Okay, we're recording now. Please go ahead. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Um, I will go ahead and call the meeting to order. Uh, I'm present. Ken, >> present. >> Um, Erica. >> Hello, I'm here.
>> Hi. Um, Raphael >> here. >> Andy >> here. >> And Bernie? >> Yes, here. >> Thank you. Um, Meg has a family appointment, I believe, so will not be joining us tonight. Um, I believe
Patricia Pat Lloyd from Colin Center. Oh, yep. You're here. Excellent. Um, let me bring you into the room. Uh, remote panelist. Let me know if you get that. Um,
there we are. Perfect. Hello Um, oh, there you are. Perfect. Uh, so I will start us right off um just with a few announcements. The first
announcement is I'll be going on the radio tomorrow at uh 2:00 um to discuss our committee's proceedings. And um this is at uh the
recording studio on um in Northampton. Uh if anyone wants to join, you're welcome to. I can send you the address and the details, but this is tomorrow at 2 o'clock. Um >> UHMP. >> Yes, I Yep. >> Okay.
>> Um when Oh, I believe >> I sent that narrative while we're talking here. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um that >> and hope and hopefully set the right one. >> We have our meeting our last meeting on
the 29th at 6 PM. So that'll be our final meeting um where the final report will be due and voted on. Um we're on our way to getting caught up on minutes. Meg has not sent the November 13th minutes yet, but I have received the November 20th minutes, the November
26th minutes, the December 4th minutes, and the December 11th minutes. Uh, I Ken just sent the December 4th minute, so maybe wait till next meeting. Uh, if that makes sense with folks. That's what Ken said in his email. But I will make
the motion to approve the November 20th, November 26th, and December 11th minutes as a group. Um, do I have a second on that? >> Second. >> Excellent. Any comments, questions? >> No.
>> Could you hold for just a moment? Marcus is in the audience. I'm trying to bring him in before you vote. >> Yep. >> There we go. And did you say the last meeting was Monday the 29th? >> Yes. That's >> okay. >> Yep. At six o'clock. Thank you. >> Um, hi Marcus. Can you hear us?
>> Yes. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Um, I was just sharing that I'm going on the radio tomorrow to discuss our committee and our uh final report at 2 o'clock. um >> Hampton and that uh Bernie just sent the
narrative for the final report. Um and uh the only other thing is we are in the middle of approving minutes. Um December 4th we're going to hold off on. Ken just sent them and we'll vote those at our next meeting. And November 13th
Meg has not sent yet. Uh but we have a motion to approve the 20th, the um 26th and the 11th. Um, so we have a motion, we have a second. Any comments before we vote?
>> Nope. Okay. Um, myself, I'm an I. Ken, >> excuse me. I >> Bernie, >> yes. >> Um, Rafael, >> yes. >> Marcus, >> yes. >> Um, and Erica,
>> yes. >> Excellent. Um so we'll approve the 13th hopefully and the 4th um currently. So we'll approve those at the next meeting. Minute taker for tonight
is uh back to Raphael. Is that all right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Excellent. Um so at this point um we will move forward with uh public
comment. Um just a reminder to the committee that I that the last any mess that are outstanding as of our um meeting on the 29th, send them to me and I'll approve of them. Um, public comment. Uh,
I only see Oh, no. I see two people. Okay. Um, would anyone like to raise their hand and offer a comment? Uh, Anita, go right ahead. Anita, let me just make sure you can speak. >> Yep. Uh, Anita Sero, District 5. Um
uh I was thinking about the public forum and the discussion uh yesterday and I I'm still wondering um I know there was um more than one comment about translation as being necessary and more
than desirable. Um and I believe it was Julian who explained that it was considered and voted down. And I'm wondering if it seems to me to be such
um so fundamentally related to the issues of transparency and communication uh that has come up that if you still continue to feel that um it is not
something to recommend um then I I would urge you to include that rationale. now in the addendum. Um, and the other is as I listened to the uh the comments at uh
public forum, I went back and I listened to the previous meeting uh where there was a discussion in anticipation of uh the public forum and and there's
it seemed to suggest that um the comments might u might be listened to politely but um but not really acted on. And I was left with some confusion
about what this committee felt was really the purpose of the public forum if it was not to really uh take in the the comments and discuss them in a meaningful way. And I may have
misinterpreted uh that previous uh conversation, but it it was a little troubling. So, I just wanted to share those two comments. Thank you. >> Thanks so much, Anita. Um I will just
say we have uh an item on the agenda to raise some of the issues brought up at the public forum and discuss those tonight. So, I hope that provides some clarity. And the town does have pocket translators, but we have not we vote
they vote we did vote down including it as a requirement in the charter. Um, which is I will not elaborate on my opinion of that. But um, thank you for your comment. Any other
comments? Please raise your hand. Nope. Okay. Um, so I am now going to move us right along. We don't have any outreach or uh feedback subcommittee updates, I'm
assuming. Nope. Great. Um, so I will turn it right over to you, Bernie. Um, and Markx, if you want to chime in to report on uh the narrative and any progress you've made. Um, and we
can also discuss. I think me and Andy both volunteered to be of assistance if it's needed. >> Yeah, let me um I I've emailed a copy to everybody. I'm not sadly I'm not ready to I'm not able
right at this moment to uh to screen share it. Uh I can attempt to do that and uh a little a little bit later on, but basically >> I can screen share it here. Just give me one second. >> Okay. You you'll you'll find it in your email.
>> Yep. It's not going to come up beautifully, but it will come up. Okay. You see that? >> Yep. >> Great. So this is this basically follows the uh the same outline as the uh preliminary
report did uses the same headers headings. the content changes are in the I read in the paragraphs below where um and there's some just I basically rewrote and revised th those um the
general information the charter review committee charter I tried to expand it a little bit or just play with a little bit and then you know my I guess my my feeling was the preliminary the preliminary document was was pretty good to begin with so this is
trying to just improve on it a bit. Um, folks can read this over. The one thing that the two things that are missing here is a paragraph regarding the uh public forum uh which I can I can add into following
this discussion tonight. The other thing that's missing are the votes. U I think there needs some clarity as to where they go. they go into the table.
Um, I didn't revise any wording in the table. Those that remains the same. Uh, so where the where do the votes go and is it just simply a numeric vote or is it a bal? I'm still, you know, not seeing the need
for that information because this is basically a consensus document at this point and will be after the next meeting. Um, I'm hoping that there won't be any dissents after the after we're finished with this, but this would be um this would be a header
over the tables that were were done by uh Andy, I believe, that had the langu or that has the lang the actual language in it, the explanations, u the rationale,
and then that would would be followed by the addendum. And I think we're going to talk about calling the addendum something else because that sounds pretty pathetic. Um, so so this is it. This is basically the
cover pages. U folks are free to you know send me comments if um if you >> I'm making extremely minor edits as I read through here. I hope you don't mind.
>> Okay. No, no. You can see where it's track changes around in the document. So, you can see where I >> I made things. >> Yeah. I'm just changing like, you know, the adding an E, etc. Nothing major.
>> No, no pride of authorship here, folks. Um, folks can can, you know, take this part. Um, >> I just wanted to make sure so people weren't freaking out like, oh, you're changing it without the committee. No. So, uh I mean like I said you need to
add a paragraph about the public forum um and summarize this summarize this meeting whatever uh whatever we come to in this meeting that'll that'll conclude the cover document. Um add in the votes and again where and
how detailed. Uh I also sent everybody this afternoon a uh I took a shot at doing the minutes of the forum. >> So we have a we have a document u minutes of the forum. You've got that
document which again people are are free to use or not. Um I just thought it might be handy to uh to do a summary of of what we said and what we heard the other night. Just gonna keep scrolling down so folks
can read this. >> Let me know if I'm going too fast. >> No, you you've seen this before because this is verbatim from the preliminary document. None of the >> none of those recommendations changed unless we change them tonight. >> Yep. Yep. Excellent. Yep. This all looks
the same. >> Okay. Um, >> yeah, I've been trying to fix the tables. >> I haven't been able to >> Oh, I quite right. >> I had an awful time with it. >> The format and the tables will look different. Um, it looks different in the
in the document than it does on this screen. So, >> yeah, it's it was challenging for me. >> Yeah, I I don't know what happened. Yeah, the only the only thing that was done with the uh with the tables here was spellch check. >> Yeah,
>> perfect. Good. Um >> yeah, >> I'm trying to change the orientation back to landscape so we can get a wider picture of them >> in the the document that Bernie sent has it land it changes to landscape. So
>> it did. >> Yeah. >> When I was looking at it earlier today, it wasn't. So >> you must have done everything. You had the open doc version, I think. >> Uhhuh. >> It all depends on what software you're opening it with. >> Yeah. If you open it in Word, it it looks okay.
>> Yeah. And I open everything in >> Damn it. Google Docs. Google documents was messing. >> Yeah. Messed up. >> Yeah. I'm I I apologize to everybody. Word is one of those things that I started with and I'm stuck with. >> That's okay. I'm I'm the same way with
Google Docs. So it's just it's a matter of once you get trained on something you can't go back. Yeah, it's easier to format in word I think if but >> um Rafael >> so I think in looking at this um some
work to do tonight I think in the sort of recommended changes original charter language there's some work we need to do with rationale I'm not sure all of them have I think robust enough details about rationale so that's one thing that needs
to be attended to I'm going to circle back to a public comment that was made and connected to our last meeting. We made a decision, I'm not sure it's reflected in the minutes, that some of the things that were raised at the
forum and additional feedback that has come in would be considered for the addendum. If people go back to that discussion, there's some reasons for why. So, I think we really need to grapple with that tonight in terms of what else is included and why. Um, so
just want to make sure that's centered in terms of getting folks the things that they'll need to complete this final report. >> Thank you. Um, Andy. >> Yeah. Um I I'm actually remembering that when we were preparing the slides,
Raphael, you prepared the slides, one for each of the individual things, and then >> you you put in we need a rationale for a number of them. And then >> I went through and put a rationale in for them. And I think we So we may have ration slides that are not in the chart.
