be someone says I would like to exercise the right to postpone and another person has to say I would as well.
>> So why not have three? >> I asked the same question um of Collins uh and It just can be so arbitrary and if you have >> I don't know. I mean it's if you have somebody who's trying to be
uncooperative and maybe they're two of those people. I don't know. I just think >> right I >> they say when you ask them >> agree with you Meg because Collins basically didn't they said yeah you could make it three. Um it's just that
most communities that have a council manager form of government have it as two or one. Um most have it as one, but they didn't say there was anything against making it three. I personally think three is a good idea. Actually, I I agree with you, Meg. I think two
people is basically me. I want to postpone this and oh, let me shoot a text over to so and so. My friend does as well. I think it would be better if we had three because now we're talking about more of a block of people
on the council. I I support three. Um do you want to make the motion for the language to be three? >> Well, I was more asking if there was a reason not to, but >> I'll make a motion that we change that to three. >> Believe there is. >> And I I could be talked out of it. I just >> Andy
>> Yeah. Um I mean I think the purpose of this is to avoid one outlier sort of uh torpedoing a discussion and I that that was the suggestion that came from the community. People said the general suggestion from the community was at least have two people do it.
>> Yeah. >> You know I've been on committees where there's one person who's just obstructive and the rest of the committee would probably not you know second a motion. But you know if if if two people are actually confused about something or if there's
enough of a feeling among two people then that that's more meaningful than one person who's just you know an outlier. So I I'd rather go sort of incrementally rather than just suddenly decide that we should have three because then you're almost getting to >> a vote a quarter of the council needs to
agree or else or else we're just going to plow ahead which might be a good idea. I just don't know what the impact is. >> Yeah, I hear that. At the same time, you don't want you don't want too many people to be confused by something. >> I mean, I'm a big believer in uh you
know, the group trying to make help the group to move along together and make decisions and reduce the power of individuals to uh especially because you know, people have different agendas and motives. I mean, I'm fine. Two is way better than one. I'd rather have three,
but I'm I could go with two, but >> I agree with you, Mag. I'd rather have three too. Um, does someone want to make >> three in and see what they say? >> Does someone Yeah. Does Do you want to make a motion for three and see if you have the votes? All right. I move that we change that to three. Wait. Is Ken
speaking? >> Sorry. I was going to I was going to make the motion, but I would be happy to second you, Meg. >> Go for it, Ken. I just couldn't. My screen only allows me to see five people for some reason with >> Meg's made the motion. Ken seconded. Let us vote on it. >> Thank you. Any discussion? Bernie,
>> yes, go right ahead. We can discuss. >> Bernie, do you have a thought on this? >> Well, what comes to mind is Arlo Guthri's observation that if one person does something, it's an accident. If two people do it, it's a coincidence, but if three people do it, it's a movement.
Um, so I would I would I I don't have an issue with one person holding up a discussion for one meeting. um as long as it's for a non it's it involves a non-emergency
subject. If people want to increase it to two, that's okay. But um we're not looking for a movement here. So So I my preference would be one maybe two uh if we're going to make a if we're going to make a change.
>> Okay. Andy, any other comment? Yeah, I mean the reason we put in that anybody could do it was because we figured that, you know, it was important to make sure that people understand what they're voting on and, you know, that, you know, if somebody really is confused
that they should have that ability, but we recognize, I think this recognizes that some people that individuals can can abuse that. So, is two enough of a safeguard or is three I I don't know. I don't have Sorry, I'm done. >> No, that's fine. Okay. I'll
>> I I call the vote if that's >> Yeah, I was going to call the vote as well. Thank you, Meg. Um so myself, the motion is to have three and have the language say if three members. I'm an I 10. Uh Andy,
>> I'm staying. >> I'll come back to you. Um Meg. Hi. Bernie. No. Andy >> abstain. >> Okay, great. Um, okay, that passes.
Great. Um, we will move on to >> We have three members missing here. So, >> correct. >> So, we don't have a majority of I votes. >> Um, >> is this a measure?
>> No. No. No. >> Bernie. Yes. Oh, no. No, no. >> Oh, really? >> They chose not to come to the meeting or couldn't come. >> They missed it. They missed it. >> Didn't Didn't Erica give give her votes to you? >> Erica said she would. She has not given her votes to me.
