Good afternoon everyone. Today is Wednesday, April 8th, 2026 at 3 p.m. I don't know why I read that part. Um the beeping. Are we recording? >> Yes. Okay, good. >> All right. All right. So, I want to call everyone
to order. Um and my goodness, it's been a while since we've been together, so I've forgotten how to do this. Okay. Going to do the roll call. All right. For air, I'm here. Robert Preandriand is here. Rachel Freedellander is here.
>> Harvard. Susan Mary, >> I am here. Victor is expected, but >> Okay. And Don, is she do we know if she's coming? >> I don't know if Don is going to be here. >> Okay. Um Brian Sawyer for Shirley. >> Okay. Logan Breeze. Shirley
>> here. >> And Brian Hildebrandt not present. Okay. For the Devon's group, we have John Kedar >> here. >> There you are. Uh Jim Geller I saw in the audience. Uh Odal Smith not here. There's Victor.
Uh Kristen Cullen, I don't see her. Oh, wait a minute. Am I missing? Okay. Nope. And Ryan McDev. I see you. Okay, great. Uh for the deck, we have Neil Angus >> here. >> And William Marshall >> here. >> And for mass development, we have Mr.
Michael Sweeney, which we will get into in a few minutes. All right. Thank you very much. All right. So, first up, we have the approval of the meeting minutes from 14 January 2026. >> Uh, I have one chair, one correction. >> Okay. >> Um, unless I was totally off base that
says the meeting was called to order at 2 p.m. I think we met at 3 p.m. >> I do think we met at 3 p.m. >> at 3 p.m. So, we will make that change. Typo. Yep. >> Yep. Other than that, they looked fine to me. >> Okay. All right. So, just before we get up to
shareholder update, I just want to say that we do have a couple of people who need to uh depart us a little bit early today. So, and or have a hard stop at 4. So, let's try to stay on point as best as possible. That's just simply a request. Neil, I know you have to leave a little early.
>> I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. Do we need a >> Did we have a motion and second for the minutes? >> We did not because we edited. I'm I'm like everybody's like, you know, I got to go and I lost it. Okay. >> Move to approve the minutes of January 14th as amended.
>> I'll second. >> All those in favor? >> Okay. >> All right. And the chair says I those meeting minutes are approved. Thank you very much, Ne. All right. And I'm going to take a breath and slow down a second. Okay. So, we're going to have shareholder update for the town of Air.
Um, what date was it that we It was Friday. Two weeks ago. Yeah. Two Fridays ago, um Ray put together a tour uh and had the leadership of mass development here where we did a tour of the future
site of the air senior center which will ena which will cause the fence the gate over on McFersonson Bishop Road to have to be moved in the future. We also did a tour on West uh yeah West Main Street AC
near Shop and Save as to the future site of affordable housing. We also went over to the now defunct hospital where uh Chief Johnson uh kind of gave them an update as to what was going on.
We then went over Am I missing one? No. No. We then from there we went over to Katana Oil >> and we had a nice tour of the building. >> Um really impressive place there. And a couple weeks prior to that she had had
us uh have a some of us in air have a tour of Noya uh the tofu plant which was really really so cool. So and it's the largest tofu plant in the US >> right here in air. So that's quite nice. >> Um so it was great. This was, you know,
great having mass development there kind of do a meet and greet and everything and had a brief conversation of could you please come back. So, I'm pleased to see that uh Mr. Michael Sweeney, who is the
new um deputy director, I hope I said your title right. I think I messed it up, but I didn't write it down. My apologies. He'll introduce himself. uh you know >> feel good >> and uh and he'll give us you know any
update if he has any. This is his first meeting with us so he and I don't think he's going to be able to stay the whole hour. Um and so he might be in a little bit more of an observant role so you know don't hit him with everything but we are extremely pleased to have him
here. Um so Robert do you have anything to add? I think you covered our air update. I don't know if Ray has anything. >> Yeah. Very good. >> All right. Harvard. >> Sure. Uh the Harvard Devon Committee has
met several times uh since our last meeting. I think we're still processing uh the public meeting that we had on Devon. So, uh nothing significant to report to this committee at this time. >> All right.
Shirley. >> Uh, we do not have any significant updates. >> Okay. >> Deons residents. >> Sure. Thank you. I'll be cognizant of your need to leave early in Michael Sweeny's time. Um, but the constituents of Devon did want me to communicate a few things. Um, good afternoon, Madame
Chair, fellow DGFC members and attendees. As you know, I'm John Cater, Devon's residence representative. Uh, a few updates from Devons to share. We've been pleased at the increased attendance at community meetings dealing with topics affecting residents
including disposition, housing on Devons, taxation, and most recently education. Strong attendance and participation are a good sign that a community is interested and engaged. Recent elections for both the Devon's committee and the Devon's Educational
Advisory Committee have resulted in the addition of a considerable number of new residents raising their hands to volunteer to ensure their neighborhoods and neighbors are heard and their concerns are addressed. We do anticipate a significant increase in population over the next few years
given the lifting of the housing cap and the housing RFP responses that are currently being evaluated for new construction. We look forward to welcoming new families from every walk of life to the community we call Devans. It is critical that we incorporate the
wishes of future residents into any planning we do on the future of Devons. Over the past year, as you know, Devon's residents participated in developing and discussing the 19 matrix topics if Devons were to become a town, which was
our assigned task in one of the four identified options. At the last DGFC meeting, we agreed to discuss common ground on three of those topics at today's meeting. Since that time, much has transpired that has caused numerous residents to
question the value of this exercise. Among them is the persistent call for the acceleration of a decision on disposition. Additionally, the laser-like focus by some parties on the goal of resuming local jurisdiction versus the four possible scenarios agreed to by this
committee is extremely concerning and not aligned. These continued divergent issues have made our participation in this exercise no longer appropriate. We are committed to participating in this committee's work as it was identified in the
formation of this DGFC and hope these issues will come into greater focus for resolution in the near term. Madame uh chair person, I'll I'll put this out there and we can push the time if you want to. Based on this, I would like to make a motion that the DGFC discontinue
any further discussion regarding accelerated jurisdiction or sole focus on the town's resuming local jurisdiction until the consultant is hired to begin the chapter 498 study and all DGFC members are aligned to proceed together. >> I'm going to second the motion so that
we can discuss it. >> So, it's been seconded and now it's open for discussion. >> Could you please reread the motion? >> Sure. I would like to make a motion that the DGFC discontinue any further discussion regarding accelerated jurisdiction or
sole focus on the town's resuming local jurisdiction until the consultant is hired to begin the chapter 498 study and all DGFC members are aligned in to proceed together. >> You're going to send us a copy of that written motion. Thank you.
>> Okay. All right. Right. So, does anybody have any comments or questions? >> Madam Chair? >> Yes. >> I might um propose I know the motion has been made and seconded is on the table and where there are some time
constraints and we're in the shareholder update. If there was an objection, maybe just finish with the last of the shareholder um updates and then um we could take that up >> if the gentleman is okay with that. >> Sure. >> Okay. Then that's that's what we'll do.