So they we might want to look at those and just see if those are okay to put in the chart. Yeah, I I raised it, Andy, and I put like it's great that you put them in, but it's good for everybody to know. Um, and I was asking is this our collective rationale based on whatever
has come in? I think we think about that. >> Yeah. And I left the is this the collective rationale language and then somebody took it out so that we could have the slides to show. So, >> it was it was me. >> Okay. Okay. >> Because I thought we were going to show them, but you know.
>> Yeah. Mhm. Okay. >> But there's there's proposed language there, but we haven't collectively agreed upon it. So, >> yeah, that'll be >> I think it would be good for us to just Yeah. up down vote on those proposed ration.
>> Yeah, I I was just going to comment my own. I think looking at the report obviously we need to add to some of the rationale like Rafael was saying the narrative itself looks pretty good the table of contents looks
pretty good I think it's going to be important that in this report we include um we include all the public comments we've gotten we include any items that we will vote tonight um that we heard at
the public forum form in the table. Um, we obviously include the addendum with any edits that we decide to make to it or additions. Um, and that we include uh the memo from the Collins Center as well as all of the language that they
provided us. um and the um sort of filtered like we could give the unfiltered list of public comments, but I would almost rather make that its own attachment just because of all of a how
long it is and b because of like some of it is AI or some of it is this or some of it is that. >> Um and it might be worth it to >> sort of put somewhere else. It's it's linked in it's linked in the narrative. >> Okay. Yep. That's
>> there's a link in the narrative and I think that um rather than try to publish that whole thing and giving le leaving the the link there um anyone who wants to dive into it can find it. Um it's well organized
but it's large and spraws and it's repetitive. >> Yep. Um Marcus and then Andy. >> Yeah. Sorry. I was actually just going to kind of say the same with Bernie. I think publishing that as part of the report would make the report, you know,
hundreds of pages long because there's all all that uh AI um minute taking stuff and all that sort of thing that's in there. So yeah, if we can attach it and that's what I thought we had agreed to was kind of, you know, almost like have a folder on our website that says
here's the public comments, here's the u Collins stuff, you know, just lay it out and not actually include it in the report because even the preliminary report with the Collins, it's kind of like, okay, great. And so what, you know, I think we need to just keep it as
an attachment or put them in a folder somewhere that we link to and make people aware of. Thank you, Andy. >> Yeah, we have the um all the comments that were
um submitted to a certain date um in a document that that's linked to right now, but um I know I did notice that in the the ones that um Athena sent us recently, there are some ones that are not in that document. So
that would I think putting those into that document and then having that be the one that's linked to on our web page would make sense. So to make sure that that's a complete list and that document includes the survey responses as well as
public comment as well as everything that's been submitted by uh people through the link through the web page. Yeah, Erica. >> Yeah. I just wanted to um ask a question about which pieces of the work that
remains to be done are we going to try to accomplish tonight? Because I wanted to raise an issue about the um uh about the contents of the addendum and the and responding to what we heard at the public forum in the addendum as we sort
of had originally sketched out. and I but I want to give that it some time and so I just want to understand what what pieces of work we're going to try to accomplish tonight overall. >> Yeah, thank you Erica. So our next agenda item is this basically which our
next agenda item is to vote on the issues that were raised at the public forum. So, um, Andy was kind enough to compile a great spreadsheet for us. Um, that
basically I would call it better than a notes document. It's more detailed than that. Um, but it raised it raised basically the substantial issues that were brought up during the public form that could be amended and added right
into the charter at this process. So, it it made really editable suggestions out of what we heard at the forum. And there's four or five of them. Um Andy, would you mind screen sharing that? >> Sure.
>> That's great. Um and my thought was that we'll vote on on all of those and depending on the votes, it will either go into the addendum, go into the report itself, or be discarded. and um and then
we'll edit make those edits in the final report um and do all the other stuff that I mentioned uh offline off of the meeting um as well as hear um a sort of summary from Pat who's here and get her
advice on these issues um as needed since we're sort of doing it currently. Does that make any sense, Erica? Yeah, we're going to vote on these Y uh items and then move on to other issues. >> Exactly. Um
>> so, thank you for screen sharing, Andy. Um it does not show up well on my computer. Um >> Oh, really? >> No, but I I was able to read it and stuff. It just doesn't show up like in one thing. Um
sort of split apart, but this is great. So, >> do you want me to walk through the document and give an overview or do you want to just >> I think that would be better just because it wasn't posted in the packet for members of the public. That would be best. Yeah.
>> Can most Can everybody else see this? Okay. I mean, >> yeah, I I actually got a copy here. >> Okay. >> I have a copy on my phone. I'm looking at >> Damn. >> Make sure that it's at the right size. Okay. Um so there there are a few
sections here that the the first one was about the notion of there's sort of two things in it. One is that if a meeting is held in hybrid or remote format, the chair should announce how many people are present or or maybe the uh maybe
there's a technological way of you know maybe we just say that the you know the the number of people present should be known or something like I don't know exactly how how we want to do it because the number is going to change throughout
the meeting. But um if there's some way of letting people know how many people are present, that seemed to be something people are interested in. And then there was also the thing about all audience members participating, you know, via video should be offered the opportunity to be visible while speaking. So if somebody's making a
comment, it would be good for them to be able to be visible. Um and I know that we'd had concern about Zoom bombing. So I added a a sentence about in the event of malicious intrusion by non-recognized individuals, visible participation may be revoked. This may be more than we
need, but so those were the things about knowing who's there and being able to see who's speaking was sort of the that category. The next one was about the application process. And we heard from one um
respondent or one um community member that Northampton you know, uh, makes the names of applicants for committees public. And so I I I actually emailed that person and it turns out it's not in their charter. It's on their
application form that they can check a box and allow their name to be public and then people can go and find that information. So, but it's not in their charter. So, we may want to think about whether this is something that would go in the um in
the addendum or something, you know, it's may it might be more a procedural thing than a charter thing. But um that's uh that that was an error an area that people were interested in first of all receiving confirmation of receipt of their application and notification of
the outcome of the selection process. But then secondarily or you know and possibly a different issue is the names of all applicants should be made public except for those application applicants choosing to remain anonymous. Um the next section there's sort of three heads. There was this question
about how do we you know we we've got the the school and the library budget submitted to the manager by April 1 and then but there's no municipal budget at that point and there's no and and so then the manager comes back with the
whole budget um by May 1st and so um there was concern about how do we better have a level playing field or better communication about the various trade-offs that are happening when the council is trying to figure about um you know how to you know how to vote on the
budget and so there's three suggestions that were addressing that. The first one is we we that we heard that the some concern about whether the budget coordinating group you know is is uh you
know uh is a uh con conforming to open meeting law and it turns out they are but but putting in the um in the the section about the budget according group that they shall pub publicly post agendas, minutes um and meeting calendar maybe material
maybe add materials but Um, so the budget court that that's one piece so that people can again it's transparency. It's knowing when the budget courting group is meeting and what they're meeting about. The second piece of that is to add an initial public forum on the
budget earlier and instead of just saying with the cooperation of the town manager saying with the cooperation of the town manager, the school superintendent and the library director so that we're actually getting information on all sort of a forum where we can talk about all three areas of the
budget. Um and then similarly right now we have a March forum but we don't talk about the school superintendent or the library director being involved. Um, so the attempt on this one is to say we're going to have an initial public forum early enough so people can, you know,
get a sense of things early and we're going to hear from the town managers, the superintendent, you know, we're going to hear from the town, the municipal, the schools in the library. And then similarly, we're going to have another forum, which is the current forum in the charter that currently says
by March 15th. we could consider moving the deadline for that one a little earlier to March 1st. Um, and then the finance committee has a public hearing in May. So, um, again, this is basically people feeling like they're not able to hear about the budget early enough until
it's a failcomplete. Um, and then finally, um, the article 5.4A1 4A one is again to sort of create a level playing field and to also give a chance for the municipal
budget to be able to show um you know what its level service budget might look like when the when the schools and the and possibly the library are are showing their preliminary budgets. have the municipal budget, a preliminary municipal budget be produced by April
1st as well, so that all three preliminary budgets can be seen at the same time and people can have a sense of what the trade-offs are that the town manager and the town council will be dealing with. So, those were three edits that were focused on the the the
um interest in having better communication about what the trade-offs are between the different budgets and um you know trying to get more transparency about how the how the trade-offs are being made. Um then there is um
there was some interest in h being able to have more dialogue and opportunities for more interaction between people interested in an issue and the town council um or theoretically the the school
committee or library trustees. And it turns out that the the council has created something called a public dialogue which allows um the council to call for a public dialogue that would allow that has that informal just by a vote of the council can say all right this is an issue that people seem to
care about. We can have a discussion. We'll have town staff there. We'll have the council there and we will invite the public to come and just talk informally. Um, so that language is currently in the council rules of procedure. It seems
like it seems like a nice addition to the charter to say this is another option for having dialogue and for having public engagement. So I I initially put that in what what the council had, but then I realized that it