>> Okay. Yeah. She wasn't able to vote on this because this was an a change. >> Even if so, because abstensions >> Yeah. >> aren't counting. You're still the vote still. >> That's fine. Let's move on. >> Okay. Um so
2.11 um this is the appointment process. We could have an all nighter if we go. >> Yeah, we could. We really really could. >> Which I do not want to do. Gave that up in college. I had one all nighter and I said never
doing that again. I think it's uh shall we say different purposes. Um okay. Yeah. >> So their suggestion is I guess their one specific suggestion
is well they say the project team takes no position on this matter of having ad hoc committees to the full town council um be voted by the council rather than appointed by the president of the council.
The project team takes no position on this matter other than to suggest the committee consider the impact on the fulltown council's agenda and whether any specific concerns have arisen under this section. They they suggest that l you could have language that says the president shall
appoint members of all standing committees of the town council and oversee all committees of the town council whether standing or ad hoc. It doesn't really say anything about who appoints those who are ad hoc though. >> Yeah. I would
I would say this is just my advice is we should have it voted by the entire body. It's it's more democratic. Um I
don't see anything that wrong with it. However, I don't have a strong opinion either way because the currently as it is what effectively happens is people volunteer for what they want to do and they usually get
that. >> Yeah. The standing committees this would keep it the same way. If there are other committees, the ad hoc committees, then the c full council would vote uh would vote on who gets to go to those
committees rather than the um president appointing. >> I would support the full council voting. I'll make a motion to have it be a full council vote. I have a second. >> Um well, I'll second it just for
discussion. I'm not quite sure what >> Yeah. Yeah. >> It basically is saying whether the president shall appoint all of the committees that are ad hoc or if the full council should vote.
>> So in the paragraph above, I don't know the the first paragraph after all the bullets on page two, >> um it says uh so if you scroll down a little bit >> Oh, sorry. I thought you were meaning about. So this one right here various suggestion clarifying who appoints I
don't know what the building committee is but uh various uh >> that's like I believe like the DPW building committee or whatnot or the school building. >> Um the charter outlines a general pointing authority for committees and multi-member bodies where the charter is silent. The charter project team suggests these details are more
appropriate subjects for ordinances or council rules to maximize the ability to make changes in response to evolving laws and best practices. One specific suggestion in these section requests that the charter transfer authority to appoint ad hoc committees
to the full town council instead of the president but and if we want to do that this is the language that would allow that. So all they're giving us is language that would affect ad hoc committees of the council. Um I guess
>> so >> it's a little late to suggest this but as I said at the beginning of the meeting we all given our own ideas but it's too bad there isn't some kind of executive committee of the council a council as large as 13 of like three people um that would make these
decisions because I think it could be I I think it's would be good to have more people participating in the appointment of the committees. I can't the 13 people I can't quite see how that would work. So I wish there were an executive committee of three or something that
would be but it's such a new idea and we haven't discussed it but I think it's it's people don't like it that the president can appoint all the members of the committees. That's come up a lot.
>> Yeah, I I agree. I think an executive committee would be ideal. I think realistically we should make a decision of which we want to do here. Um, >> so in other words, it's the president or the whole council. I mean, I guess I'd vote for the whole council, but I think
it's unwieldy. >> Yeah, it is unwieldy. >> I think uh but I I think not to put something in almost as if we didn't hear large number of people who are unhappy with this. You know, a lot of this came up a lot. Ken,
>> um, in my application to be a part of this committee, I I said that I loved bureaucracy >> because I have an NPA, which is a master's degree in bureaucracy, okay? So, don't don't get this don't take this
as anti-bureaucracy. I believe I I do there are there are lines in the sand for me and for some and I I can't explain it and I won't waste anybody's time but this is a line in the sand that is un too unwieldy to have a whole group decide that stuff.