Okay. Um so you're you're done for the moment. >> Okay. So we're going to move to the deck. >> Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Uh we too uh had the uh pleasure of uh meeting Michael Sweeney as well. He came to our
last deck meeting uh evening meeting and uh um gave a little overview of his uh his experience and his role with mass development. So we were greatly appreciative of Michael taking the time uh to come and uh meet our commissioners
and the general public in Devons. Uh, a couple other items that I wanted to just bring to everyone's attention. Um, we have an upcoming Earth Day uh, open streets event. This is our fifth annual one where we close down McFersonson and Bishop Road uh, and allow people to
walk, bike, roll, and enjoy that beautiful corridor on the Nashville River without speeding cars flying by. Uh, this is in partnership with the town of Air and the US Fish and Wildlife uh, Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge folks. So, just wanted to uh mention that to
folks and I'll leave a few Earth Day flyers here for uh anyone who would like to take them. Anyone who needs any more information, feel free to contact myself or my environmental planner, Beth Sudmire. And uh also uh we have an upcoming Devon's
uh farmers market. Again, uh this is our seventh or eighth year doing this market, partnering with Dicks Market Garden in Lunenburgg. Um, so bringing lo local fresh produce to the Devon's region. Um, markets are starting in June and we'll run through October every
other week. So I've got some flyers here as well for that too to um, leave with folks who anyone who's interested. All this is posted on our website as well too, but uh, those are new events, so I wanted to make sure everyone's aware of them. Also, we are still working with
um, the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Program in Massachusetts. We uh received a a grant uh last year to continue our uh climate change and resiliency work. Uh this is MVP 2.0 0 process which is uh community engagement
uh on you know um reaching out to more folks in Devons and the surrounding region on u on you know equity uh and uh making sure that we have services and availability and that we hear from the folks that are you know less the more
vulnerable populations. So it's a big engagement process that we're we're undertaking and and starting right now. Uh so we'll be reaching out to number of residents uh regional organizations and businesses uh to learn more about what their uh social concerns are for the
region and how we can help you know in the face of a changing climate. So um we have a a survey currently open and would invite everybody and anybody who's interested to take a look and respond. Uh we want to hear from everybody to get their feedback.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll take post them in the Harvard town hall. >> All right. >> And I can email them to folks, too. >> And now, next up, I would like to introduce to everyone who is going to give us a little bit better of an intro introduction since I've messed up his
title. Uh, Mr. Michael Sweeney from Mass Development. >> PDF. >> Yeah, that's right. >> I've got you. >> Uh, thank you. How would you like me to proceed? Would you like me to give a little bit of my background or >> whatever you want to do? We're just
happy to have you here. >> Uh great. Thank you. Uh first of all, I appreciate the invite to uh come to the meeting and as uh chairwoman said uh mostly today I'm here to introduce myself, let you know that I'm here uh and to observe for a little while. Uh as
uh Neil mentioned, I have had the opportunity to start meeting uh with some individuals and some of the other agencies and groups. Uh we had a great tour uh of air uh very recently and that was really great to get my feet on the
ground there and to uh see some of the uh dynamic projects that they've got underway and the vitality of the downtown there. and I'm looking forward to doing uh similar uh outreach and tours with uh some of the other communities immediately adjacent to us
obviously. Um by way of background uh my educational training is as an attorney. Um I had a small law practice uh for a number of years as a small business. I've also served in government for fairly extensive period of time. I have
a background as both uh an elected official at the city level and also as a school committee member. So I'm certainly I have a lot of familiarity with the uh pains and challenges that cities and towns face uh both on the
school side and the municipality side as I'm sure many of you are familiar with. those uh challenges uh varied, often have a great deal of urgency, and usually cost a lot of money. So, we're all through the years always trying to
free our ways of uh dealing with all of those and addressing it and serving the public and the taxpayer as best we can. Um, I've been an attorney at the office of state treasurers for a number of years, including being their deputy
general counsel. and I worked on everything from uh issues related to the state retirement board uh including either prosecuting hearings or serving as a hearing officer
on cases where individuals uh violated serious matters related to retirement law such as they potentially broke uh you know committed criminal acts in the course of their official duties uh and things of of that nature. Uh but
I've also served on uh small business committees for the state treasurer's office and dealt with a a wide range of legal matters including being their liaison to uh the attorney general's office and working on some class action
matters that the attorney general's office represented uh the commonwealth of Massachusetts on that the state treasurer's office uh was also uh involved with uh at some point I was asked to go down to the
Massachusetts state lottery which comes under the umbrella of the state treasurer's office as the uh interim director and after about 6 months in that role. Um they asked me to become the executive
director at the Massachusetts State Lottery which um I served in that role for seven years. Uh we did a number of major projects including switching out uh all the machinery that some of you may be familiar with at the over 7,500
retail businesses that we interact with across the Commonwealth. I'm sure many of you are probably familiar with what used to be very large old big blue machines that used to uh sit on the counters probably next to the cash register at most convenience stores.
uh all of those were replaced during my time. They uh long since out used it out used their uh usefulness and also had technological uh limitations. Um they were really from the 1980s at the time. And uh we also
built out a brand new uh transfer to a brand new data center and also we built out a brand new uh backup data center. uh technology behind any state lottery is extremely complicated as I'm sure you
can imagine. Uh it has to be right uh 100% of the time, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Uh we also moved the lottery headquarters for the first time in 20 years over 20 years as
well as a couple of regional offices and I sort of changed the uh character and uh structure of those offices to be much more public friendly and receptive to the public uh than they had been previously. And we were fortunate we
were able to do all those projects on time uh on budget uh and without missing any operating time. Uh which is critically important because again that's revenue that's produced that goes back to uh all the cities and towns such as the ones that
you represent uh each year as part of the uh fiscal management of the Commonwealth. Um, as part of my duties there, I was actually recruited by uh, I guess what I would call a midsized law firm uh, in Worcester. They knew that they were
probably going to be in the process of moving their headquarters for the first time in about 20 years and also a regional office and they were also doing some technology upgrades. Uh, and they asked me to come over for that time period to uh, work on those
projects which we did. We did end up moving the headquarters and uh by building uh a very unified team uh we had the same level of success. We were able to move the headquarters without messing uh a full day of business
operations. We closed on a Friday afternoon and we were able to complete the move and have uh the law firm up and running again uh on Monday morning uh including computer and phone systems. And we were also able to accomplish the same thing
with uh one of their regional offices that were also located in in central Mass. Uh from there, most recently, I was recruited to take over a nonprofit in Boston that originally uh many decades ago had
originally been created to help people who were uh age 50 or over to either stay in or reintegrate back into the workforce, particularly around training and development, uh getting up to speed on technology issues. And through the
years that mission actually was expanded to essentially include any adult over the age of 18 uh who needed to uh reintegrate into the workforce and who met certain financial requirements or economic conditions
um and that was a a great position and you know unfortunately uh I would say when I arrived there probably about 85 or 90% of their funding came from the federal government and as maybe Many of you are aware uh there's been sort of a change in
philosophy at the federal government uh recently and that funding was uh no longer available. I'll put it that way. Uh so unfortunately that nonprofit had to begin the process of winding itself down.
uh as did uh numerous other nonprofits across the country that were working on uh similar issues uh literally from California to Texas to Georgia uh to Massachusetts and Maine. So it had a a
very widespread economic impact uh at the time uh which eventually uh led me to the position here at Devons. When I saw the job description, quite honestly, it uh really seemed to match up with a lot of my professional background as
well as my professional interests. Uh which again, as you may have gathered, range everywhere from uh private business to nonprofits and certainly to the government side as well as the uh issues of emerging technology and
housing development. Uh I failed to mention and that just reminded me I did serve for four years as the uh planning director for the city of Lawrence. And so in some ways similar to Neil uh I had all the usual boards
that all of you are familiar with in your own cities and towns uh came under my domain if you will. uh everything from the planning board to uh zoning board, environmental board, uh historic board and uh we had a really good team
and uh Lawrence which is also where I grew up uh has its own many challenges. It can be a very difficult environment for uh a number of reasons. And uh we were able to do a a lot of changes that were very productive both on a housing
front uh general infrastructure and also business development uh during the time that I was there which uh unfortunately also uh coincided with the great uh financial recession around that 2008 2010 time period. Uh
but despite that, we were still able to uh make a lot of progress particularly around issues concerning uh vacant lots that the city owned uh and still being able to keep andor draw in new businesses into the mills that we uh had
plenty of square footage space in uh in the city of Lawrence. So uh that's kind of a semiquick uh snapshot of of my background. Uh, I've been here at Devon's now uh just about a month, actually, almost a month.
And um as Janice and and Neil and I mentioned earlier, um getting my feet wet, trying to absorb as much information as possible and at least doing uh trying to do a surface level uh touch of the various uh boards and
groups and advisory committees that are working in conjunction with issues uh related to Devons and mass development. and uh thus my appearance today and I'm certainly uh looking forward to meeting all of you individually but also uh coming back to
your future meetings and hoping uh to be able to add u more productivity from what I can bring to the table than than perhaps what I can do today. So that that's uh kind of my take anyways. >> All right. Well, thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay. Well, Neil, do you have to go or >> I do. >> Okay. Do can you do you have are you on the housing working group? >> Uh I was part of it. Yes. Uh you're looking for an update on the housing. I
don't know if you have time to give some of one or >> um I don't know if Michael uh has any updates from a mass development side of things, but >> do you happen to have a a a housing update uh from the working group, Michael?