didn't include the schools or the library. So, I added this uh tried to add them as well. And this might be something that Pat could help us with the language, you know, if we if we thought if we thought this was something worth doing. But basically saying, you know, the council, school committee, and
or library trustees may hold a public dialogue session at a time and location of their choosing. You know, the convening body or bodies, the town managers, school superintendent and or library director, and any appropriate staff as the determined by those people. uh shall welcome all interested
individuals for an informal dialogue session. Public dialogues are meant to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly interact with elected officials and town staff and all of them shall comply with open meeting laws. So that would be an additional public engagement um thing listed in the
charter. And then the last one may or may not be what we want to do, but I think what some folks have been encouraging us to do is to say that the town's people voted for a charter that said the town will have rank choice
voting in it. Uh, you know, as part of its operations. So, they've already approved within the charter the idea of having rank choice voting. Um the council has chosen to send uh ask for a special act uh from the from the
legislature to make that happen. That has not been acted upon. Advocates are saying, you know, we could just have the council vote based based on the language of the special act and then see if anybody objects to it. Um, I think that
that's that's a that's a debatable thing or but but we could put that language in the addendum or we could actually put it as a recommendation or we could leave it alone. But that responds to the concern about nothing happening with rank choice voting. Um, so then you know the only other things
are that we don't have our minutes posted at the approvement committee minutes link. We might want to put those there. And then also we talked about possibly re remn naming the addendum to have to have it be you know not to sound like an appendix but uh but something that's of equal weight to the specific
recommendations. >> Thank you so much. >> Overview. Yeah. >> I just wanted to address the two suggestions on the bottom um which is we will consider um renaming the uh specific charter recommendations
tonight. And I have uh I have sent Athena every minute link that I have received to be posted at the approved minutes link. So that should either already be up or will be up probably by the end of the week. Um so both of those have been addressed
if you will. Um the I'm just looking here. I was wondering Pat, do you have any offthe cuff things to be like, oh, this is this is a big issue or you should watch out before you
vote in favor of that, so on and so forth. >> Well, um, because this is the first time I've seen that, I don't I don't have the there's a couple things that I thoughts that came to mind. Um, one with just
going in reverse order, um, ranked choice voting, you do have an act in the legislature. Um, you you know, you can certainly consider recommending that that be pursued more aggressively. I think, um, it's not it's probably not
something you can do on your own without the legislature acting. Um, but that's for your town attorneys to give an opinion on. Um, so I'm, you know, not really sure how far you can go with that other than maybe reiterating in your
report that, you know, you would like this more aggressively pursued, um, and find out the status, etc. Um, but you do have an act before the legislature now, um, to approve the rank choice voting. Um and the other thing I was thinking of
when with respect to the public forum um in your current in your current charter um in article 8 you have the open meeting of the residents which is raised when you have a request
of 200 residents 18 years or older etc. Um if you were go if you were looking to have um an additional kind of dialogue option for that the open meeting some oftent times um you could also say upon the request in writing of 200 residents
or upon or upon um we can we can work on the wording but initiation by the council school committee and library that you can have these open forums. So, if you were going to put make that type of change, I would just add it to
section 8.1. >> Mhm. >> Um, but you know, the other things you can certainly discuss. Um, I would say I'm one of the other matters about
publishing the names of the people who um apply for committees uh and you know who was considered etc. um that's usually happens at an open meeting where they make the ultimate decisions. But on the other sometimes it does on the other
hand that that may be too granular for the charter. That may be something that would be in the procedure that um is used by the committee by the resident advisory committee that's helping the um town manager come up with this. Um I
think that might not be a charter level issue. Um, I would be a little concerned just about making that a charter obligation when um it might be difficult to monitor, you know, who said yes, we
can reveal this, who did not, etc. Um, maybe you can have a recommendation that they be more transparent about this. Um, but I'm not sure if you can write something into the charter that would be clear but not too limiting to the people
who are both applying and the people who are making these considerations. But um, those those are just my thoughts. On the other hand, you know, it could be done and that's certainly something that you can decide rise raises should be put in the charter instead.
>> Thank you so much. Um, Andy, go ahead. Yeah, to that point. Um, again, Northampton was mentioned as an example, but they don't actually have it in their charter. It's in their it's in their procedure for on the form for
applying. So um you know maybe it's more of a procedural level thing that that um and again it's I think there's also a judgment call about you know um the degree to which
we want to have to have the appointing authorities have some discretion about what's going to make a functional committee versus you know they could still make the choice even if people are p are publicized who got it and who didn't but yes it may too granular for the >> for the um charter.
>> Yeah. Just before I call on Bernie and Marcus, just in the interest of time, I would love it if we made a motion sort of article by article here. Um and move down the list from article 2 all the way
to the bottom. Um just to decide to include this in the report, include in the addendum, not include it. Um, so I'll let Bernie and Marcus, you guys go ahead and then um I think I just want to start with that process in the interest
of time. >> Yeah, I I um I would agree that this is a bit too granular for the charter. I mean, towns handle this in different ways. Um, typically it's Northampton, I think, um, in my
research, I agree with Andy, they have a basically a checkbox. you know, you can make this public or keep it keep it quiet. Um, we tend to Amoris tends to handle these applications as if they were applications for employment, which
means they're not disclosed until you've you've actually had a final interview. So, I I I think it it's really something that we should flag as a, you know, ongoing issue, but I agree that it's it's uh it's just too granular for the
charter. And I would move that we uh uh we not include article 3 any reference article 33 this reference to article 33 in the uh in our report as a recommendation >> Marcus.
>> Yeah, thank you. I was basically going to say what you were saying um Julian. Let's just go line by line. I mean article by article. Yes, no. And if we want to add some or take some stuff away then uh We can do that. But yeah, let's let's get moving on this. >> I guess I'll start with article two. Um
>> all right. I I made a motion regarding 33. I'll withdraw it if you you prefer. >> Uh let Yeah. Okay. We can do the motion on 33. That's fine. >> Second. >> And then we'll go back to two. >> Can you repeat the motion itself? that we not include this as a recommended
change to the charter, but we do uh emphasize this in our additional recommendations uh document. The what what we're calling the addendum right now. >> It's a second.
>> Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Oh, Marcus, >> sorry. Yeah, I agree with what B said. >> I'll move right along with voting. Um, I'll start with Raphael. >> Yes.
>> Andy, >> yes. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Erica, >> yes. >> Um, myself, no. >> Uh, Marcus, >> yes. >> And Bernie,
>> yes. Okay, that passes um six to one. Um and then we will move along to article two. Um do I entertain Erica? Entertain. >> Uh do we need to have a motion to
discuss it or can we are we having a discussion about this? I >> I would rather us make a motion and then discuss the motion just for efficiency sake. Marcus, >> I make the motion that we accept it as written.
>> Okay, I'll second that. Um, Erica, did you have a comment? >> Yes. Um, I just wanted to clarify the which which actual article is it? Two. I was looking for the number that this
corresponds to specifically. Uh, it would it would be um 2D subsection V. There's there's currently a sub section V, but this would bump that one down one. >> What? When you say 2D?
>> Oh, you're saying 2.6D. Got it. Just I just found it. You're >> right. 2.6D. >> Thank you. Um, okay. Any other comments? >> Marcus, >> thank you. Yeah, I think that um just
announcing the number of people present does um meet a lot of the um requests from the you know that we were hearing have been hearing without getting into the shoes who um that a lot of people had a lot of uh other people had a lot
of concern about. Great. Um, Raphael and then Andy. >> So, this motion is to include this as a part of the suggested changes. Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. Andy
>> um I just we may want to think about the techni you know the specific language about whether it's announce how many people are present or or the or whether in some way it shall be apparent how many people are present. I mean if
you're using a particular tech there it gets into technology and how that might change. So it's just, you know, I mean, if you announced the other night how many people were present, you know, at first there were two people and then there were eight people and then there were 12 people and
then later on there were eight people. And so is there some way that people can in in some technologies people can just see how many people are present otherwise we can announce how many people are present but it's not it's not accurate throughout the meeting. So, um,
>> yeah, >> that part is a little bit maybe there's some language that we could use that's a little less like >> just >> clear about who whether it's the chair, whether it's technology or you know, >> just for the purposes of here and now.
Um, the town uses Zoom. I can see who's present as host or co-host. >> Um, I can see the attendees. I can see the names. Can you all as panelists see who's present? >> Yes, we can.
>> I'm just curious. I'll allow one of our attendees to speak. Can you all see how many people are here? >> No, you can't. >> You can't from attendees. >> No, you can't see anything. So, when I was just coming in, you can't see anything. It's just >> you only see the um screens of who's,
you know, there like your camera. Yeah. So I would have to announce but I did announce at the beginning of the meeting but I'd have to announce like there's 10 people present two attendees. >> Yeah, it would be like that. I think the only thing I would suggest is we maybe
add at a a point in time, right? So you say announce who's here at the beginning of the meeting. >> Yeah. >> And you know that's it. And then if you choose to, you can say every time somebody does it, but at least we have a specific point in time when there is a
known number of people in the room. >> A point in time count. I think that's that's appropriate. Um I would I would accept that as a second or if you made that as like a friend. >> Yeah. No, actually yeah, I'll move to add that um a point in time to that uh
first sentence, right? to announce how many these persons are present at a specific point in time. And then honestly, you know, we could leave the definition of that to the council rules, right? >> They could choose that um in the rules.