The president is the president for a reason because they can handle these things. So I'm just I'm just saying I'm I'm not going to be consistent about this. I I don't I'm not in love with the president's role, but I'm just saying that um this has got to be a president
role so they can move on and get to the committee work. >> It's just there's some people who've really really wanted to be on a committee and never get appointed >> and there's and there's never a reason why. And >> they get appointed they get appointed by the manager. We're talking about the
ones the ones that are appointed by the council >> and that's basically the standing committees or any ad hoc committees or any members of count any counselors who get uh appointed to like a joint capital planning committee or something like that. >> So most of those appointments the most
of those concerns we heard was that I applied and the manager didn't tell me anything about why I didn't get on. >> Yeah. But that's for this other committees. >> Yeah. >> That's a whole other thing. I think Meg's talking about like town counselors who have wanted to be on a committee. >> Yeah. >> Council I mean people have said I never
get she'll never appoint me to that committee. >> I have heard that from one or two people. >> Um Bernie has this hand up. Go ahead. Sorry. >> Yeah. I'm gonna being another one of
those people with an M and some P's. Um I I'm I'm agreeing with Ken. I I think it's just too cumbersome to uh uh too cumbersome to have all these committees appointed by the affirmed by the council or appointed by the council. Uh the same
thing with ad hoc committees. I mean ad hoc committees are designed to come and go um and and you know people can certainly speak with whomever is president um and influence their decision making
that way. Um it's unfortunate that some people feel that they've never been appointed to a committee because uh in part that's life. Uh some of us never get appointed to what we want to be appointed to. Um
but I I I just I I I you know I think we we should just leave this be and u and move on. Athena I just wanted to point out that I also
have an MPA. No, just kidding. I mean, that's um uh uh just for transparency sake, Meg, the are the practice of the council so far, the council president so far has been to poll counselors which committees they'd like appointments to
and that's published before the meeting where um when appointments are made. So if any counselor has um a grievance with the president, it's it's pretty public who wants to be on which committee and which um you know which which appointments get
made. Um another point, you know, there's a lot of uh discussion about the role of the president and so on. And I'd just like to point out that the the council can vote to reorganize at any time. >> And it hasn't happened yet, but at any time the c a counselor could ask the
president to place an item on the agenda that says council reorganization and elect a new president. >> Okay, that that's helpful, Athena. Um I'm hearing what what you're saying, what Ken's saying, what Bernie's saying.
I see I see how it would it would be very cumbersome to to have an entire council making these decisions. I do I do see that concern. Um so I'll take a motion um from anyone of what they'd
like to do here um and we can vote on it. >> Anybody? I'll move that we not make any changes to this section. >> Okay. Um any second on that? >> Second. >> Okay. Let's vote on it. Me
>> like you come back to me. I think I'm going to vote no, but I don't have an alter. >> No problem. No, no problem. Um Bernie, >> yes. >> Uh Ken, >> that's a yes to a no changes. >> Yes. I >> Okay. Andy?
>> Yes. Um, I'm going to abstain. Uh, >> be a no. >> Okay, great. Um, >> but I don't have, you know, we the alternative isn't available, so it's >> still very a very defensible defendable
no vote here. >> That's that's why I abstained. Um, so, uh, so 2.6, Six. Uh, public comment. >> They um, sorry.
>> Yeah, go ahead. >> They offer some language here which to me looks fine. >> I agree. I will move to accept this language. >> Do I have a second? Second. >> Great. Um, any comments?
>> It should be pointed out that public comment at the start of the meeting is not a requirement under the open meeting law. It's something that Amoris chose to add on and it's not it's I don't think it's
unusual to invite u people to uh offer opinions and when the council or any other body is having a substantive discussion about a particular item. I think that's a much more valuable use of time than having a period of time set
aside at the start of the meeting where you can basically say anything you choose, >> right? um which is in in a lot of cases is people who you know it's a time waster um >> go sorry >> yes go ahead Bernie do you have anything else >> no that's it that's it so I don't have a
problem with the column's language here >> I agree me >> no I'm just I don't I support having it even though we don't are not I think people can be waste time but it's also a chance to say something that you don't have any other place to say >> the Collins language doesn't change
anything No. >> Yeah. Because that's already in the charter. The the council president can have a public comment anytime she wants. >> This is already our practice. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But this this clarify I mean >> this clarifies that they that they can
have that it's sort of a norm to have it at the beginning of the council meeting and then it also clarifies that it can be held on specific agenda items. I think setting that norm is good. We have had one president of the council who's
been very open to public comment by and large may not have someone who's as open to public comment in the future and putting these norms in writing I think is a good idea. >> Right. >> Sometimes there's someone in the in the public there who's very knowledgeable
about it or is on a who's on a standing on a committee that studied it and something may come up where the counselors aren't aware or they're not knowledgeable about something. they didn't know something because that's not what they committee they've been on for the last 10 months. So, it's helpful to be able to call on that member of the
public to to answer a question or clarify something. >> So, so the reason that's not a typical practice, Meg, is that you're you're elevating one member of the public, one resident's opinion above everybody else's. And by allowing one person to speak and not reopening public comment
at that period in the meeting, then you're >> well, you could >> giving one person privilege over others. I'm not saying give it just I'm saying open the public comment to anyone who wants to speak on that particular topic. In other words, they can't just talk about anything they want. Is there anyone in the public who has something to say about this question that's been
raised that um would be helpful to have response to? >> You're saying that should be the practice for every agenda item? >> No, no. I'm saying whenever the c the pres can do that. I've seen her do it. >> So, I'm not say the president may allow.