>> Uh I don't know if it's directly on point or not. Um, you know, I know the the main housing thing that I've been recently pulled into, um, which I I think all of you, this may already be old news or not, but I'll I'll share what I know. Um, you know, there were
RFPs issued for, uh, housing development grant road in Adam Circle. Um, we did receive what would appear to be uh robust and qualified
responses for uh both of those RFPs. And I know that the internal team here at mass development is in now in the process of reviewing those um to try to make determinations as to
uh which one should be further pursued for additional uh discussions. So I I would estimate that that process is maybe 25 to 50% of the way through its process mechanism. uh depending on your
point of view as to when the start line was. Uh but again, they did receive responses on both areas. Um at face value it appeared that many of them were very on point and well qualified and that the team has begun
the process of actively reviewing each of them and is moving forward in the process of I assume the next step would be to narrow down the numbers of of the responses and uh
engage each submission holder with probably additional questions uh related to whatever package they submitted. >> Right. Thank you. Yes. >> So that that was, you know, additional updates on the housing situation in
Devons. In terms of the working group and the four recommendations from uh from that working group report, Mass Development is still uh currently finalizing the existing conditions plans for Vixsburg Square and the existing
buildings, the BOQS. Um they're still finalizing that. They are still finalizing the parking analysis as well. And uh they have I think I've mentioned this before, but they've hired a consultant to assist with the community engagement piece um which was another
recommendation uh leading be prior to or the leadup to Supertown meeting for any potential zone change for Vixsburg Square or the ITC district. And the last piece is the regional school needs assessment which Robert may have an update on.
>> Yes, Madam Chair, just briefly, we are finally getting the band back together. One of the delays and dealing with the the schools, not entirely, but uh with budget season and so forth. So, we are going to be um meeting we have representatives from all of the
stakeholders including the um superintendent. And our target is that when this group reconvenes on July 8th, we should at least have some some preliminary information. Anybody have any questions?
Okay. >> All right, then. So, we will go on to the next one. >> I don't have to run. >> Yeah, we'll we'll we've got your stuff in the packet, so we'll pursue it. >> Great. I'm assuming Bill Marshall will be able to speak. >> Bill Marshall will is still here and I will I will call in where I can stay
where I have hands. Sorry to have to leave early. >> Nope. Thank you for being here. >> Thanks. >> All right. So, next up for the old business, we have the matrix update. We had all uh decided that we would, you know, kind of do a comparison
uh of the uh administration, open space, and social services. Within the packet, you'll see that there was a a submission from the deck and a submission from the town of air. So, I'm not sure what went wrong with Harvard and Shirley as to why we didn't
have a submission. Um, so the first question I'm going to ask is, is this working? I know for the Devon's residents, you know, it's a whole different scenario because they don't necessarily have, you know, similarities and whatnot. Um, so
is this is this something a good benchmark to be working on? >> You're going to have to speak >> through the chair. I think yes, it is. And apologies from the town of Harvard. We uh I did not uh clearly understand
the assignment. I wasn't sure didn't register to me that we ought to be submitting something in in writing. We did discuss uh the three items at our meetings. Uh and I have a few comments to make uh during this meeting as we
discuss them. Uh and in the future we if we continue to do this we will have a written submission every month every meeting. Okay. Um, so yeah. So I think for right now, um, I mean, I don't even know really what to
discuss as far as on, you know, we'll go through like what air submitted. What am I using? I can use this just to kind of give you an idea as to what we come up with and then we can figure out, you know, is that the way we
want to do it. We'll we'll go through air first, not um not the decks. Is this is this the right way to do it? What's working? What's not working? Okay. So, what we did in the town of Aries, we found the similarities or common
grounded differences between all the entities. Okay. Um, so obviously, you know, we're not going to have any change administrationwise as far as what we had originally wrote because we're just going to continue the same administration
we have. Okay. Um, now one of the things and we've kind of touched on it you know in a in a select board meeting as far as uh you know creating expedited permitting and everything and we're still looking into that for the town of air because we do
think that that's a great thing that the deck does. So you know that is something that we're looking into um seeing if we can do. Okay. Um surely from what we could see, you know, maybe you'd have to hire more staff. Uh
you know, and and Harvard the same thing. Um you know, there might not be any administrative offer, but you might have to hire an assistant town administrator because I know you're you're well, you were it and now you're like the temp, but so you know, so but there's got to be two of you.
So we'll just go with the two of you. Now, in regards to Devons, um obviously, you know, their desire is to be a new town. And so, we've kind of listed out some of the things that, you know, they
would have to do as far as, you know, um making agreements with other towns and things like that. Um pretty much the same thing under open space and recreation and what was the other one? >> Social. >> Social services. um we all kind of partner with each
other. Devon's already has some agreements, you know, within um Devon, within air or, you know, even harbor everything. We all kind of, you know, have some MOAs and whatnot. And I suspect that for some of those things, regardless of what happens, some of
that'll still exist because it's the best way to pull resources. Okay. Um so, it's kind of I mean, I've summed up ours, right? Yeah. >> Okay. >> Now on the on the deck um it pretty much
would be kind of obviously like for the uh what the deck has written is um administration areas of agreement would be need for a detailed transition plan which I think we all can agree would have to happen.
>> Okay. Um, and while not consistent in all scenario responses in each scenario, we have all discussed the importance of maintaining a unified permitting agency, which I think we all agree is a great thing and I don't think that that should ever be lost. You know, um,
administration wise, there would have to be a form of government, some fundings, um, you know, continuing with some of the, uh, maintaining and managing existing open space areas and recreational fields. um ownership transfer of open space
depending on you know what the decision is done. So um I don't know if Bill wants to add on uh to anything. >> No. No.
>> Okay. Um, so is this what we were looking for? >> Yes. >> Sorry. >> I was able was able to join remotely. So, uh, just, um, you know, budget
impacts was a was a a common challenge that I think everybody identified for, you know, open space and recreation, administration, um, and, uh, and social services as
well, too. >> Okay. >> All right. So is so I guess my next question is is this what we're talking about as far as you know doing a deeper dive into each of the matrix questions. >> Well I'm the one who suggested it I so it it does I think it's great it's
bringing about the areas where there is common ground and there uh the areas where there would need to be things worked through. So I think it's useful >> um depending on the direction that we take as of today's discussion. So >> right, great
madam chair. Yeah, I I think that it is a beneficial exercise and I would propose at at this point in preparation for the July 8th meeting that we all look at three more the education, police and fire which is on the agenda and
respectfully folks that didn't submit something in writing if they would consider that for those three and maybe these previous um three and that would be helpful. And then on the ETH we'll have a total of six sets, six matrix items to look at similarities.
>> Okay. So, I just want to point out too that, you know, if you happen to get done your submission and you want to send it to me early, that's okay. I'll just save it. Um, you know, that way that's one less thing off your plate. Okay.
All right. So any other questions on this? >> Madame chair, I just have one com additional comment. >> Yes. >> Um, you know, in in reviewing this, I did find it a useful exercise. I did
find it difficult to find a lot of common ground between each of the scenarios because they are so different. Mhm. >> But that that being said, there was certain areas of common interest and common challenges as well. But I think
in you know, as we go forward with this, you know, if we as it sounds like we're choosing to go forward with it, um, in reviewing and comparing these scenarios, um, I think it's important for people to really look at the regional structure
and the regional nature of Devons. um in any development scenario that should not I don't think that should go away. It the regional development of Devons has been key to its successful development. So I think you know we need to take a broader look and not just you know oh
it's going to revert back to a community and we're going to be in our own silo and we're going to deal with it. I think that regional nature needs needs to you know be melded throughout the reviews. Um, it's also important to consider the
unique structure of Devons. We are, you know, the opposite of a lot of communities where we're like 95% industrial, commercial, and 5% residential roughly. Um, so that that unique makeup of Devon's is uh is something that needs to be considered as
we move forward as well. >> Okay. Thank you. I agree. I thank you. Thank you for that uh for those points. Anyone have any questions? Okay. All right, then. So, we're going to put this one to bed. So, we'll go back to
the new business. And we had a motion on the table. >> Okay. So, >> Madam Chair, >> yes. >> Um, would the gentleman mind just restating the motion that has been made and seconded? um a motion that the Devon's
jurisdiction framework committee discontinue any future discussion regarding accelerated jurisdiction or sole focus on the town's resuming local jurisdiction under the consult until the consultant is hired to begin the chapter 498 study and all DGFC members are
aligned to proceed together. Okay, >> Madam Chair. >> Yes, >> John. Seeing that the motion is coming from your or your constituency, would you be willing to offer a little background?