We just said specify it's only once, >> whatever. Yeah. >> Um Erica and then Bernie. >> Yeah. Just thinking about like what in the spirit of why these kinds of suggestions were were made in the first place. um that uh requesting a sort of a
a count of remote participants at the beginning of the meeting and or at the beginning of a comment period because I'm thinking about a a public comment period because I'm thinking about one of the other suggestions that we've included uh in the for now called
addendum um that has to do with making a second comment period before a major vote uh as an example and that would be an interesting place to have a count of of remote participants if they aren't visible to those participants. Um, and the other
thing I just wanted to add about this um where it says all audience members participating via video uh just might want to change that to participating remotely um because it may or may not include a
live video. Marcus is here participating remotely but not with video. we would want to include him in that count and and option to participate. >> No, but the the the the video part is basically that people wanted they wanted people to be visible while speaking. So if if
somebody's participating by phone, they can't be visible regardless if they want to or not. >> I mean, I could, but my company doesn't allow me to use the camera on my phone. But that because that becomes comes down
to a technology question Andy to your point earlier that that's why I was saying leaving it to >> since we can't write every conceivable configuration of how people might join or what software or what platform might make possible um participating remotely
is it could happen in a multiple in multiple ways. >> Okay. So >> participating remotely. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. agree participating remotely seems better. A lot of people want to keep their cameras off. Some computers don't
have uh uh ability in the first place. >> Bernie. >> Yeah. Um just as a matter of information and and Pat, please correct me if I'm wrong. Uh the open meeting law doesn't require you to be seen. It requires you to be heard.
Um so this goes well beyond what the open meeting law would require. uh and it gets into some technological difficulties. I mean, I've been in um u I don't again I think this is something
that is better placed in the soon to be retitled addendum as as a uh as a motion as a prompt to the council rather than making a
requirement of it in the uh in the charter. It It just seems to me to be u uh to go way beyond the uh way beyond the open meeting law. And um I I I'm just I also have technological
concerns about it. I I can see I can see challenges coming around um you know I I wasn't anybody right now anybody participating remotely can be seen and interestingly enough a couple of the
participants at the hearing weren't live on the camera they had images um still images in their video feed so uh you you know you again this is to me just it's a nice thought
it's something that should be attempted, but I don't want to see it written into the charter as u a permanent kind of thing, >> Marcus. And then Erica. >> Yeah, thank you. I I mean I I do agree that it's a little over, but it's all
it's saying is you'll be offered the opportunity. So all you say is if you would like to, you can. It's not a requirement, right? I mean, I guess we get into the do people feel like they can fully participate if they aren't on
camera. There is always that oper option. I mean, that issue, I should say. Um, on the flip side, but I think it's addressing concerns, but not actually making a requirement, which to me is is
fine. Somewhat performative, but it's fine. >> I Erica. Yeah, I think that this is I take your point, Bernie, but I think that this is to to my reading um while it's technical, it's broad enough to be
um if we all agree or or enough of us agree to be put forward as something for council to vote on for inclusion in the charter and that maybe that raises up raises it up with enough importance that if they decide that it doesn't belong in the charter, it's still it's still in
the in the discussion for inclusion into the rules and procedure. Um, the fact that we raise it up as important enough to be considered for the charter is of some value I think here as for us. >> Andy,
>> um, I I edited to say all audience members participating remotely shall be offered the opportunity. There was some language on if a meeting is held in hybrid or remote format, the chair shall announce announce how many people are present. Was there something we wanted to change about that
at a particular at at you know at at >> a given Yeah. a point in time. >> Yeah. Marcus suggested at a point in time. I was suggesting we could say um at the start of the meeting and or uh before any public comment period. >> Yeah. I was just suggesting a point in
time so that we can leave the definition of that to the council rules. >> Right. Understood. Yeah. >> Yeah. at it's it's it's kind of vague though, but >> I know that's the idea. >> I think at a point in time is fine because the chair can make that
decision. I mean like it all depends if like for example if I was chairing this meeting and I see two people now and then all of a sudden when we get to section 8 I see 10 people more people hop on. I'd note that because it shows
people care about that specific issue. Um, okay. I'm going to move us along to a vote. Uh, myself, I'm an I. Oh, sorry, Pat. Yeah, go right ahead.
I just I just wanted to step in and make a suggestion. Um, I foresee times when a Zoom novice is running these meetings and may not be able to get the person on the screen or the technology doesn't work. Um so if you're going to consider
this I guess for the second where it says all audience members participating remotely etc. Um shall be offered the opportunity to be visible while speaking I would say when when reasonably practical
um just to kind of give some wiggle room if if you're going to mandate that. And um the last sentence, if you're voting on the whole thing and not just the first two sentences, um where it talks about malicious intrusion by
non-recognized individual individuals, etc., vis visible participation may be revoked. I guess I would say we don't it doesn't say who would revoke it. Um and it doesn't really define malicious. I guess I would say something to the
extent of in the event um that you know individuals are not recognized um visible participation may be revoked um at the discretion of the chair or something like that to indicate who is doing making the decision of when they
can be revoked. and maybe not necessarily say include the malicious as much as if you know if individuals cannot be identified then visible participation may be revoked. >> It's more that they haven't been
recognized by the chair. It's it's a it's a zoom bombing issue, right? >> Yeah. I was Pat. Do you have anything further? >> No, that's fine. I I guess at the minimum I would say who is doing the revoking? I would say at the discretion of the chair.
>> I I agree. Thank you. And the other thing I was just going to add was I think the when reasonably practical makes a lot of sense because I can think of situations where your Wi-Fi is bad and you need to turn off the camera. You have a computer that doesn't have a camera. You're on your phone. You're at
a friend or family's house, etc. So, I think like that's an important thing to add. I know we have counselors who aren't always on camera and who participate just like everybody else. So, I mean, I think it's a it's a good
thing. It's a good thing to keep as reasonably practical. Um, my only other thing is nonrecognized individuals. Like >> theoretically there could be a recognized individual who decides to
zoom bomb out of frustration or something. I don't know. >> I mean meaning non not recognized by the chair. So maybe maybe by individuals who have not been you know recognized mean meaning allowed
to speak. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That would be more clear. I just didn't want the confusion where someone's like recognizing, you know what I mean? Like >> cuz in town we often have the same people there. So,
>> okay, that looks a lot better. Um >> um you might want to say because you might it might not be about revoking but not allowing it in the first place. So, visible participation may be disallowed or something like that. >> Maybe denied, >> right?
>> Denied. Yeah. Perfect. That sounds better. Um Marcus, do you accept this? You made the motion. >> Yeah, I accept the changes. Absolutely. As um described and written. Yeah, >> I have to admit I do as well. Um I'm
going to call the vote if there's not any more comments. Um thank you Pat for your help wordsmithing this. Um myself, I'm an I. Andy, >> hi. Bernie. >> Uh, I'll be a roll up. Yes.
>> Okay. Marcus, >> yes. >> Erica, >> yes. >> Raphael, >> yes. >> And Ken, >> yes. >> Excellent. Um, so article five, we've got three here and then one more in
article eight. Uh, do we want I'll entertain a motion on 5.2 two first since we'll take this one by one. >> Uh question. >> Yeah. >> If the budget coordinating group is in fact a public body um then they are
required to post agendas minister. >> Yeah, this seems redundant. >> So So if if they're you know if they're a if they're a public body then they just simply need to be reminded to do that. I I'll say I attended their meeting today. Um and they were they was
posted perfectly fine. So I mean I don't know if that >> it's it's unnecessary if they're public. >> It was fine and I don't see a reason why it isn't. So, >> does anyone does anyone recall back to
the original comment that brought this out why it was if it's if it's their practice to post agendas, meetings, and materials why it's was suggested in the first place? We got an email from Nina Min um and she also commented twice at
our um at our public forum and most of the suggestions were along the lines of increase in increasing transparency in the budget process um and allowing for like better communication around school funding, municipal budgets, etc.
um from the town as well as internally between like the schools, the town, the library and the public. Um so I think it's a very meritable and important suggestion given what we're seeing. But with five but with specifically 5.2
I just don't um it's already required. So it's it's sort of a been there done that situation. Um, >> do we want to do we want to add anything to the description of the budget coordinating group just to say,
>> you know, this group shall be subject to open meeting law or is that just assume? >> No, that's that's redundant. I mean, it's >> it's a multiple it's a multiple member body. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Like anyone else's. Um, unless there's some sort of record of them not
doing so, but I don't recall anything like that. >> Okay. Bernie, I >> I just want to know make another point of clarification. When we talk about school budget, we're talking about the elementary school. >> Yes.
>> We're not talking about the middle or or high school because that's a separate government and we don't govern them. we ask them uh except when it comes to actually giving them money, then we we can make some
demands for documentation and explanation and the like. But if if we say there's going to be a meeting with the school committee, the finance commit or the council and the uh library trustees, you're really
including only uh officially only including the elementary school committee. BCG does have a regional rep, I think, Anna. >> Well, the BCG does have a regional rep, but again,
we have to keep in mind that we can't write procedural rules for another government. We can invite them in. We can make try to accommodate them, but we can't write
the write the rules for them. At least in my perspective. No, I I I get where you're coming from. Um Andy, >> I guess I'm wondering then in terms of preparing the budget, there's a regional assessment which is based on the
regional budget. Um does that get submitted to the the manager by April 1st? >> Yes. The proposed budgets adopted by the Ammeris School Committee, Regional School Committee, and library trustees will be submitted to the MA town manager
not later than April 1st. That's section 5.4. >> Yeah. >> So, they are submitting their proposed budget. You know, we're telling them that they have to do that even though they're a separate entity.
>> So, let's just go back to 5.2. Um, I'm going to make the motion that we disregard just the edit 5.2. >> Second. >> Okay. Um, myself, I'm an I. Andy. >> Hi, >> Bernie.
>> Hi, >> Marcus. Marcus on mute. I think uh Erica, >> yes. >> Raphael, >> yes. >> Ken, >> yes.
Marcus. >> Yes. Yes, >> we got him. There we go. Okay, perfect. Um, so now we have article 5.3, uh, which is add an initial public form on the budget not later than January 30th.