So, Hey, >> so I I appreciate change adding this because it clarifies something that doesn't change anything. It kind of appreciates what our president has already been doing and it acknowledges that sometimes it's helpful to have input during the meeting rather than
just at the very beginning. And >> um so just as a as a case in point, I don't I I don't like this control by the president quite frankly, but I don't I don't have an alternative. I don't like
that it's up to the president to what it this feels like a very spontaneous uh thing with the president to say, "Oh, by the way, we'll do public comment." Um I don't think this is really this is not really setting things into sort of parliamentary order. So,
I don't I don't Yeah, I'm just not I don't like this. Um it's it's too much too much control over the entire public comment over by by one person. And I know that I'm not being consistent, but that's that's who I am. >> But there have been Sorry.
>> We all are. We're all inconsistent. >> I'll put put our hands up here. M >> we were otherwise. Um, >> Athena, >> I don't think this is an inconsistent. I think we we've always the charter has public comment and and currently the
town council can have rules that regulate the period of public comment. And all this is saying is that the, you know, it's basically making public the practice that in when when it seems like seems useful when you're discussing a particular item that the president may
allow for comments from the public and not just from the council or the invited guests. So I I don't I think Athena is right. It doesn't change anything, but I think it does advertise openness to the public commenting. >> Athena.
Um, so when when there are specific items on the agenda that we know will people will want to speak to specifically um rather than general public comment which according to the council rules is um towards the beginning of the meeting
that's that's in the council's rules. It's not just a practice. Um that's that's published on the agenda and according to the charter the president sets the agenda. So, having said that, Ken, I'm curious
how you would change that if you wanted the president to have less control over the public comment period. >> I don't I Yeah, I'm sorry. I don't know. It just doesn't feel right. my gut tells me it doesn't feel right to
to to have one person look up and go, "Oh, there's I mean or say h I don't want to have I don't want to have comment on this and we'll just move on." I suppose that's yeah, whatever. And >> but general public comment is always
required and what you're suggesting that at some meetings sometimes the president looks around the room and says, "Let's have public comment isn't the case. We publish that in advance and it's usually at the request of either a member of the public or a counselor to ask for a
specific comment period. Um and in some cases it's required for um water and sewer changes to water and sewer regulations. A specific public comment period is required for hearings. A specific public comment period is required. So in some cases it's required for agenda items and it's published on
the agenda. It doesn't happen on the fly at meetings. Okay, that's that's helpful because it felt like it was on the fly and that that was my that's where I went to in my mind. Not that anybody insinuated that. Um, okay. Thank you, Athena. I appreciate that.
>> Me, >> just very briefly, there was an example of the solar bylaw committee that have been meeting for I think we all agree basic. I never mind I'll keep the meeting going. I think >> the counselor the chair can decide we have a question about a particular issue related to this report we just got from
ABC committee and there are people in the audience public from that committee who might be able to answer this question we're don't >> and for her to have the ability to do that is been helpful in the past
>> let let's vote on it um we have a motion it's been made and seconded uh Bernie This is to adopt the Collins language. >> Correct. >> I'll vote in the affirmative. >> Great. Ken,
>> sorry. Um, yes. >> Okay. Andy, >> yes. >> May, >> yes. >> And myself, I'm an I. District meetings. This is also new language. >> I love this. >> I think it's excellent. I agree.
Um, I'm sorry. It has made more work for Andy. Um, >> as an incoming district or a large counselor, I support it. >> Um, but it basically I just want to clarify because I asked this >> shall attend at least one meeting from
each district per term. That means in a counselor's an atlarge counselor's two-year term, they would have to attend a total of five meetings um with each of them being in one district. So, district 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
>> Andy already came to a district one meeting. >> You He came to a district five meeting, too. >> Yes, he did. >> So, he's already fulfilling his >> requirement. Doesn't count. Doesn't count. Nope. Sorry, Andy. >> Come on. I only have three more to go.
>> Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. >> I'm going to make the motion that we adopt this language. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Great. Um, I it looks like everybody supports it, so let's vote quickly. Myself, I'm an I. Me. >> Hi. >> Andy, >> yes.