>> Sure. On that. Um so the the concern two concerns. >> Mhm. >> One is that um a hyperfocus on resumption of town
boundaries by the uh by the towns in to the exclusion of the three options we all agreed to. It just they they the chatter is that we're not going to talk about Dennis becoming a town. um you know uh that there's a real focus on
resuming town boundaries and as opposed to and understandable as opposed to dealing with the four options that we discussed and agreed to when we submitted the RFI in no order resumption of town boundaries a hybrid status quo
um or Devon becomes a town all four of those and it just the residents feel that over the course of the last year they've been slowly chipped Um and the and the second is the acceleration as we can see from one of the topics here the acceleration of a
discussion on jurisdiction or not a discussion but a decision on jurisdiction right obviously we can discuss jurisdiction and all this that's what we're doing right now but the concern is a a real effort to
accelerate jurisdiction to the exclusion of what the Devon's residents were thinking about. Now, the towns can do whatever they want. You want to petition your legislators, do it. But as the charter is written for the Devon's jurisdiction framework committee, it's inappropriate for to be
talking here about accelerating jurisdiction. That's what the residents do. Does that have some clarity? >> Mhm. I appreciate that. >> Yes. So um John so related to that um I think
that the issue we've all worked so well together um and Harvard and perhaps Victor you can correct me I uh many of us read the Harvard press uh beyond the town of Harvard and um there was a
recent article that indicated that the issue of um Devons being its own town in status quo was off the table. Now, I don't know if that was in the context of your Harvard group, but I think we can
respectfully agree, unless I missed a meeting, and I did miss one a while ago, that the Devon, this framework committee has taken no uh position on any of those options. Um, and there may be others,
you know, for that for that study. So, I don't know if there's a misunderstanding um there or something that was reported that concerns your your folks. Um but I don't see being from my point, I don't remember at any time that we've taken an
official position, nor should we at this time to um rule out any option because we haven't gotten to that that point yet. But I know that was reported, Victor, from Harvard. Does Harvard have a a different opinion on that? No, I I threw the chair up.
>> Yeah, >> I think it that may have been mentioned at a Harvard Devons meeting or it may have been mentioned somewhere in town, but it's not a official position of the Harvard Devons committee or the town of Harvard. So, I can't control what
someone may how someone may respond to a question, but that's not the official position of the town of Harvard or the Harvard Devon's jurisdiction committee. If if I may, we observe your meetings and we listen to your meetings and we
have a contrary opinion. >> So speaking just as one of the three representatives from air and a lifelong member of this group definition of lifelong to be determined, but it has never been and I think Janice and Ray
would agree with me. They don't the the town of air has everything on the table, all of the options. Just to stress that and I think as and I think it's important for you to convey that to your constituency. We've always viewed this as a collaborative approach. Um we have
no preconceived notion or decision yet because the work has yet to happen meaning the analysis and the study and it should be done by a third party entity. There's no question that everybody, myself included, may have opinions and so forth, but that process
needs to happen. So, I just want to stress um publicly to your folks speaking as one of the air representatives that it's not heir's position, the reps here or the town of air, selectman Livingston is the chair of the select board as well in air. our
position. We have not come to any decision on status quo town disposition or so forth at this point because we need to do that study. >> The second issue if I may through the
chair that came up is this issue of accelerating the the timeline. Um I think that's also coming um from Harvard uh as well. um and we have not discussed that to my knowledge in depth at the
framework committee level to accelerate um the timeline. So um I have I'll let others speak. I have some uh fundamental uh concerns on the idea of acceleration
and in fact I I don't support accelerating it. Um and the reason being is that this is a long process and it is a it's the the hallmark of what quoted to democracy often is a long painful
times messy um process. That being said though it's been since 2019 a tribute to everybody around this table and everybody has stuck with it including through a pandemic. So for yes it's been 7 years and many will say it's moving
too slow. We're not making any progress. Mass development hasn't been at the table. But we continue in a collaborative framework and the spirit to to move forward to accelerate that as I understand it that has been proposed
would require a a legislative amendment to change the dates of chapter 498. So the first question is you'd have to convince and I'm not going to speak for them our legislative delegation which is
three members of is 140 reps and 40 senators so 180 people and even if we extended it regionally to say the 17 towns of the Nishoba Valley is just a fraction of the legislature. We'd have to get them to propose assuming they
would um an amendment. That amendment would have to go through the legislative process. If you want to talk about long, painful, and convoluted, it would have to pass the House. It would have to pass the Senate. And the governor, and this governor, who will most likely be
reelected, would have to sign it. And all her board is the mass development board is appointed by the governor. I think that this the odds of this happening uh very slim. I also am
concerned of the what that would create in terms of relations moving forward on all levels and what do we gain by acceleration when we have yet to actually have the consultant and the study. So I appreciate everybody hearing
that. I know it was a little long there, but um I would not um I would not be in support of acceleration and I would not be in support of taking anything off the table unless this body deliberates it
and decides otherwise. Madam Chair, thank you. >> Anybody else? Brian, >> speaking for Shirley, um, you know, I can also, um, attest that, you know, Shirley does not have any preference for disposition. Um, I I can tell you one of
the biggest challenges that we've had is Shirley is a little bit different, um, you know, from from all the stakeholders, but specifically from the other two towns of, you know, we don't have as much, you know, land. um of the
land that we would have it it it either isn't developed or you know the possibility of of being developed um whether it be you know residential or commercial to any extent you know compared to the other two towns uh and I've had a a significant challenge uh of
of getting any interest uh in even creating a you know our own uh kind of subcommittee and and therefore I've had almost no you know no specific feedback whether it be, you know, anything in depth from select board members, from
committee members, from, you know, staff or residents. I've I've also been on this committee since its inception. Um, and I I even personally don't have a preference at this point for disposition. So, um, you know, I feel like we're going through the the
motions. Um and you know part of the assignments if they were you know with the exception of this most recent which I apologize it will update um in writing uh you know uh not only for the next time but the the three items that I missed for the m matrix updates um you
know but part of the assignment was from the perspective of of Shirley you know if we were to reassume the jurisdiction and that's why we're going through that on on our end. It's not that that's our preference. So, um I just want to share that with you and your constituents and
appreciate. >> Yes. >> Um if I may, uh through the chair, John, when you talk about uh we shouldn't accelerate process or disposition until the
consultants are hired. Are you referring to the 2030 date that mass development has indicated that they don't think they need to start planning future government until 2030? So that is
that >> so is that the so >> that you're focused on? wanted to adhere to the timeline in chapter 498 which was the study is to begin no later than July of 2030 and to be completed uh no later
than 2033 but I think July of that same year don't quote me on those dates but um you know we are not opposed to planning and having discussions because that's what we did the RFI >> right so this committee as well the charter to have that discuss >> so what do you object to then
>> the the the any discussion of accelerated jurisdiction in this committee. Anything other than discussing all four options for disposition, that's that's basically it.