Um, I think this might need a little bit of word smithing, but um, for the purposes of discussion, I will make a motion that we approve an additional initial public form on the budget um, in consultation
or cooperation with the town manager, school superintendent, and library director. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Great. Any discussion? Just just to note that currently the the language says um with the cooperation of
the town manager, you know, the president of town council with the cooperation of town manager shall call at least one public forum on the topic of the proposed budget. So what this is saying is that it would be the president town council with the cooperation of the town manager, the superintendent, and
the library director. So that we're having it's clear that we're having a discussion of all pieces of the budget. >> Yep. Um other comments, questions?
>> No. Okay. Um we'll move along voting on this. Uh myself, I'm an I. Andy >> I. >> Ken. >> I. >> Raphael. >> Yes. >> Erica. Yes,
>> Bernie. >> Yes. >> And Marcus, I'm just going to ask you to unmute there. >> Yes. Sorry, fighting with the button. >> Um, okay. 5.4. Um, so we, our manager shall develop a
preliminary municipal services budget by April 1. This isn't the full town budget. This is this is just the municipal side of the budget. And before I just want to keep in mind what Andy just said, which is
the schools and the library already submit by April 1. So this is just giving the town manager the same deadline so that it's an even playing field across the three. Um I'll make a motion to add this. Do I have a second? >> Second.
>> Thank you. Any comments, Bernie? >> Yeah. Again, it's just preliminary, which I think is important because if I again, I could be wrong. Haven't looked at this in a while. Um, there's a statutory form uh deadline for the
manager or the mayor to submit a budget to the council. And I think that April 1 date um April fools uh is uh is is early, but is it does say preliminary? This is preliminary for all the budgets so people can you know what what people
are getting is uh the first draft in effect. >> We need to uh make it make it April 2nd so that the town manager doesn't play with us. >> Um okay I will uh any other comments?
>> Nope. Um okay uh myself I'm an I. Bernie. >> Yes. Andy, >> yes. >> Marcus, >> yes. >> Ken, >> yes. >> Raphael, >> yes. >> Erica, >> yes.
>> Excellent. Um, so on to article eight. Uh, this is an addition. It might need a little word smithing, but I'm in favor of it. Um, I'm going to again make the motion to insert this new section in
8.1. Do I have a second? Um, I' I'd like to consider um Pat's suggestion, which is that we have language that allows for um a group of folks to submit um signatures to get an open meeting of the
residents. But maybe we could just say um upon the request and writing of 200 residents or a vote of a majority of the council, then then we cover it. >> That makes a lot more sense. >> It already talked about the library. >> Yeah. just add that
>> uh Pat >> um I I would suggest um because it's not because you're talking about um for 8.1 you're talking about open meetings um submit it to town council school
committee or library you may want to say um as Andy said um upon the request in writing concerning matters upon which requested body may act and add or upon the body's own motion because then the
school committee, the library trustees or the the town council could call one of these sessions if that's what your intent is. >> That is I think our intent. Thank you, Pat. Um >> so just just after that comma um include
or upon the body's own motion >> the body's own approved motion >> motion. >> Sure. Or you could or you can say upon a majority vote. I was mimicking the language that is further on down when um
in the submission of other matters. Um 8.6 six says the town council may of its own motion um submit to the voters this thing. So I was just mimicking that language, but you could also um you you could also say upon, you know, a
majority vote by the body. >> Okay, that's clearer for people, I think. >> Okay, but I'm just going to chime in. We want to make sure that it's still clear that this is a informal dialogue between the
council and the public. Like I don't want it to be like I don't know. I sort of feel like that should be included somewhere. Erica. >> Yeah, I actually was going to raise the same issue, which is that revising the language in the way that that that was
just suggested, I think, is good, but I think the sort of the kind of character of what you're of what's described here in this proposed language is different than what's in 8.1. Now, the idea of an informal dialogue um is really it it
feels different than um than the way it's currently set up in 8.1 um and the emphasis on direct interaction um
which I which before we got here I was going to raise the question of like how open meeting law actually impacts here um and whether it being subject does it have to be subject to open meeting law in in what ways and does that actually tie the hands of the idea of an informal
dialogue? >> As long as you post the agenda saying that it's going to be an informal dialogue, then you that's open meeting. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, in any case, I there's something um there's something that's
like in a different character about an informal dialogue >> um than I think what is suggested here currently. Andy. >> Yeah. I'm trying to think this is sort of you know we're we're acting on the
fly because that's what the time we have but um you know do we do we change the title of this to um uh public dialogue and add something about and you know
modify the language so that it's more about you know the informal conversation or do we leave this one the way it is that 200 residents can call for something on a specific issue, but then we have this new section public
dialogue. How different is it? I feel like there's some difference just because we say that a specific we're explicitly saying we want a public dialogue and I do sometimes think that members of the
public feel like public dialogue is missing. So, I mean, I think at least for clarity among folks in town, it would be good to have it say public dialogue and sort of make that a clear
separate thing in my mind. Erica, >> yeah. Um, I was thinking about like what where we got into part of the conversation at the public forum the other night. Um and the sort of problem the repeated you know refrain of
frustration with the idea that public comment happens in a particular way where one person gets up and speaks at a time no one responds and then um and then the people who are running that meeting whether it's committee or
council um respond sort of to everything at once and then there's timing questions and everything else. So if those kinds of constraints are repeated here, I think we've defeated the purpose of what um of what
might be a a good a good improvement, a good possibility for a different kind of conversation, a good a different kind of um something like conversation, which is what currently can't happen in public comment periods and other kinds of forums. Um, so I don't know if we can
repair all of that with this one paragraph. Um, but I just wanted to say I'm not sure that this unless if we just fold in a couple of uh words about who can call the meeting, I don't think it does anything to repair that problem.
>> I agree. Thank you, Erica. Andy? Yeah, I guess I'm I'm thinking that the town council added this as its as a specific thing in addition to the things that are listed in the charter. So in their in their in their you know
procedure rules of procedure they came up with this um public dialogue and I think then they list all the other things that are in the charter. So maybe there is something different about it enough that you know message-wise maybe it's important to have it its own thing. I
mean, I I don't know. I I defer to Pat in some ways on this, but I also think that maybe there's some messaging that what I'm hearing is that there may be some value in even if it's a little bit overlapping there might it might look a little more open to have this listed as
a public dialogue and then there's free petition and then there's the other things. >> Uh Marcus, do you mind if I chime in with one thing and then let you go ahead? That's fine. >> Um I was just going to say that I I mean
I don't think this has ever been used. >> Yeah, I don't think it has. So making it somehow more public or more known about among both members of the public and town counselors if they want to use it by
putting in the charter which presumably many town counselors read before joining council. It it might be a a good idea. Um it at least make it known like hey these are your rights as a counselor. Um
Marcus and then Erica. >> Yeah, thank you. I I mean I'm just I don't see that this has the same like 50/50 requirement that the forum has that was written into the charter. You know, I think this is good. I I support
just the quick change to what's already existing to make it more um you know, make us or less work on our part, I guess. But I think um that's the way forward more than completely rewriting things. >> Erica,
>> um I was wondering if this is about a definition uh because public forum is defined so narrowly even though we're making a recommendation that it's defined slightly differently. Um maybe it comes
down to a public dialogue being defined differently back in article one. Yeah. Um Bernie, >> yeah, defin I think Garrick has a good idea there about a definition change earlier on.
The other thing is is that um as the late Bob Richie would point out, um the charter is not the sole governing document of the town of Ammeris. The rules and procedures of the council are part of that as are the bylaws. And I
think it may be uh timely and just I don't know if this will resolve it won't resolve this question but I think going forward that the uh the rules and procedures of the council should be uh
distributed and as available as copies of the charter are and that when copies of the charter are uh uh printed or distributed rules of the procedures of the council go along with them as a as an addendum
because they're also they're also a governing document and I I think that would give people a good sense of how flexible the council can be if it chooses uh you know again this is a choice on
the on the part of the council the choice will be whether they include this or not in any revision of the the charter but also whether they're going to follow So that's a thought. >> Thank you, Marcus. And then Andy,
>> I love Bernie's idea. Uh for once. Um no, sorry. Um no, I I uh think it's a great, you know, thing. The charter is not the sole document that is in the town and so we should present everything as such, right? Um, I think that would
be a great inclusion in our addendum to push for an addendum that is always included when the uh charter is published. >> Thank you, Andy. >> Yeah, I would just note that the rules
of the of the town council are just the rules for the town council and this talks about the school committee or the library trustees also being able to have this kind of public dialogue. And um I don't think it hurts to to offer that. I I think it's I I think
it's it responds to um you know a real concern that we've heard and I think it would help the council or the school committee or the library trustees when something comes up and it's like we need to we need to be able to respond and hear and have a less
constrained conversation. Um, I think this is a really good offering and the fact that the town council came up with it as an idea and then they sort of forgot about it or or have not chosen to use it means that elevating it perhaps beyond the uh beyond the rules might be
a you know a way to give it more uh more more of a spotlight. >> Yeah, I agree, Andy. And I think like beyond obviously the council could use it on many different things, but I can think of situations where the school committee would use it on the budget or on the um
some of the issues around the treatment of LGBTQ kids um at the middle school or the library trustees would use it around the library renovation project. It might I think it would apply good opportunity for them to engage with the public more
and sort of at least get people answers to questions. Marcus? >> Yeah. Sorry. I just want to be clear. I wasn't saying we take this out and just put it in the thing, the addendum to a charter. I I think this is a deserved part of the charter if nothing more than
just to make it everybody more aware of it. But I do think that we should, you know, push for inclusion of the other uh rules as part of a charter package, let's say. >> Yeah. Okay. Any other comments on this?