>> Ken, >> yes. >> Bernie, >> yes. >> I think this is a change that we can all feel pleased with. Um, council committee membership. Uh this addresses resident members of the
finance committee. >> So >> it's all it's all council committ all >> all council committees. Sorry. Thank you. >> So the basics sorry I mean Yeah, go ahead Andy. Yeah, >> they basically say um you know
generally the composition of town council committees is not included charter in charters to give maximum flexibility. The exception this rule is off in the finance committee because of its specific role in the budgeting process. Um finance comm our charter says that you know may include members of the
public. Um then they said they they get into this it could be it could make it harder to fill vacancies on on um other committees because people would be going for these and not other committees. Um the committee may also consider the
sufficiency of avenues already available for public attendance and comment at town council committee meetings. But if we want to do it, um, here's a here's language which basically says council shall determine its own standing or ad hoc committees which may include
members of the public who shall so it doesn't just say the finance committee but it's all standing or ad hoc committees. Uh, and it's may um, and it's still the the voice but no vote. >> I'm I move to adopt this language. >> I mean I don't know why the council
can't do this now. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. Um Bernie, did you have more to say or? >> Yeah. No, I just I'm curious as to why the council can't
um ask uh other people, non non-counsel members to attend. Uh Athena, you have a thought on that? Dina, >> um the issue uh in the past with non uh council members on council committees
has been the appointment process because the uh the charter distinguishes the non- voting members of the finance committee. The council um appoints those members versus all other members of council committees are appointed by the
president. And so the council didn't want to make a change and have non- voting members of other committees be appointed by the president. They wanted them appointed by the council. Um, but I'm wondering if there's an error in this um in this conference center language. It it shouldn't say in the finance committee's deliberations.
>> The committee deliber that certainly jumps out. >> I'll take that as a friendly amendment to just say in said committee's deliberations. Um, other comments before we vote on this? No. Okay. Um, myself, I'm an I. Andy,
>> yes. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Meg, yes. Bernie, >> yes. >> Great. Um, oh, oops. Uh, finance committee.
So there was a suggestion to change it to move to move the references to the finance committee to from 5.5 to 2.8. The project team does not recommend this change seeing section 5.5B as an essential part of the budget provision and should remain in that section for clarity on
the budget process. >> I am Yeah. >> Yeah. and the idea that the finance committee already has investigative authority, but that the town council is the the the supreme investigator, not necessarily the finance committee. >> I am going to make the motion to keep
the language as is and in line with the Colin Center's recommendations, not make any changes to 2.6 and 2.8. Do I have a second? >> Uh, yes. >> Okay. Second. Um, any discussion? >> Oh, wait. I'm sorry. There's two things
here, right? >> Yep. >> Yes. >> I was looking at the wrong I I was looking at the second of them. >> Yep. I'm I was gonna combine them into one for the sake of time. Are folks comfortable on that? >> Yeah. I mean, the the first one is basically just saying in addition to the
finance committee, the idea was that to make clear that the finance committee um is there regardless. Um the project team doesn't believe that change is necessary, but if you want to make the change, um they give you language.
>> I don't think any of this is necessary, Bernie. >> Yeah, I would agree. >> Um Okay. And >> so the motion is to say no to both of these things. >> Yes. >> Um Okay, we'll move to voting. Meg,
>> what? more on this. >> I'm I don't I'm fine. I've just got my I got to take these things. I've got this uh >> speaker thing. >> I'll come back to you, Bernie. >> Uh yes, >> Andy.
>> So, yes means no on these, right? >> That's correct. Correct. That's my understanding. >> Yes, >> Ken. >> Yes. >> I'm in. Yes. Meg. >> Yes. Great. Um Okay. Town Council, Legal Council.
This is their recommended language. We um yeah, I just wanted to discuss that we seek some clarity on this and it would also in many cases require an additional
appropriation from the town council. So, it would be two votes in some cases. Um, I make the motion that we approve the Collins Center's language here um and move forward with it. Comments.
>> I I think it's I think the notion of hiring is Linda Johnson said I've quoted him before. Any town that can't afford one lawyer can certainly support two. Um it doesn't to hire um two attorneys to work on
um you know it first off if the council feels it needs consulting services from anyone >> and request that and and have uh and and ask the manager to uh to make funds
available. So they already have that authority. I'm not sure why uh other than uh the paranoid style of some amorous politics you would want to have two lawyers uh involved and especially when the
other lawyer involved can't defend the town. You know the the whole point behind having a town attorney is that the town attorney serves everyone in the community. uh all the elected officials in the community, everyone in every play in the community and represents the
town, defends the town in court. So um I think this is just uh this is completely unnecessary and would uh object to this. >> Okay, other comments? I I have a question which I should know
but but do does the council already have subject to appropriation does the council already have the ability to hire additional consultants? >> We they can hire consultants but not attorneys is my understanding. >> Well, what what what else is an attorney? It's not a consultant.