And uh so it sounds like this from unless I heard it wrong that this should fly through this. It will go a long way with the Devon's residents of this past meaning that you heard them um and that there is no intent. As I said before,
every citizen has the right to petition their legislators. Everyone never say you can't do that. However, the charter of this committee is to as we see it adhere to chapter 498 and and the acceleration of jurisdiction is
not to the benefit of anyone on Devons. Um, and that's what the constituency has already told me. And whether they misinterpreted your the article on Harvard doing an end run on mass development, that's your business, right? However, the motion is is put
forth by >> it's still not clear to me, John. I think if if the position of the Devon's residence is more focused on the 2033 date that they don't want that date accelerated, then it's clear to me that's a clear position. I understand
that. But this committee was originally conceived and has been working towards planning for future government. Uh mass development has t originally participated in that effort but then
said no we're we are suspending our involvement in planning until 2030 and this committee has ignored that. We've kept the whole 19 elements of the matrix are all designed to begin or to fill the
planning process. So that to so I just we just got done saying we're going to continue with that. We decided to continue to work with the 19 elements. But what I'm hearing from the Devon's residents is if that in any way relates to planning for future government, you
shouldn't be doing it. And it's inconsistent. I'm not. >> So I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, at one point, you know, it had been discussed like instead of a 2030 date, can we move it back two years to like a 2028 date
>> for what what matter? >> No, I'm saying that, you know, remember like a year or so ago, we were like, you know, hey, it was it was discussed like, hey, did we want to try to change the date so that we could, you know, submit a report to the state earlier? And I
think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that's what the Devon's residents are saying. Let's not try to move. >> That's not clear from John's motion. I'm sorry, John, but if the Devon's resident said, uh, 2030 is honored before, that's a movable date. And we've taken that to
mean we should start now to do the planning. The 2033 date, July 1st, 2033, is a hard stop. It is a firm date. uh the legislation that enables mass development and the
deck to act as interim government expires on that date and as Robert has said it would require an act of the legislature and approval of the governor to extend that date. No one's talking about that. Now what may what the demon's residents may be concerned about
is a decision on permanent government made before 2033 not intending to go into effect on 2033. Uh we've never gone there. uh no one is
suggesting that we make a decision that affects the actual termination date of mass development role. I mean that I think there realistically speaking I think that uh 2033 may be the date at
which a plan is approved for permanent government and I can see mass development's role extending beyond that uh as the redevelopment authority to finish the work of the reuse plan that's not been completed. So I think mass development could be here after 2033 but
only uh basically at the behest of whatever government structure takes over Devon they would be they would act as a redevelopment authority as other redevelopment authorities act in other municipalities they don't run
the town but they do their work within the town so John I think uh no one includ including the town of Harvard has ever suggested that we need to take over Devon's before 2033. But we are
in the Harvard Devons committee and the work of this committee is focused on gathering information that we need to make that decision. And I think uh Neil who was involved in crafting uh the matrix
uh will has pointed out more than once that this matrix is a valuable piece of information that the consultants will use as they move forward uh with their work. So I I would have a hard that the motion is confusing to me. I mean, if if
the Devon's residents want to be sure that mass development is there until 2033, then that's a that's a something I can understand. But the way this your motion is written, John, and and that the charge to each of the stakeholders
was to envision that your town or the Devon resident would be be the permanent government. That's that was the that's were the focus of how we uh develop this information for the matrix.
So I again I don't I I if we if you're suggesting we stop doing that then we walk away from the matrix. >> I think Robert did you have a question? >> Yeah madam chair through you um Victor
or to Harvard let's put the July 1 2033 piece aside. Do you believe that the deadline of the 2030 should be accelerated? And if so, why? >> Because the Well, that's what we're
that's what we're doing. Robert, the the says that we should begin towns should get together with mass development and the debt and begin the pro planning process for future government on or before 2030. >> Right. And we have >> that's plain language as far as
>> we we we have no problem with planning. It's the accelerated decision on accelerated jurisdiction has to stop on the discussion in this committee. Do what you want to do in Harvard or in air or in Shirley, right? But that's it's it it sounds like it's going to be a
non-issue. So, >> okay. So, you're pulling your motion. >> Hm. >> Are you pulling your motion or misunders That's what I'm misunderstood. Not at all. Okay. Okay. So, just to cover the mass development part, they showed up tonight and he's indicated that, you
know, he's going to start showing up again. Um, so that's good news. Okay. Um, he was observing tonight. He's only been on board for a month, but I do anticipate that we will have mass development attending the next meeting in July. So,
that's good news. Okay. So, that part hopefully has been put to bed. Okay. Yeah, it's Madam Chair. It it's still it's what? Um, so your the date of the
accelerated jur uh disposition is referring to the 2033 date. Okay. >> So, are you saying we can't I'm sorry. I I mean >> No, that's okay. I'm just trying to reconcile because that's what the chapter 498 law is,
>> right? So, are I I I guess I'm I'm kind of confused now, too. Are you saying that if the report was ready in 2030, we couldn't submit it? >> No. >> Okay. Okay. Just I think we're all I think we're all It was a very long motion. So, I think we're all trying to
just figure this out. You know, >> I mean, if if the report's done sooner, he says no later than 2030. What our concern is the we can edit this but what my constituent wants out of this is that there's going to be no uh discussion of accelerated jurisdiction
at this committee one and we have to consider all four options rather than just one option. Okay. So I mean my understanding at least you know being part of the meetings was when we were the only time that it came up regarding accelerated jurisdiction was out of a from my understanding frustration of
when mass development was not you know attending meetings contributing >> and then I think it was thrown out there um of well you know their their response continuously was you know the law says we're not to start until 2030 and so I
think it was thrown out there of Well, if we want to get them back to the table, the way that I interpreted, you know, was was perhaps maybe accelerate the process of, you know, what if that changes to uh, you know, a sooner date that they get involved. I I didn't I
never interpreted that on my end of all of a sudden we come to a conclus conclusion faster. It was that, you know, >> that we would just have them participate with us. um which you know it's it's very difficult to to do any type of this
work without mass development who is a a major key stakeholder. >> So John >> so let's let's how about this? So we could say based on this I think it's it's reasonable based on this I would like to make a motion that I'm not making another motion. This is just
>> you're amending your motion. >> It could be I I'm discussing if you would be more comfortable if this portion was redacted >> our sole focus. Okay. So it would be a motion that the DGFC discontinu any future discussions regarding accelerated jurisdiction or sole focus on the town's resuming local jurisdiction.
>> So in other words when so in other words this committee cannot just look at only the town's resuming jurisdiction. They have to look at the four options which we had originally agreed to hybrid status quo resumption of jurisdiction lines to the
towns or town Devon's becoming its own town. >> Is that I just want to make sure that that's what you're saying >> which is what we have been doing. >> Right. But I think that what's happened is that there's been some confusion with some comments being made and it's caused
some concern and I think that that's what he's trying to do is to >> you know alleviate concern. >> What is simple? >> I'm sorry. So I I think it's important to distinguish what Harvard does over at Harvard's side
on Harvard Devon's jurisdiction committee is independent of how we are operating as members of the framework committee. >> It should be >> well it is if you look okay so the
pointing and everything is is distracting. So if we could debate the issue not the people that would be great. Um, every action that Harvard representatives have taken at this table have been consistent with pursuing
the spirit and the letter of all options are on the table. It's very it is as Victor said the design of the matrix was attack approach this as if you are resuming jurisdiction over your
historical boundaries. So that that already constrains what Harvard is going to be presenting at the table because we were asked to look at it from that perspective. The Harvard Devon's jurisdiction committee has to look at the work to be
presented here from that perspective. So Harvard has been very interested in what would that look like. But in terms of the work that's done around this table and the conversations and the goal of this committee wholeheartedly agree
that we all options are on the table. I I would see it's almost impossible to accelerate anything at this point because we're we're staring at 2030 in a face. I mean there isn't any way to get it faster at this point the way we've been going it. So like a uh what uh when
you do a jury selection war whatever it is >> I could have opinions and I am willing to put them aside as a jury member because I can do that I have two hats on. I have Harvard tat on and where
we're headed and we may make a complete vote decision whatever at Harvard and I can still come here and say you know what in the framework committee I am an operating I'm operating with all of those four things in place with no accelerated timeline. So I I don't know
where the trust got eroded but that's how at least I'm fairly new here. I think Victor has presented objectionable nonsubjective stuff for us to review. I have no problem with where you're
headed. Um, but there's clearly been increased friction between the Devon's community and Harvard because of the conversations that we've been having in Harvard, not here. And through the chair, if I may add, I think the the
essence of the debate that we've had locally uh is questioning whether a decision can be arrived at by 2033. that the work that needs to be done
to to to prepare a plan for the the resumption of jurisdiction and the process involved legislatively to get that plan approved is going to likely could push us past 2013. That's the discussion we've had. uh in terms of
um taking over Demens uh you know that has that that's uh crazy talk and no one has uh certainly on the committee and anyone who knows anything about Debons suggested that uh
that's that's realistic. I don't know. And I guess it would ask the question what what is the fear of the Devon's residents? Why why are they concerned? Why are Devon's residents concerned that I again I assume it's final disposition is going
to be accelerated? Why are they concerned about that? Is that somehow place Devon's residents at a disadvantage if that were happen? I mean, if the decision is made to create a town there, let's do it by 2031.
I mean, is that a >> Well, the report can't go to the state until this table agrees. Anyways, and and there would have to be, you know, public hearings and everything getting input. >> Um, so right now, >> I'm not so sure that's true. Excuse me, ma'am.