No. Okay. Um so I'll make the motion that we adopt it as written here rather than the amended um discussions. So, do I have a second for that? >> Second. >> Great. Um, I'll move us along with
voting myself. I'm an I. Marcus. >> Raphael has a question. >> Sorry, Raphael. >> So, we're adding this as a new section to >> as a new part to section 8. >> Yep. >> There already is an 8.1. So, are we
>> Yeah, Eric is asking what I'm I'm trying to ask. We're we're adding language to 8.1, right? >> We're adding language to 8.1. >> Exactly. >> Or this would be the new 8.1 maybe. I don't I mean >> there's >> would be like an addition within 8.1 I believe. >> Is that what we're voting?
>> Yes. >> So an addition to 8.1 >> but we have we have an we have individual things for open meeting of the residents free petition initiative measures. Are we just saying that
I would think this would be section 8.1 would be this and section 8.2 would then be open meeting of the residents. >> Oh, so we just move everything down after >> it's another option. >> No, that's a better option. I think it might make more sense to people. Yep.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, that's better. Thank you, Andy. Yep. Um, do I have a I guess Yeah. Okay, that makes sense. Um, is that clear what we're voting on for people? Thumbs up.
Great. Um, okay. I'm an I. Bernie. >> Yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Marcus, >> yes. >> Um, Raphael, >> you're muted.
>> Yes. Sorry about that. >> Erica, no. and Ken. >> Yes. >> Excellent. So 10.10 uh we've in the in the addendum we already
have it. So that we're asking to re-emphasize rank choice voting as well as many of the other issues such as participatory budgeting that have not seen the light of day, so to speak, but are still on the table. Um,
I feel like why would we make it more would we pick out rank choice voting and go harder on that versus some of the other issues that we include in the addendum that haven't been done yet that we are
advising be worked on. Um, so that's that's my take, Erica. And then Marcus. Yeah. My question about this um before we motion one way or the other is I've heard so many different things about the status of this um
uh of this action like about rank choice voting specifically. I've heard that it's hung up at a sort of state level. I've heard that it's it really doesn't need certain kind of state action that it just needs movement or action at the local level and everything in between. And um Pat, I don't know if there's
anything that you can sort of illuminate about where this stands. I would love to really before I say one way or the other as our committee whether it's just a matter of saying continued advocacy or more aggressive advocacy or something of
substance that we can say to com to the council vote up or down on a thing that we put into language. Um I would just really love to clarify what is the status of this right now. Um well according to all I know about
the bill is that there's in on 102825 um there was a hearing scheduled for 1113 2025. That's what I can see when I look at the status. I don't know what the results of the November 13, 2025
hearing is where. So I guess if you're looking for a recommendation I would say asking for an update. um on the pending bill, on the pending act, um as well as in encouraging the
council to possibly speak with the their senators and representatives and find out, you know, what's going on with this. Um it's it's really something that needs to be pursued with the representatives and senators who are
pushing this forward. Um, so you know that would be a discussion between them, but you could ask for an update. Um, I don't know. There was a hearing scheduled as I as I mentioned for November 13th. Um, and so I don't know who attended or what the outcome of that
was. >> Thank you. That's very helpful. >> Thank you, Pat. That is helpful. Um, Marcus. >> Yeah. Thank you. I'm kind of with Erica. I I I worry that the the voices that say, "Oh,
it just needs local action." It's so that it will force the hand of the state to sort things out. And I concerned that if things go the other way and it is not
approved, we now have a charter effectively that is illegal. So, you know, putting it in specifically before we have the backing of the state is concerning to me and um yeah, I think
we need an update before we can kind of really, you know, push to include it in the charter more so than just saying, hey, let's let's advocate for it. >> Yeah, the state house is notoriously slow. Um Bernie and then Erica.
>> Yeah, I I I would concur with uh concur with Marcus. I think it's u we need to we need to talk to our our our rep who's a very effective person. We need to talk to our our senator um and urge them to move stuff through the
legislature. The legislature certainly believes that they are the only body that can approve this. And I think if the council went ahead and voted uh an action to establish rank choice voting in in Ammeris, we would find ourselves wasting our precious money on lawsuits
and I would prefer not to do that. >> I agree. Um Erica, >> so if I understand it, it's a matter of um we don't know actually where the state is currently in their timeline. Um
and we need to wait for a certain thing to happen at the state level before we can take action locally even though there's been local support expressed for this in various ways. Then um to Pat's point earlier then I feel like
um just simply leaving it to to encouraging the council is is um is a little toothless. I think what we could do is to ask for an update by given date, a public update of some
kind. Um, so because it's not really up to the it it shouldn't be up to the public to sort this all out. Um, if council is the one involved in um in advocacy and next steps.
>> Yeah, thank you Andy and then Bernie. >> Yeah, I I just I put this together just, you know, I put this on the list because it came up. Uh, and I'm not sure that I, you know, I I don't know how what I feel about it. I I I guess the reason that it's a little
bit higher um um priority is because, you know, uh participatory budgeting we said, you know, study it um and propose something. Um other topics for study are just other
topics of potential study. This one we actually said, you know, have a commission to come up with a plan and the count the council will adopt the proposed measure with or without amendments within 90 days receipt. So we were basically saying and that may have
been unrealistic because the way of making it happen is through the state. So I don't know if we need to change that or if it's okay to just leave that alone and we in the addendum we have you know continued advocacy on this because you know it has
been acted upon. I I mean I guess that the council established a commission the commission produced a report. The council you know approved sending it to uh to the state to get it to happen. And so maybe that's
all that can happen. I mean, and and putting it in the addendum to say continued advocacy is is appropriate. >> Yeah. Sorry, I'm just I think Andy, you hit the nail on the head, right? I mean, we've we've brought the horse to water,
but we can't make him drink and and the state is, you know, has had this thing in committee so many years that you you just lose count. Um it just goes to committee. It just goes to committee every year. Um so I think yeah
we can I think we just probably incre uh strengthen our language around the increased um advocacy for it. You know cuz we we can't put this in and be told no you're not doing it ever. And then we have this bit of dead charter that's
just hanging out there that now somebody can now sue us for because we're not completing our charter, but the charter is not complete because the state says you can't do it. So it's like this neverending circle. >> Thank you, Bernie. Well, um I'd ask
folks to recall because I researched the transition um section of the charter and sent everybody a short note basically saying the um the council completed the transition section.
Um they u uh they may not have completed it as thoroughly as everybody likes, but in terms of rank choice voting, they they organized the committee. They acted on the committee's report. Their action was to file a home rule petition. The
home rule petition went nowhere because the legislature basically said, "We're not going to let one town in the state do this. We're going to either have everybody do it or nobody do it." So, uh, or everybody have the chance to nobody do it. So, we're going to study this. So, the council, um, you know, the
council completed what they needed to do at the time. So, um I think file they could file another home ruled petition, but that's sort of a waste of time and effort because we know where it's going to end up. It'll sit in committee for two years and then
disappear, which is what happened with the original home rule home rule petition. So, um, encouraging them to continue the effort, encouraging them to outreach to Senator, uh, Commer and Representative
Wendy Mindy rather dome. Um, I think it's the way the best thing we can do right at the moment. So, and I also think we spend enough time talking about this, so we should move on.
>> I I agree with the last point. Um the uh I'll just say I guess that I think the best thing to do with this is just does someone want to make a motion of how we dispose of this and get
on with it. Erica, >> I'm going to make a motion that it stays in the um addendum with some brief rephrasing. >> I second >> yet to be determined.
>> I second that. Um okay. Uh for the sake of time, I'll move straight to voting. Raphael, >> yes. >> Ken, >> yes. Marcus, I'll come back to you. Um, >> no, I'm a yes. >> Perfect. No problem. Um, Andy,
>> yes. >> Uh, Bernie, >> yes. >> And Erica, >> yes. >> Excellent. That's unanimous. Um, I'm just going through here. Post all committee. That's been done. Um, so rename. I'll make the motion that we
rename the addendum. additional recommendations. Um, we have a second >> uh for the sake of discussion. Yes. >> Great. Um, I thought this was just pretty simple. It makes it clearer, makes the addendum a little bit more
have some weight to it. I think um, in my mind addendum seems sort of like, oh, also look at this. whereas we want to um make it sound a little bit more formal for the final report, I guess, would sound better. But that's just my
opinion. Um I'm going to run and grab my computer charger uh so it doesn't die, but I'll call on Erica and then Ken. Um, so my comment is that if uh I'm I'm 100% behind changing the name to additional recommendations or something
like that and with the understanding that it that we're calling it additional recommendations because we're going to stand behind some of the things that we're putting in there as actual recommendations that we want to put a little bit of weight behind and ask
council to um respond to and or and or vote on um I so I think it's not just a name change. I think it changes the the the nature of how we pitch some of the things that are currently included in the addendum,
which are now just sort of um collections of second like of things that didn't quite um meet a a charter language revision standard that we set for the other recommendations.
So, we're making but if we're calling it additional recommendations, I just want to say let's live up to that. Let's let's take on some of the things that are in uh the addendum and revise them. in the same way that Andy has done this
draft for us to be able to vote on um to include as recommendations that we'd actually like council to take up with an up or down vote. >> So, um just I I have a comment, but I wanted wanted to respond to you, Erica.
Um, with Julian still out, um, are you saying that you want to add to the 18 recommendations to to review the >> No, I do not want to add to the 18 recommendations. Those are things that are fully contained inside of articles to the charter.
>> So, I'm not saying we've already agreed that those things except for the things that we've added tonight were not necessarily changing. What I'm suggesting is that the things that ended up in the addendum were kind of collections of um
other kinds of comments that weren't re weren't didn't rise to necessarily specific revisions of charter articles. >> Yeah. >> But that we heard repeatedly and in different ways that we wanted to represent well what we heard. Um but right now as an addendum it's just like
hey we also heard this by the way and it doesn't have a lot of um it doesn't have a lot of weight behind it to require um or to strongly request that council take some action on them. >> Okay
>> whatever whatever they are. Um and so what I'm suggesting is that if we want to call this section additional recommendations which I'm all for just to be clear. I just think we need a little bit more work that can happen in the next 20 minutes, but I just think it just needs a little bit more work to
make those things into um things that we can actually agree that we're recommending because I don't think we did that piece of work for the things in the currently in the addendum. >> Okay. Um so I'll just make my comment. I don't have any other sort of follow-ups.