>> Yeah. >> The the council itself wouldn't hire a consultant. Oh, the council might request the or might advise the town manager to seek consultation or something. Um, but
in the past, this language subject to appropriation has meant that the council recommends or requests that the town manager requests an appropriation approval from the council in order to do something
that the council wants done. It's this very process. Um, and in my recollection, I can't think of a time that the council has wanted to hire a consultant itself. Um, the consultant would be
hired by the town manager. Is this also Isn't this also saying that it's a request to the town manager? Is it saying the town council shall make a reasonable request for legal services and that it should not be denied by the town unreasonably denied? unreasonably
deny. >> Oh, >> the >> Huh. So, isn't >> um So, so it's it's a little confusing to me because the council seeks legal opinions on matters as
on a routine basis. Anytime a bylaw or zoning change is um proposed before it gets back to the council, we seek a legal opinion on it. if there's anything I mean there's few instances that have occurred that there is a legal question
that we don't seek advice from the town attorney. So I don't the the language the town council shall make a reasonable request for legal services and that request shall not be unreasonably denied by the town manager. I feel like this is already kind of baked into our process.
>> It's the secondary legal opinion that that would be new and This language would require the council to request an appropriation request from the town manager which the town manager would then have to submit to the council
for approval. It would need to go to finance committee for a recommendation and we would need to hold a public forum on it and then the council could approve it and then the town manager could seek a secondary legal opinion from a different attorney.
It seems to me as if this would be pretty rarely used, but I could be wrong. >> Other >> Where did this come from? Did a counselor suggest it? >> No. >> Uh former counselor, I believe Darcy
Deont suggested this. Yeah, I think it comes from um um a situation that um people can imagine where um they feel that the that
there's a potential that the town council is been cap has been captured by the manager and um they would want to get a separate opinion to see if there was if that was It's it's a lack of trust, I
guess, in the in the um in the in in the ability of the council hired by the town to um consider alternate viewpoints, I guess. I don't know.
>> Thank you. That's helpful. >> Are there comments before we vote, Bernie? Well, the question would be um who actually does the hiring and who signs the contract because right now it's the manager who does that. >> So, you have a situation after this
whole convoluted process that I think Athena adequately described, you then have the town manager hiring another attorney. And because attorneys uh you don't have to advertise for legal services and you don't have to do do competitive
procurement. I mean uh um you know the the manager can then go out and pick somebody anybody. >> So this to me is useless and and a waste of our time. And if the the council really needs to have a legal opinion,
they have it now. They have a uh we happen to be represented by a law firm that coincidentally has represents twothirds of the towns in Massachusetts and um >> coincidentally
>> coincidentally has two. Yeah. And they got that way because they're good at what they do. >> Yeah. Um and and you know the the other thing is having worked with a number with KP Law and um uh Latman Browski and
a bunch of other law firms um I don't I trust that the folks involved in the law will because they have a license and a reputation are not going to shade things that they'll they'll shoot it straight.
And that's been my experience uh dealing with attorneys in in in public sectors for 30 plus years. >> Andy, >> just I mean just noting that this is taken from adopted from the recently
ratified Somerville charter. So, um it's not completely, you know, off the wall. Um, it's basically saying you have the opportunity to seek an advisory secondary opinion and then it goes to make clear that, you know, only one lawyer can represent the town in
litigation or whatever. Um, I would imagine I think Julian's right. I wouldn't think this would get used very often, but it's there if a majority of the council felt it was necessary, which I would think would be rare. >> In in my mind, it's a check and a
balance. not to be used often, but to be there if it's needed as an additional check on not because we don't trust anyone. I think I personally have a lot of faith that the town manager and that KP Law is doing what is legally best for
the town. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know anything about the law. Um, so I trust what they have to say, but I think that having a check and a balance here isn't a bad thing necessarily and that only in
a situation where it's absolutely necessary would we go through with it because the town would have to do six or seven things to be able to make it happen and it would cost money. So it would in my mind it would really need be
needed if it is used. Um I guess we discussed I call the question I call the question. >> We have a motion on the floor. >> Um the motion is to approve this. Um I'm going to start the voting with me. >> Yes.
>> I'm a yes. Uh Ken, >> yes. >> Um Andy, >> I'm a yes. I think the council should consider whether they want this. >> Okay. And Bernie, >> no.
>> Okay. Um, we will move on to executive branch. Uh, resident advisory committee. Meg, you're on this, so you might be able to give us some guidance. >> Oh, I don't see it up there yet. >> Oh, is it? Am can everybody else see it?