>> Well, that's what it's written. That's what's written. So, that's what I'm going to go with right now is that's what's written. written. >> Everybody knows it's I'm not I'm not doing this. Okay. So, I'm I'm just we're
spinning the wheels having the same conversation all the time. Okay. Bottom line is no report goes to the state until we've all worked on it. I think we all know that. Okay. So, at this point, you've amended your motion.
>> Do you want to hear it or should we what the amended is going to be or? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um, a motion that the DGFC def jurisdiction framework committee discontinue any future discussions regarding accelerated jurisdiction or sole focus on the town's resuming local
jurisdiction. >> You took out the part about the consultant. You're taking out the part about that consult. you know, if if if it if we feel that it accomplishes what the residents are looking for that we're just done talking about accelerated jurisdiction and we're putting all four elements on the table, I think
>> that's acceptable. >> Okay. I'll second the amended motion just to get it on the table there. >> Yes. um through the chair. Can I ask so for this exercise that we're doing where
we're assuming possible jurisdiction are do you is it appropriate that the DJFC still continue with this exercise? Yeah, I mean yeah I can see now whether our residents want to participate in that I'll take this back if this passes and
we'll I'll talk to the residents but there's nothing to preclude you from doing that >> because I think too it's just like I hear everyone saying that we want to keep all the options on the table but there could be focus time >> on if jurisdiction were to happen. So, as long as you know the residents don't
feel like we're forgetting that there's the other options on the table, then we can keep going with this exercise and it would be friendly to >> all. Okay. >> What if you change it to say taking action as a representative of the Devon jurisdictional framework committee
rather than like thinking about what it would be like if you did that? >> Um, I'm open. Well, help me. Does that make sense? Do you understand what I'm saying? So, >> no. instead of talking about it, what would happen if you accelerated it, taking an action as a representative of
this specific committee, not the committee back at their time. >> Um, >> so like actually physically making a mo like an action to try to accelerate it. >> So would it be an additional verb into this one? >> If you think it if if anyone thinks it's clear, >> may I make a recommendation?
>> Sure. Sure. I appreciate that. >> Okay. So this is a recommendation. Huh? >> Um, we tabled this motion until Well, no, hear me out for a second. Table this motion, let the the Devon's residents hear what this conversation was, and
then we can bring it back on July. >> Due respect, >> okay, >> what is >> No, that they passed. They passed me. >> No, it was a recommendation. That was all. Madam Chair, we're we're also representatives of our town. So it's a
little difficult to accept this on behalf of Harvard without my bringing it back to the select board of Harvard and saying here's what's being proposed. Is this how you would like me to operate? So I'm also a little bit between a rock and hard place. you know, would would it simplify if you
know, from what I heard from the table is essentially the the intent of the way that this committee's been operating is to review all options on the table, you know, and work towards, you know, a report that will eventually be submitted, you know, right now the dates
that we are familiar with are are, you know, 2030 and 2033. Yeah. Would it simplify it to just make a motion to re enforce or state that that is our intent that um that we go through this process
considering all four options >> and no accelerated jurisdiction correct discussion? >> Yeah, I mean I I I don't have any intent of accelerated jurisdiction so I'm fine with that. Okay. >> Okay. Then
>> that seems arbitrary, Madam Chairman. Accelerating. There could be a valid reason for doing that. >> I don't know. >> Well, I guess I guess what we could take this as is that our goal is not to attempt to accelerate.
>> That's different. But we all understand that as we go through the process and as we build the report that if it's determined that the report is ready then we make a decision then depending
on what day and year it is. I mean, that is what could happen and even the Devon's residents could, you know, say it's we've covered as much as can be covered and let's go send it. We're
talking 3 years from now could happen. So, you know, I think the intent of this committee is to not rush anything. I the intent is to follow the timeline presented by 498 and you know consider
all options through this process because no matter what you actually vote no matter how you know members could change a year from now even the same body could decide to vote to accelerate for some reason that's not the intent that I have that's not the intent that this
committee is voicing right now but I mean I I think I think The intent all seems to be, you know, that we we don't intend to accelerate it and that we are looking to take all all options into consideration.
>> Agreed. And having said that, then then the motion you can vote either way. Yay or nay if to the amended leg however you want to proceed. Madam >> chairman, I can't vote on something. It can't accelerate the appreciation. It is too vague. It you need to have
I don't it would be doing a disservice to Devon's residents if if we took a vote so we're not going to accelerate depreciate or accelerate uh the termination of permanent government if they take that to to mean it's
open-ended and it current status of demons could continue indefinitely because we're not going to accelerate that. That could be someone's interpretation. It's got to be I think the language has to be plain language and this is not >> just thinking for a minute.
>> I'm sorry. >> I said I'm just thinking I'm just thinking. >> Okay. So, >> I don't know what I would be voting for quite frankly. I think what well so to get at it the Devon's residents be through John are
requesting that we don't actively engage in a conversation at this table to do anything sooner than what's required by chapter 498 >> essentially >> and all four options >> and to consider and that the
conversations continue to be around consideration ation of all four options. Is that what that's what you're saying? Yes. >> But I guess I'm still confused, Madam Chair, if I may. What date is that? Is that 2030 or is that Are you saying we >> You said 203.
>> Is it 2033? We not to submit a report before on or before 2033. >> No later than 2033. So again, if we're if this committee is ready to make its a report, say in 2032,
>> it needs to sit on it until hon or before 2033. >> On or before July 1st, 2033, the commission, the boards, the selectment of the tours, yada yada yada yada, will submit the study in a joint report to the governor. So we can do it before. >> Yeah,
>> that goes back to my statement. in 2029 and I'm just using arbitrary dates. We've all we've had the consultant, we've written the report, and everybody looks at this thing and says, "Geez, there's really nothing left we can add.
Let's get it out the door." Then we'll vote on it at the time. >> But I think that for now, I think that, you know, you brought up a good point. We just reiterate that we're going to,
you know, continue just moving forward gathering the information to build the report to send to the state. >> To include all the options that have been previously staked. >> The concern is that Madam Chair, if I may, is that the accelerated decision
for jurisdiction? has concern that okay they're going to decide in 2029 that when it should adhere to the 2033 in in chapter 498 right if you want to give it to the legislature early
>> right does that make sense >> no give us an example John how we would accelerate >> the issue is that that the residents are concerned that the decision
There will be a petition to accelerate a a um decision on jurisdiction. That's it. We should That's it. That's the issue. >> This committee cannot petition the Senate um to for early jurisdiction unless all the parties agree.
>> Yeah. >> And all we're >> and we're not we're not looking to do that. >> I understand that. Go ahead. >> Yeah. M do we I I can't remember but I feel like we >> do we have an official in on the website. Do we have our our initial charge or
>> um >> we have 498 um >> well I mean like like when when we started this I I thought we put together at least a document that said this is our charge this is what we're basically doing whether you call call it a mission statement I don't call >> the Devon's jurisdiction framework
committee was officially formed on September 5th 2019 as established the committee includes three representatives from the town's mayor Harvard and Shirley Mass development the Devon enterprise commission and Devon The charge of the Devon's jurisdiction framework committee shall be to develop a process for a comprehensive and
fact-based analysis and planning effort with the assistance of a professional consultants whereby a study and joint report consistent with section 23 of chapter 498 of the acts of 1993 shall be pre prepared concerning the permanent government structure for the ongoing operation and administration of the jur
jurisdiction known as the Devons regional enterprise zone dev that's our chart Madam Chair, >> yes. >> Um, sorry I've been a little in and out of the discussion, but I think I've, you know, picked up most of what uh has been
discussed. Um, I agree with uh Mr. Pompand's assessment. You know, uh, the the Devon's Enterprise Commission has no um has no focus on one scenario or another. That's not our charge. our
charges in line with the the DJFC's mission. I think there's consensus in the room that nobody is talking uh on this committee um about a single option. All options are still on the table. So
that should not be an issue. Um and in terms of accelerated jurisdiction, um as Mr. Pumprehand mentioned, you know, that would require an act of the legislature. That is not our charge. And I think if there's consensus that that's not our charge and there is no we are
not focusing on one option. I think if we just make a motion to to say that um and hopefully that could clarify things instead of trying to word smith uh John's motion um into something that everybody agrees on. Does that make
sense? >> Yes. >> What would your what would the motion be then? motion that this this committee there's consensus among the committee that we uh are not in favor of one option another. All options are on the table uh as
outlined in our charter and uh and that uh accelerated jurisdiction is um is not um is not an issue for our discussion at this time. >> Seconded. >> Second. >> All right. So, it's on the table.