Um, so I'm a I'm a marketing guy, so words are important. And I think that that and maybe they're important for everybody here, but um, we're calling the 18 recommendations. Um, I I initially was going to say, well,
why don't we call them suggestions, but that's weak. Um, secondary recommendations. I don't want to I don't want to bring them up to the level of of a recommendation. I know I'm being really picky about this, but I don't want to call them recommendations or I want to qualify them as secondary recommendations or minor recommendations
or something like that. Um because they don't rise to the level of those 18. Um but I I want to bring them up from oh, by the way, these things were said to. So that's my comment. >> Hi, I'm back. Thank you, Ken. Um I
turned my volume up so I could hear what Erica and Ken said. This generated more discussion than I expected, but that is okay. Um, Raphael, then Marcus, then Andy. >> I'm going to follow what Ken shared in terms of suggested or additional recommendations. Could also be
confusing. I I like the subtitle that's here in terms of issues beyond a chartered document. I don't know what we call it, but I think it could be tricky to note additional recommendations. That could be confusing. >> Could I share the document so we can see
what we have now? >> Yep. I'm looking at it now. >> Yeah. >> Go ahead. >> Where is it, >> Marcus? >> Yeah. Thank you. I I I can't we just call it non-charter recommendations,
>> right? >> They're recommendations. They're not in the they're not charter language. They're non-charter recommendations. I think just calling them re additional recommendations does get it confusing. Well, they're charter recommendations. So, this whole thing's a charter
commission. No, we need to bring them up. I agree completely with what Erica was saying. You know, they have strength and we need to do that. Just call them non-charter recommendation or non um just something that just, you know,
makes it clear in the title because I agree that like the um additional recommendations part that we c the subtitle was good, but it's a bit too wordy for the title. I mean honestly could we not just call it issues beyond
the charter document or recommendations beyond the charter document of issues? >> I got the sense people were objecting to recommendations. >> Well, it's qualified though. I mean, no, it wasn't. >> No, it was it was just a broad
recommendations term. If we qualify it like this is outside the charter, >> I I'm totally good with that because I agree with you, Erica. there's a lot of thought into it and these are important items to a lot of people and we're making recommendations. Hey, you should
consider X Y and Zed um and whatever what have you throughout this document. I just think um it just needed that little extra tweak to the qualification to appease Ken and his marketingness. >> Okay. No,
>> no, no need for hostility. Uh Bernie. >> Yeah. Well, um in my u my my managerial or policy wonky sense, I didn't like the term recommendations either. Um because some of these are are not
recommendations. They're observations. Uh look at the structural changes. We we observed that there are some people that want a mayor council form of government. There there are some people that want a return to town meeting. There are some people that want a smaller council. There are some people that want a larger
council. Those aren't recommendations. Those are things that people have talked about and we've observed and we we said we would report them because they're important to at least some folks. So, um I I I think we need to come up with a title that lets the council know that
we've paid attention to a lot of different ideas. Some of these merit ongoing or more immediate attention because they relate to how we're governed in the here and now and not to
whether or not we want to go back to town meeting. Um, you know, I I really I saw our and I made this I thought I made this real clear. I saw our role is not to debate the form of government but to improve what we have in the document.
So, um, you know, I think calling it an addendum does a disservice to all the work that's gone into this and and and into crafting this piece. Um, so I I would um you know issues beyond the charter
document um or challenges beyond the charter document, something like that would be fine by me, but I I I wouldn't I would join with uh with Ken the marketer in in avoiding the term recommendations.
>> Um Marcus, do you still have your hand up for something else? >> I do. Um, I mean, I was just going to clarify. I wasn't saying we would put it exactly as written. Erica had mentioned that maybe we need to reword some things um to make them more recommendation-y.
But, you know, the case is what do you do for a recommendation for this? I do agree it's a bit uh do we say you have to listen to everybody on this sort of stuff? Probably not. So, yeah. I mean, I also take issue with the word issues cuz some of them aren't
issues. Uh, I do like the word challenges. I mean, we could say discussions beyond the charter. Um, but then that kind of just is like me. So, it's a discussion. Uh, I I Yeah, now we're getting into words smmithing like
a million and uh yeah, I'm done. >> Thanks, Marcus. No problem. Um, I have my own comment and then I'll let uh Erica, then Andy, then Raphael. Um, which is I went and asked uh AI and said
give me other words for appendix um that are more forceful, if you will. Addendum. Thank you. Um that are that are more forceful. And I copy pasted the context of this issue. Um, it recommended recommendations outside the
town charter and charter adjacent recommendations as to words that I don't know if anyone likes that. It's just throwing it out there. Erica, >> um, I have such a particular aversion to
what AI comes up with. I'm just gonna like put that aside, but okay, I get it. Um, I was thinking about the comment that Bernie made about um, observations. So, here's the issue. The things that the addendum contains, some of some will
just come down to observations. Some will come down to just we things we observed in the process. You know, it's sort of like from our photo album of the road trip of the charter review uh, year that we also observed. There's a lot of things we took action on and there's a
lot of things that we observed and we're noting those for the record that they that they happened. Um, and then some of the some of the things what I'm suggesting is that need a translation into being actionable. M um then that's a terrible word, but it
is what is what I'm implying is that we're what I'm suggesting here is that some of these things need to be translated into actionable items so that they have a little bit more heft when they're put before council. Um, and I don't know if that's useful language for
a title, but if recommendations is, you know, not something people like, then um, >> can we say recommendations? >> Sorry, >> beyond the ch Can we say recommendations
and observations beyond the charter? I mean, it hits both nails on the head. Bernie's about to say something. So, >> um, Andy, then Raphael, then Marcus. I just want to keep an eye on the time.
>> Yeah. Um, I mean, I I think we have a number of things that are in the form of recommendations and a lot of those are sort of in the public engagement issues. So, make clear the variety of ways residents have for participating, revisit the practice, you know, greater level of detail and
budget documents. And then we have these things that are sort of structural changes that are more things that we heard. They were not necessarily we, you know, they can't change these things through uh through this form, but they're things that are out there in
case other people want to think about, you know, raising them. So it I think that the the language is is if it's a if it can be actionable, I think it's actionable. Now, I'd hate to do an awful lot of wordsmithing on that. So, I'm
just thinking that it's more a matter of getting rid of the word addendum and making it seem like giving this the prominence that it deserves without making it sound like they're exactly like the specific changes that we listed up above. Um,
so maybe it's observations and recommendations beyond the charter document. I mean, I that's doesn't that's a little unwieldy, but it's it's accurate. What about Oh, sorry, Raphael. Go ahead. >> Yeah, I guess some feel like addendum is
problematic. I've heard that. Um, I love your framing language. The framing language that's here. I wish people were would center that. To me, like this part of this report is much about like improving our government. And I don't mind issues. a lot of issues were raised
connected to improving our government beyond a charter document, but I think like um I get the addendum concern, but I think like what matters much is just making folks aware like
these are outside the scope of the charter document and there's a lot in here that hopefully people attend to. >> Thank you. Um Erica. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> Raphael, it's a good point. And and just
to come back to your exact phrasing, it's what I hope people attend to. And it's the hope part that I'm left with a kind of like I don't I think there's language in here in the pros of the of this section that says
these are worthy of an answer. But I don't know without putting something in front of um in front of our main audience, the council to say this is something you could um you could take an take action
on. I'm not sure what will happen. >> Um, and at that point it's out of our hands, but I'm not sure if the committee uh currently, you know, agrees that there's whether there's an opportunity here to
put a little bit more forcefulness behind this request. >> Yeah, I just want to chime in here and then I'll let Marcus and Andy speak. Um, I think in my mind there is some area
where we could increase the the forcefulness of this document, add some teeth to it. Um, just throw out some thoughts I had. How would folks feel about either
recommendations for additional consideration or recommendations for additional consideration and put and or action? So, we say you could act on this, but we're making it more ambiguous
than a very clear recommendation as is said above. Um, I don't know. Maybe that will get us closer to some resolution in the last six, seven minutes of our meeting. Um, but I'll turn it over to Marcus and
then Andy. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, actually, I was going to ping off what Raphael said. I think he had a great turn of phrase. Um, if he remembers it, cuz I'm not quite 100% sure what he said, but it really resonated with me. It was something
around you know this is additional means to improve government. >> Yeah. >> Right. That's exactly what we're trying to do with this whole report and these are um you know whether they're recommendations, observations or whatever it >> it's that
>> I think that's what this section is. it's um additional means to address government improvement or something like that because this structural changes part we're not saying go back to town meeting. We're saying people cuz you know we're calling for this. So
how would you address it? It it's it is a philosophical um part of the report and I think we need to kind of address it as such and it the true the I think the true um outcome that
people are looking for is improvement to government and that is what this de section touches upon that is improvements to government outside of the charter commission and so I think that's where not charter commission outside of the charter. So I think
that's really kind of, you know, that really resonated with me when you said that. So >> yeah, I I actually think we've heard that from a lot of folks and I think there are folks who the charter is difficult to understand. You you heard that often. We
were sort of constrained by the charter document in terms of adaptations, but a lot of the suggestions here are much about like improving our government and there are a lot of issues connected to that that hopefully are attended to.