Am I scrolled down enough? >> I just see article four. Article three right above. >> Oh, there it is. Okay. What's the new language? Yep. Okay. >> Yeah. They don't uh they what they basically say is they can't provide a legal opinion on this issue and we'd
encourage the committee to seek an opinion. She basically said talk to the office of the attorney general because it's arguably an open subject to open meeting law. But you could also argue that it's because it's in the charter. It sounds like it
might be less, you know, a little less than just the uh desire of the manager to have some folks help him make a decision. It's it's required. So maybe that's more of an open meeting thing, but they basically said check with the office attorney, >> which we can't do individually, but we
could request that the counselor, the manager check and follow whatever their guidance is, >> which is what I would say is the best thing to do in this situation. So, >> so I wasn't even aware this wasn't a public meet, you know, we have public comment at the beginning of it.
>> Is a public meeting in Ammerst, I believe. >> Yeah. I don't know. What's the question? >> Is it a is it a um is it subject to open meeting law? >> Well, I don't know, but we act as if it is. We have notice way ahead. The agenda
is published 48 hours. You mean way more than that? We have uh public comment. So are we suggesting that that this is I mean >> well we act as if we act as if it is we've never had any Jim Pistrang is the chair and he always says okay public
comment well I see we don't have any public once again I mean we've never had anybody attend these meetings they only happen about once a year >> this question came up in in in one of the memos that we got >> yeah right to say
>> clarify whether it's a whether it's subject to open meeting law or not And yeah, >> so it could I don't have an opinion. I mean, I always assumed it was with actually, you know, no interest whatsoever. We only meet about once a year. >> I don't know why the the attorney
general's office has a a hotline, if you will. Um, >> they have an attorney of the day who can take questions from anyone. >> Yep. So, if a member of the committee wants to call the AG's office and say,
you know, this is the way it is, we'll we'll get we will get a letter back. We may not be get a letter back timely, uh, but we will get an opinion from the attorney general. And, um, you know, if it's already functioning as if it were a public body and subject to the open
meeting law, then let it be. >> I didn't know it wasn't. minute. We're meeting actually tomorrow. It's unusual. We usually have only one meeting a year or at most two, but Paul was very interested in the minutes of our last meeting when we talked. We talked about
ways of our experience of being in most of our participation is in the interviews with the candidates for committees only one of us at a time. the three of the three of us only get together once or twice, but he was very interested in the minutes where we discussed our experience of sitting in
on interviews that he wanted to have another meeting to push to probe a little more about some of the our experiences. So, I thought that was that's what's happening tomorrow if anybody wants to come. >> I did see that on the calendar. Um, I
forget if it was Meg. I believe it was you who was in my interview for a Shade Tree Committee way back when. >> No, I wasn't. I don't think it was me. >> Well, maybe it was before I knew you. >> Yeah, I feel like it might in last night. >> Maybe it was
>> I'm not sure. Or was it Anastasia? >> No, it wasn't Anastasia. I don't think >> anyway. >> Anyway, um neither here nor there. Uh what is our recommendation here? Do we want to consult the attorney general or do we want to leave it be?
>> Dina, is this an issue that you've heard anything about? >> No, I would say >> Go ahead. Yeah, leave it. I'm fine with me. I'm I don't want to weigh in. I don't if somebody wants to do something to spend money on
that we don't need to spend. >> Yeah. I'm gonna say we we can just leave it be. >> Is everybody good with that? >> Mhm. >> Yep. Ken. >> Yeah.
>> Great. Um Okay. So, I'm just looking at the time here. >> Good. We have article 4, article 5, article 6, article 7, article 8, and article 9 to do. My question to the committee is, would
we like to wrap up Article 4 and be done and meet in December and be pushing off stuff, so to speak, >> or would we rather stay until probably 9:00 at night
>> longer and finish this document? I think we need to finish. >> I might need to stand I might start standing up, but that's okay. >> That's fine. Ken, >> um I actually have another twohour
meeting starting at 8. Um >> if if I leave, does that destroy the quorum? >> Yes, it does. >> Okay. Yeah, I absolutely have to leave at 8. I just >> then that's what will happen.
>> Bless you, Ken. Bless bless you, Ken. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Um, feel sorry for me. Just feel sorry for me. >> I can't believe you have a two-hour meeting. >> I do. >> It's awful. >> Yeah, it is a It is completely awful. It's awful.