>> Yes. Okay, >> I'll just go back one more time and see if the it's hard to accelerate it when it's by on or before. So, how do you accelerate before kind of thing? I mean, it's that's the question that I think that we're struggling with. If it is honor
before, >> then there is no such thing as accelerating because it could be done at any time. I wouldn't want our committee's hands tied to say yet we're all ready to go and it seems as if >> I think what we're I think and and we
can correct me if I'm wrong. I think what we're trying to say is we're not going to to plan on submitting it in a hurry. >> No, I think I think the issue is >> accelerating jurisdiction,
not the delivery of the study. Neil's Neil's motion carries that. We're okay with that. Neil, could you >> deliberations are on deliberations are ongoing. Um the decision for jurisdiction, I think, is what John you're referring to, right?
>> Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. And with without mass development at the table, it's not uh it's not even >> can't be done anyway. >> All right. So we had the motion. It's been seconded. This is our third try.
>> I have a still have a question. What does acceleration mean? >> Under jurisdiction, >> madam chair. >> Yes. >> So maybe to just clarify >> decision >> just clarify the the issue and um
>> we won't make a decision prematurely. But I mean, let me just clarify the issue, Victor, if I take an attempt to. >> Um, we have all worked very well together. >> No question. And there is no question that the Harvard Devon's jurisdiction
committee A+. You guys have hit the ground running from the beginning. Some of us, you know, catching up and so forth. and you have very strong opinions rightfully so as do other stakeholders
on what should have should happen. I get when the public process rights for some perception is reality doesn't mean it's true or right but their perception but it sounds like residents on Devons
are perceiving that recent public comments which everybody has a right to made at the Harvard Devons meeting nothing wrong but when questions are made that the issue of status quo
and town are off the table and people see that and there's talk about petitioning to acceler change the the the dates as a strategy to get down to get Massive M to the table. it. You
begin to connect those dots to some folks that the perception is is that Harvard has already made up its mind and not only has it already made up its mind but wants to accelerate to push that forward and that the focus of Harvard
which is your prerogative our ours is different to look at a collaborative approach there's no right or wrong but the perception I think for many is that Harvard has made up its mind on disposition and we're going to go full steam ahead on disposition and let's try to
accelerate that. That's the perception. That's not wrong, meaning that's not a right or wrong thing, but I think those type of things have transmitted to John's constituency, which is important, which has raised flags saying, "Oh,
there's a key stakeholder, key town that's already made up its mind on jurisdiction where we haven't done the process, the third party professional independent process. And not only that, they want to try to accelerate the timeline. And I think that's created a
lot of angst and confusion that I could be wrong, but I'm just as a person seeing what has happened. I think that's what the perception is. Nobody did anything wrong, but they're speaking out like let's go. Let's not be focusing on
on just disposition and let's not be focusing on trying to accelerate the clock. >> I don't disagree. Okay, >> Robert. But I think clearly the Devon's residents are focusing on what's going on in Harvard. >> Yeah. >> And they're coming to this committee
for relief. And it's not the business of this committee to do that. Nor is it the business, you know, if uh Devon's residence that then John's committee is really seems to be really focused on creating a town there. And that's fine.
There's there's four options and we're not >> one of the options. >> We're not we're not disputing your freedom to do what you want in order by any stretch of the imagination. >> So your point was well taken. >> Why not just if we're going to take any
kind of emotion just to affirm that we'll follow section 23 of chapter 498. >> I've lost track cuz we the last motion we had was for me. Yeah, Neil would maint that covered it.
>> Okay. >> Or we can just do a simple the dev I make a motion that the devast jurisdictional framework committee follow the the charter of its charge. I I mean the last one that was seconded was
Neil's motion. I I don't remember the specific wording that Neil said, but I would be in agreement. It doesn't necessarily it doesn't necessarily have to be unanimous vote as as well. I mean, >> we could take the vote and and there could be some people that either choose >> not or
I'd like to be able to vote in the positive though. So, because I do think we agree with the sentiment of what's being >> kind of at the heart of this. Harvard intends to participate on this framework committee by following the charter
charge of the committee and that is consistent with the chapter 498. The second you throw in accelerating it, it's it it kind of messes with the brains here because it's saying on or before. So that's where I think I >> I like
>> I don't know if we can recap. >> Neil, did you happen to write down that motion? >> Neil, what's that motion again, please? So I believe his motion was something I >> I did not write it down on the phone. Articulate it again, please. >> Nor nor is it safe for me to do so as
I'm driving. >> Neil, this is Dawn. If I may, I did jot something down. Um you can tell me if I'm close. >> Um okay. Is that the consensus of committee is that we are not in favor of any one option and that accelerated jurisdiction is not an issue for us at this time.
>> That's a great summary. Thank you. Well, not an issue. That's different though. That's different than what he said. >> No, he said at this time. >> Did he? >> Yes. >> I I I did say at this time. >> Okay. Um and a decision. Maybe I can
amend that to say a decision on acceler on on accelerated jurisdiction decision. Thank you for being described. >> So the problem is that there's no motion that can be made that's permanent because two years from now could be a
whole different motion >> that can change things. You know, we can only make a motion that will cover a period of time >> until there are changes. >> Um sometimes a body should should respect the motions made by
>> you're right. You're right. But I mean, usually it's emotion gets changed if there are significant changes. I mean, example, you know, years ago went to transfer station, it was just going to be we're going to table it and I said, "No, we'll table it unless
>> certain things change that cause us to have to go back to this decision." >> So, I think that, you know, I just I'm just going to say that that covers his, you know, at this time. >> Yes. So, you know, but again, it should only come up if there's like something
significant that drives a change, >> right? So, the motion on the table is that um the consensus of the committee is that we are not in favor of any one option in accelerated juris an accelerated jurisdiction decision is not an issue for us at this time.
>> Okay. >> Seconded. Is everyone good with this? Does everyone do we want to take a vote? >> Move the question. >> I >> Okay. All those in favor? >> I
>> I >> I All those All those opposed? >> Motion passes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Oh my god. All right. >> Yeah. Can you please? >> Yes.
>> I just like to encourage residents to come to our Harvard Dev meetings. Uh, and we do they do they do have >> Hold on. Neil asked Neil started speaking before you started speaking. >> I'm so sorry. Just procedural wise,
there was three motions, right? >> Do we do we have to act on the other motions? >> No, they are amended. >> No, they kept getting amended. >> Okay. It was It was >> It got a little messy. >> It was amended. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome.
>> My bad. I just didn't want to leave John's original motion. I didn't want to leave John's original motion hanging. >> Yeah. So, >> John, good luck explaining all this to your uh >> Have them have THEM WATCH THE VIDEO. >> I WATCH VIDEOS. I'll take that charge. >> So, all right. Um I know you're going to
leave. So, you know, just let you know. Um right now July 8th is when we're scheduled to meet and the mentors update would be education, police, and fire. All right. So, I know you're going to leave now. That's it for new business. Okay. I know we had somebody who wanted
to talk about uh public comment and I would tread lightly on this Paul because he wants to talk about jurisdiction. >> It's uh surreal hearing people talk about something you might have said or written and not being able to comment on it.