Andy. >> Yeah, I was going to based before before that comment, I was going to suggest that we just change it to uh additional issues of importance beyond the charter document, but now I'm hearing this and maybe it's additional suggestions for
improving Ammeris government. >> There you go. >> There you go. >> It's exactly it. Yeah. I hope you wrote that down when you said it. Additional suggestions for improving Ammeris government. >> Pat,
>> this is just the editor in me um making just a tweet. What if you um just to how about just beyond the charter improving Amherst government >> or something like that? There you go. >> Putting beyond the charter and then you
know a um an M dash improving Amherst government or improving local government. I I agree. That's well put. >> Um >> I love it. >> Would you pat I don't know mind either
saying that so Andy can write it down on his screen or uh sending me an email with that language. >> I can do both. Um I think you got that Andy. Just beyond the charter dashimproving Amherst government. >> Excellent.
>> Erica, what do you think Erica? >> That sounds good to me. I wrote it down also. Um I had I don't know if we've concluded this or we I had one other issue about the addend addendum former addendum. Um before we close
>> Raphael, did you have a comment? >> I was just going to share like this section definitely has to have some language about beyond a charter otherwise it's tricky. It's been named. Um so I'm fine. >> Thank you. Um yeah, I think that's excellent. Uh,
excellent. Excellent. >> Yeah, I can't retype. I can't retype on this one. It's a PDF. >> That's okay. That's okay. >> On the word document, >> Pat, if you want to send me an email, that's excellent. Um, I >> think we have it. >> Okay, perfect. Great. Um, then I guess
that that solves that. Do we want um It's in writing anyway, so I don't think we need to take a vote unless people feel strongly. Um, other Erica, you had one more point. >> Yeah, I just had one more thing to say
about this section. Um, if you all recall when I when I spoke up about the addendum last time, we talked about how there was an two additional sections. One was some language around what we hope to see in a
council response and one was uh a kind of review of the review process which is our feedback as committee members to council about what this process was like, what worked, what didn't, and how to better set up the next charter review
committee. Um so revisions to the beyond the charter section. um and revisions to the existing beyond the charter section and the addition of those two is work that I'm
uh I agreed to contribute to the final report. Um it would be great to have someone willing to act as an as an editor or co-editor to like bring that to the finish line um before the 29th. And the other thing I wanted to say is
aside from someone raising their hand to be a co-editor, the part about reviewing our process and what we think we'd like to say to the next committee um or before the formation of the next committee. I would like to ask everyone
to consider that question and send an email of what what how this process could be framed better and set up differently for the next group of nine that gets going on this in 10 years. Um
and h and so that now's the time right to send comments to put into this section. So, if you could send that, I can form it into um part of this last word. >> I'll send you one suggestion, Erica.
>> Um which is do not elect me or another busy college student. Um Erica and then Bernie. >> You mean >> Andy, sorry. Um um let's see.
Eric, I was going to suggest if you want could you send us what what what you had drafted or what had been drafted before so that we we could see that and then we can add to it. >> Yep. >> And then while I'm recognized um I have
the word document that's formatted so that you know we get landscape where we want landscape and portrait where we want portrait. So that might be the document that should be edited into and then we can turn it into a PDF. Um,
you know, and then it'll be it it'll look good for everybody. So I don't know how we want to deal with that. I I can be the the one making the edits or I can send the word document out to and and Erica, you can use that for whatever you want to do in the addendum. >> That would be good.
>> I can throw in whatever we put whatever we said tonight and then distribute that. I'll put together whatever you do with the addendum and then send it to everybody. Is that makes sense as a way to proceed? >> Yeah. >> You send you send me a word document. >> Yeah.
>> And then I send you language to put back in. >> Okay. >> Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah. Or send me an edit you or edit your part of it and then I'll just take that. So >> Okay. >> And I just got your email so thank you Pat. Um
Bernie and then Marcus. Yeah. Um, I was going to ask if Andy, because you have the word document, if you could add the changes that we made tonight to that recommendation matrix
and I'll make sure that you get the you get data on the votes if you want to include the votes in that thing. Um, and once you've made that those changes, I can take a look at them and rewrite the intro the introduction the introductory
narrative. Um, if we've added Did we added Did we end up adding a a recommendation or two? I don't we we started with 18. I don't Are we still at 18? So, if you can rewrite that matrix, u we can get a better handle on it. And then I'll, you know, I'll try to
complete the uh and and Marcus will chip in, I'm sure, uh complete the introductory narrative and um that can get added to the to the mix. >> We're just for clarification, we're at
23 recommendations now. Um, and I Raphael. Yep. >> Yeah. Since we're closing, could we be clear about who's doing what and I I I don't know if we talked about like the
additional rationale writing for the final report. Um, I don't know if we're doing that colle I don't know where we are with that. >> Yeah. I just wanted to share two things. First is unrelated that I think for our
first presentation to the town council on the uh on the 5th. Uh we can sort of just amend the two slideshows that we have made um and use those for that presentation and if we need to one or two of us can get together and create
another presentation for the meeting on the 12th. And then I also just wanted to highlight, I know it wasn't in the packet, that Pat was nice enough to write up a sort of um one pager on what the Collins Center did for us and that
that will be included in the final report, both to recognize and thank them for their contributions and also to sort of make it clear what the town council got when it voted to approve that $15,000.
Um, >> Raphael and then Andy. >> Yes. So, could we move to primary writers of the final report? People adding >> rationale focus. Um, there's some additional narrative needed to be added to the beginning. Where are we with
who's handling that? Do those folks need an editor? Erica asked about an could we be clear about who's doing what? >> Yeah, thank you. Um, Andy, >> um, I'm willing to add the rationale that we that that are in the slides for, you
know, the draft ration. And I'm willing to add what we voted tonight into the chart and to the summary list. And then I can send that out. I I don't know if I can do it tomorrow, though. I could probably do it Saturday or some sometime this weekend. I can send that out. I can
send out what we have now so that Erica can work on the addendum part or the formerly artist formerly known as the addendum and then I as soon as possible I can get the changes in and the rationale in and then I'll send that out to you know and then you know Bernie I
guess you can work from that or or whatever. Yep. >> We have a narrative. I'm happy to help with formatting once I get that, Andy. Just to put it all where it needs to be, try to make it look a little bit better, combine the narrative with
with the rationale, so on and so forth. >> Yeah. And Raphael, if you um you know, as we go, and I'm I'm including Marcus in this, if we as we redo that narrative, be happy to send it off to you for you to make it better.
>> Yeah, I was going to say I can do some proof reading, too, but Raphael's probably better at that than I am. >> I don't know. >> Well, we know that Raphael We know that Raphael is published, right? >> Right. Oh, good.
>> He's also he's also I don't know if you trained as historian. I did. >> I wouldn't let anybody hold that against historians. The fact that I trained him, but but you know I that that being able to to do narrative is is something that
uh should come with the profession. >> I think we're close. Who Who's helping Erica with the editing of that section? I don't know if folks volunteered. I Yeah, I was gonna ask just for clarification from Erica what she's asking for
for the editing. >> I was asking two things. One is for input on the last two sections, which I will send you what I've got drafted. That's for everybody. >> Um that's a request for input for those sections. So, it's not just me writing
something. Um and for a kind of revision of the beyond the charter section. um if there's a way to translate some of those things into some stronger language that can be uh interpreted as
um a call to action or an actionable item uh as opposed to um some of the some of those bullet points look read more like observations currently. So, I'm suggesting that every section needs
touched, but >> I want to do it. >> Ken, thank you. I was I was about to say Meg's interested in the agenda. We already have Ken. So, thank you, Ken. Um, >> thanks, Ken. >> All right. So, at our next meeting, we will, it appears, given the amount of
people who are willing to work on this, have a draft final report for us to approve. And um at that time we can also look at the slideshow to present to the town council and that'll be a wrap. So
>> Erica, >> last question. Does has that meeting on the 29th been approved by Athena? >> Athena will post it. Yep. >> Okay. >> Um I emailed her. She said that that's fine. Uh, I'll get her, it's on the
29th, so I'm going to see I'll get her the meeting the weekend after or the weekend of the 27th. I'll get her that agenda um by the 26th so it can be posted.
>> Marcus, >> yes, thank you. I may be calling in from America Junior. >> So, um, I may or may not, I should say. Yeah, >> no problem. Great. All right. Um I will >> I would check with uh Athena about when
she can post it because I think town hall is closed on the 26th. >> Oh, good point. Um then I will send it because uh I'll send it by the 23rd. Um >> yeah, >> that will give her time and not
interrupt the holidays. Yep, I'll post it on the 23rd. Thanks for catching that. Okay, excellent. Do I have a motion? >> This is quick. Julian, um before we end,
thank you to Pat Colin Center. We might forget. Thank you all. Um it's a lot of work involved in this. Um we're almost there. Good work. >> Yeah. And I know this is Pat's last meeting, so thank you for all your contributions. And thank Anthony.
>> Yep. been really helpful to have your insight, Pat. >> Yeah, Pat, it's it's certainly appreciated and um I've had some small history with the Collins Center and seen some of the work that you folks have done and it's a very valuable resource.
So, um it it's it's greatly appreciated. >> You're here. >> Yeah, I agree. >> It's been a pleasure and you've been a tremendous committee. Um it's it's really a joy to work with. So, if you need anything else, please let us know.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. And thanks for sending that email, Andy. I just got it. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thanks, college student chair. >> Um, okay. Do I have a motion to adjurnn?
>> So moved. >> Great. Um, second. >> Uh, Bernie, >> I. Marcus. >> Hi. >> Uh, Ken. >> Hi. >> Um, Erica. >> Hi.
>> Andy. >> Hi. >> Myself. I'm an I. And Raphael. >> Yes. Let's get out of here. >> Bye, folks. >> Bye. Thank you. on spat.