>> It's okay. >> But I think if we can all if we can all be more mind be not we weren't mindful when we get into a discussion. I mean, we're really up against the clock. Our next meeting is December 4th, right? >> Yes. And we will not have a preliminary
report at that meeting because we will not have stuff to put in a preliminary report. >> So, we won't >> but yeah, why don't we have another meeting? Because the thing is we were I have a note here to talk with the outreach committee about sending out tomorrow a press release that says we'll
have this available on December 5th and the forum is on the 16th. How is >> my suggestion would be that we have a preliminary report that says we still need to consider these sections and that will be in our
final report. We can also discuss those sections with the public if they uh if if they so choose. >> Can >> I'm sorry. Sorry. I >> you have your hand. Hold on. >> Oh, I'm sorry. That's I should lower it. I'm sorry. That's nothing. Um
I was just going to add and meg and then I'll call on me and then I'll call on Andy. I think the best thing to do here is to schedule another meeting and decide what to do with the rest of these since we have a hard stop at 8 and it's
7:55. We're not even going to make it through article 4. So realistically, my thought is no one wants to meet on Thanksgiving.
I'm personally busy on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. Is there time in the afternoon or evening on the 24th or 26th that would
work for everybody? Can we still post something for the 24th? >> Just very Yep. >> Just barely >> if I do it tonight. >> Well, let's go around. The 24th is Monday. Did you say Tuesday? This 25th. >> Not Not for Monday. It's too late for
Monday. >> Tuesday. You said Tuesday. I thought the 24th. 25th. >> 25th. So, it's too late for Monday. >> Too late for Monday. >> Okay. >> So, the 25th I can make it on the 25th. Not that I like I don't like it, but I
can make it >> at six o'clock. Um >> Oh god. Another another dinner in front of the >> What about I didn't >> Wait, the 26th is a Wednesday, not a Tuesday. >> The 25th 5th. Five 25. >> I'm not available on the 25th.
>> Oh, the 26th. >> Yes. >> Yeah, I can do that. I can do >> as long as it's as long as it's after 12 afternoon. Five o'clock on the or six o'clock on the 25th. >> Who can do it or will show up? >> I will show up.
>> The 25th. >> The 26. >> 26th. Thank you. >> 6. Okay. >> Yep. You got it. >> Okay. >> Um I don't know. I'm gonna I'm gonna be heading to Maine. I don't know exactly where what the connection will be like,
but I'll try. >> Gotcha. Um, I am thinking we would theoretically have Marcus, Raphael, and Erica. >> What if we did Monday the 1st or Tuesday
the 2nd? >> It's fine by me. >> Um, I can do um >> that just pushes back when the report will actually get out to you all. >> No, but we said the 5th is when we're going to make it public. We're going to have a meeting the fourth, too, right?
>> Yes. It's just a matter of >> if we have a meeting on the first and then on the second or third >> I do the report. It's a matter of you all having a few days to review it versus a few hours to review it.
>> I cannot come on the second but I could come on the first but that's a council meeting probably and Athena can't come. >> Is there a council meeting on the first? >> There's always one on there's one every week until the end of the universe. >> Oh thank you. And that's why it's really good they it's really good we didn't send them our
report that they'd have to be dealing with on top of everything else. >> Who actually said that to me? Thank god we didn't have to deal with your report. >> I was Let's try for the 26. Is it possible to do that earlier in the afternoon?
>> That would be great. Um 5:00 >> anytime. I'm not available until 4. >> How about 4? >> 4 o'clock. >> We don't know if a Erica works. >> Yeah, I know. That's why he was suggesting five or six. And so does
Raphael. >> How about five? >> Five is fine. Five o'clock. >> Erica, are I mean, uh Julian, are you going to let them know? Yes, I will
probably tomorrow I will add in what we voted on for articles two and three into the preliminary report. I will send Athena a uh a a agenda to post for the public
forum. And I will send Athena an agenda to post for the 20 6th at 5:00 p.m. And I will >> I'm suggesting you send an email to them personally. I'll send the whole
committee with that time. Yes. And do we agree that we're flexible to start at six if Erica or Ruff? I mean, we should get their input, right? >> Yes, that's fine. Um, is that amicable, Athena?
>> Great. Um, >> I don't know if it's amicable, but >> uh, Meg, do you have another comment? >> Nope. Sorry, I didn't put Okay, >> I think I move to adjourn. What was that? >> I second. Um, Ken, we wish you good luck. >> Thank you.
>> Sorry. >> Um, >> I >> I adjourned. Have a nice night. Good night. >> You too. Thank you everybody.