Um thank you madam chairman. Thank you committee members. So there's there's handouts um there of what he had sent um to everybody if they everyone wants >> I have I have ones that are >> So Paul if you can we got got um people that got to go. So can you do the quick
one? >> I'll make time. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I I have handouts that >> Yeah, we got the handouts. They're right there. >> So I I sent out two handouts both electronically and and by paper. Um, and if somebody could hand that to John
Osborne. >> Can you cover this for a second? I got to take >> continue talking. I'll be back. >> Um, I have uh I have served on the Harvard Dance
Jurisdiction Committee for nearly eight years um with Victor and other people. In fact, we've had a remarkably stable membership And um just so everybody knows, I think we have a vacancy right now which we'd
have trouble filling. We'd love to have more representation from the good citizens of Harvard. Um let me say everything I say here is my personal opinions. Hopefully they've been informed by attending this meeting
and the HDJC and everything else. While the HDJC and other people have seen previous versions of this timeline and my essay, um they didn't they neither endorsed it nor uh whatever the opposite of endorsing is, you know, said it was
bad. Um I had I originally created the timeline oh four or five years ago and I've updated a couple of times and I updated it just on Monday before sending it out. Let me talk about that first because I think that's that's kind of new business
if you will. Um the the the point of the timeline was to take everything that I had learned by serving on this committee and my conversations with people like Representative Senna and Senator
Aldridge and and listening to all of you here >> and try to synthesize everything I knew about what had to be done, what has been done, what we're trying to what we're in the process of doing, what remains to be and I broke it down into phases. I tried
to to then subdivide the phases into activities. I I uh made major changes to the timeline Monday as I was doing this to what I call the broad consensus phase based on the current direction of of the
DJFC here and it's um the way it's appears to be operating. Um, and I thought, you know, why did I do this? It's like, well, um, you don't have a timeline. Some of you, uh, have probably worked on
big complicated projects, whether in government, industry, uh, academia, whatever. But every single serious project I've ever worked on has had a timeline, deliverables, somebody in charge, you know, committee
meetings, uh, goals, uh, performance reviews periodically, you know, >> isn't that what we've been doing? >> I have not seen a timeline for this. Well, no, we haven't comm come up with an actual timeline because we're with chapter 498, but are we not having these
benchmarks >> and and coming up with deliverables? >> Madame Chairman, if I may, um, may I just say what I want to say and then you guys can discuss it? >> Well, this is public comment, so that's the way we do it, but Okay. Um
so I would I would encourage uh this committee to create a timeline might not be mine. I I don't claim any particular ownership or genius here. Um, one thing I will say that a lot of uh that that surprised me when I did this
work was when I started to research how our report as foreign calls it would interact with the operation of uh the great and general court i.e. the state legislature. Very briefly the legislature operates on
a two-year cycle right they get elected every two years. Um, all bills have to be refiled or filed again with each session. Nothing carries over. Uh, in theory, they're all filed at the beginning of the session. They're assigned to committees. The committees
work the bills. There are frequently multiple versions of the same bill or the same similar bill in the House and in the Senate. And so the committees then try to reconcile those. They hold hearings. They uh come to some agreement
or not. Um and then um each chamber votes on its version of the bill and of course they're reconciled. What the reason I bring all this up is that um it matters when our by are I mean the
chapter 48 report gets sent to the legislature. If hypothetically it finishes in let's just say with a few months left to go into legislative session, it's just going to sit there. it might as well sit there till till January till the next session begins cuz
nothing's going to happen. Um, if you can get it to them in January of an odd year, then you're synced up with their sessions and in my view, your chances of success in are maximized then for getting the legislature to work on it because you're you're you're falling
within their normal cadence, their normal rhythm. >> Right. I believe that has been mentioned >> and so um I would encourage any timeline you make up to um to take that into account. Um and in fact I've annotated uh this and
and call that out as what those dates are. It's the first Wednesday of oddnumbered years when the legislation legislature starts. Um but that actually makes it kind of difficult. I um in in this version you're seeing here, there's
like an 8-month pause because the the work proceeds and then you know we've got 8 months left in the session which I I knowing our legislature works that probably is not enough time for them to um take a late filed bill and deal with
it. Um so again just to repeat um I think you should make a timeline. you should measure yourselves against it and you should work towards that uh aggressively. There's a lot of work to
be done here. Um the the point of the the essay was to say I think there's a certain amount of um momentum if you will a certain amount of
um assumptions of how we do business, how we the DJFC does business. And I think um every now and then it's it's good to just take a step back and say, are we using the the the right process?
Is this an effective use of our time? Is this an efficient use of our time? Um are we making sufficient progress to stay on the timeline that we've uh created? Um, in fact, as I was reading this, I thought to myself, um, you know,
I don't really much like the process for any lays out. And I think that perhaps some thought should be put into just saying instead of using a 35year-old process,
maybe you know we should we should stop and think well how would we do this if we were inventing it today knowing what's in front of us knowing that we have now a substantial population on Devons which was not uh accounted for in 498. Right? As I say in the essay, it's
quite possible uh I'm I'm sorry the Mass Development Representative isn't here to isn't present to hear this that Mass Development could just say, you know, the DJFC isn't part of 498. The residents aren't part part of 498. When we come back in 2030, we're going to
adhere strictly to 498. And I don't think the residents would like that. I'm not sure I would like that as a Harvard representative either, but that's that's within the rights of someone being lawyerly, let's just say,
adhering to the the fine print. And so as I say here, I think that that there's a a place to say um how should this work so we can get the optimal outcome not just for the citizens, residents, and
voters in in Harvard Air and Shirley and Devons, but for um the Commonwealth, right? This this whole thing was created the the D-R was created really for the benefit of the residents of of the region and the state. Um, and just very
briefly, uh, I'll say that the the whole point of me writing, um, this note about acceleration or changing the dates was to call what I consider mass development's bluff. They've said that uh several now past um
Devon's VPs or heads of mass development as well have said we will return in 2030 and they've stuck by that. Now, time will tell whether, you know, um the current uh administration is any
different or not, but it's it just seemed to me that um some thought was worth it was worth some thought saying, can we force their hands? If they really mean that, the legislators work for us. We vote for them. They ask me for money all the
time. I give them money all the time. Um and uh you know ha having now heard a very sober and and what I would consider considered and realistic um explanation
from a previous speaker um I too doubt that it would take it would actually happen and anytime you open any piece of legislation for anything you run the risk of people saying oh let me jump in I've got something I want to change right so you can kind of lose
control of the process too. Um, but sometimes just merely going through the act could wake people up and and and get some get their attention, right? Um, so you know, um,
I I think one of the things I I've haveve have done in my time in Harvard is to stand in front of town meeting and advocate at least three times for
warn articles that I would that I cared about in one way, shape, or form. And I'm certainly expecting if I live that long to to stand up in front of Tom meeting again in a few years and deal with this one. And my record is two out of three.
Um, and the three is one that I tried to do on my own, which was a dumb thing to do, but that's for beer time. Um, I pushed very hard at the beginning of this process to say that this committee
should use principal negotiation and unonymity. It should stay as a team. It should act as one because that's where our power comes from. That's where our um authority comes from and that's the
best possible approach to each town's portion of super town meeting. The best way to tube a town meeting would on this subject would be to have a group of people stand up and say, "We
were part of the process, but we don't like how it turned out and we're going to urge you to vote against it." But if all the actors at this table, all the parties at this table can honestly go into those town meetings, representatives in each of the three, and say, "We're all in agreement. This
is it. This is what we want to do." then the chances on my humble opinion are excellent that our our neighbors and voters and residents will approve that. Um but that's only going to happen if this committee can stay together and act
as one and and get there. And so um finally I I guess I would just remind everyone that in principal negotiation we talk about interests not positions. And so when we put items on the table,
please put your interests on the table. Sometimes you can't help but putting my position, but we're we're we're negotiating over interests. We're trying to create value. We're trying to help you get what you want out of it while you help us get we want and need out of it. And the only way that happens is if
we can all just be very honest and forthcoming about what our true interests are. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you, Tom. And if anybody wants the Excel sheet or you know anything, let me know >> on the schedule.
>> All right. Any further? >> Oh, one last one one thing I forgot to mention. I would urge everybody to go read either watch our tape, get our slides, look at what we said because um there's no better way to understand the
the feelings not just of the the the committee and the committee members and people like myself, but the people in the audience as well. Although I guess the audio for the audience was subpar, but you know, we'll we'll do it one again sometime.
All right. Any questions, comments? >> Thank you. >> Motion. Um, King. So, uh, I'm So, our next meeting is scheduled for July 8th. So, I realize that's around the 4th of July holiday. So, about a month before it, I'm going to email everybody to confirm whether or not that date works,
and if it doesn't, then we'll we'll move it. But for right now, July 8th. >> Okay. >> All right. If there's nothing else, >> turn to a journ. >> Oh. I was just going to joke that we make a non-binding motion to thank Logan
in advance for uh some intricate meeting from anyone. >> All right. So, we had a motion to adjourn. Second start. >> All right. All those in favor. >> Chair says I. Any opposed?
>> All right. Good night, everybody.