Nice. Uh share screen. All right. Welcome to the advisory committee meeting of Thursday, October 16th. We have uh several items on the agenda for tonight. Uh we'll start with
a discussion on warrant article 13 which is a resolution considering to consider the older population when determining the use of the Fisher Fiser Hill property. uh a discussion and possible vote on warrant article 9 uh regarding renters's
handbook and then a discussion and possible votes on warrant articles 11 and 12 both of which refer to um the rules regarding uh advisory committee membership on so-called standing committees. uh our agenda for tonight
previously included warrant article 10 which was the baseball field naming but we have after discussion with the petitioner and um and others have decided to move that out until October 28th. So you'll look for it on on your
agenda for then. Uh there's any member of the public here who wishes to to weigh in briefly on any of the items that are on the agenda for tonight, drop your name in the chat and we'll call on you. And otherwise >> um
>> we will get started. Now >> we have um two Lisa Porchers. Could uh the one who came in a couple minutes ago please identify? >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm trying to fix it. It's Chris. We can fix We can fix
it, Chris. Just >> Oh, that would be great because I can't figure it out. >> Yep, we can do it. >> Great. Thank you. >> Great. Um, all right. So, do we have a sub uh committee report on Warren Article 13? >> Yes. Can you hear me?
>> Yes. Go ahead. >> Great. So, I'm uh this is the first time I'm doing this, so just pull me on the rails if I go off. Okay. >> And warrant article 13 is um basically I'm going to just read the the
purpose of this it's a resolution. So the purpose of this resolution is to ensure that Brookline's older adult population is explicitly considered in the town's planning for future use of Fiser Hill property. This commitment is consistent with both the town's demographics and its policy priorities.
And so basically the the um the consider it's the consideration of needs of the older adult population. Um the senior center is a significant and beloved hub for services, social connection, education, recreation and
wellness activities for older adults. It combats isolation and provides community resources. The aging population in Brooklyn is a significant proportion of the population currently. It's growing as well. Over 20% of Brooklyn is over 60 and by 2040, one in five Americans will
be 65 or older. And the senior center, as it currently stands, has outgrown its current physical space. It's often over booked. Add to this that access to adequate parking is limited. And Brooklyn is one of the first municipalities in New England to join the World Health Organization's age
friendly cities, which reflects a formal commitment to ensure that Brooklyn uh remains a place where residents can age safely, comfortably, and with connection to community life. and the Fiser Hill property represents one of the few remaining opportunities for the town to thoughtfully plan for long-term community needs. Decisions
about its use should not only account um for current demands, but also for the demographic trajectory of the local population, of which many of us on this call are included. Um voting yes will affirm the needs of older adults and the Council on Aging be explicitly considered as decisions are
made about the Fiser Hill property. And while state and federal resources help support capital projects and programming, the town is responsible for making local land use decisions, policy direction from town meeting would elevate this issue to a community priority. It would keep it front and center. So this resolution does not
mandate a specific construction program. It integrates with existing planning procedures already in place and will greatly improve grant competitiveness by demonstrating local commitment to serving older adults. Early inclusion of needs also reduces the risk of late design changes, retrofits or duplicative
facilities. So voting no will not explicitly include the needs of the senior population in the Fisher Hill initiatives and voting yes will. um financial impact. Uh since this is a resolution and not an appropriation, it does not require any significance
probably bigger issues accessing the senior center. Um and this idea that uh you know if this there was a little conversation about what kinds of services or programs would you know be
welcome at the Fiser Hill uh facility. So so um Emily Williams, director of the Council on Aging, suggested you know some of this programming could include dementia friendly age related services including like a memory cafe and calming
colors. There's a a host of things. A community pool was brought up. Um many many things just with front and center senior needs and accessibility. Um the idea that it could be a community center for the whole town and integrate
the aging population with you know other populations was fantastic. um that was brought up and then there was some conversation about how you know is Fischer Hill really more accessible to South Brooklyn because some people thought maybe it wasn't and some I think
the general consensus is that it is in mid Brookline so it kind of unites South and North Brooklyn and um there was also conversation which was a little bit of a side conversation about increasing use of the Putterham Library for programming you know while we're waiting etc um So
the basic thrust of this article is that it would bring a real awareness to the fact that seniors are one of the most poorly funded departments per capita in Brooklyn not a budget pri not a you know priority for budgeting and this would put senior population in the mix. Um so
the recommendation the public safety committee recommended hold on quiet and by the way I'm hosting an open studio. Um no one's here but the dog might bark. the public safety committee by a vote of six in favor and no one dissenting or
abstaining recommended favorable action on warrant article 13. >> Great. Thank you. Um I see a number of the petitioners of warrant article 13 are here. Um >> should I announce who they are? No, I
mean I'm just going to ask um uh them to uh if they have anything they want to add to uh your report now or you can be available to take questions from um from the from the body. So Carol or or Ruth
or um uh who else I see that was here? That's one of the Matthew. Um if you if if if you have anything you want to add um uh drop your name in the chat and we'll
call in you first. Okay. So why don't we move to questions or comments from the uh from the from the full body. Don't all speak at once. Um, there we go, >> Brian.
>> Yeah, thanks. Um, I am trying to figure out what I realize this is a resolution, but I'm trying to figure out what it accomplishes given that the town administrators report on the Fiser Hill complex proposes
seems to me a lot of senior citizen programs, including an auxiliary center, dementia programs, cooking, gardening. Um, so with that in mind, what are we gaining here? And I particularly reference the the idea
which I know nothing about of enhancing eligibility for grants um with this resolution supplementing the town administrator's report. >> One of the petitioners care to weigh in
on that? I mean just as a start uh we're age friendly uh recognized as a town uh agreed to back in 2012 and then again later on uh and a number that age
friendliness actions on plans to move forward uh with age friendly activities in town and all our designs and everything else take into account uh older adults. uh that also brings in uh
various grants and various support from uh certainly ARP but also other organizations. So that's I mean I don't know all of it, right? So that's the one I'm aware of. That's that's the few that I'm aware of. And all of that depends on
us uh including the needs of the a of age friendliness in the town in all of our activities that we uh our plans and our our designs as we would with anybody. I mean I would expect we would anyway, but uh that that's basically what's expected.
So that's one thing. Anyway, >> Dennis, as a petitioner, can I say something or Carol? Go ahead. >> Let Carol go first. >> I I want to respond to Brian's question about how this would help us with
grants. One of the things um with many of the grants that we apply for, one of the questions is support from your local municipality. Um and also, do you have the facilities to to do these kind of programs that you're applying for
grants? And currently if we were applying for a grant and they asked some of these questions, we would have to say, well, we have no space at our current facility to do any of the things we want to do. So, it is it is really important that um we can say to people
where we're applying for grants that the town is giving us good consideration in what's going to be done with the Fiser Hill property. Thank you, Fran. So, um, the other reason, um, to have
this resolution despite Chaz talking about a community center is we want the support of town meeting to say, "We agree with CHAZ that the town
recognizes that the elder population needs space, needs needs consideration. Um, and to be sort of blunt, we're probably the most highly ignored segment
of the population financially. And um, you know, we're there are 13,000 seniors, 20% of our population. and to have town meetings say, "Hey, we recognize the fact that the elder
community exists and needs some consideration," which is all we're asking for, supplements anything Chaz is going to say about the uses because as town administrator, as things change in the town, he can
have different ideas of what to do and what not to do. And we feel support of town meeting would greatly help the senior population in its um striving to
um find supplemental places to have um events and programs with the current site not having expanded in the last 25 years. That's it.
>> Thank you, Brian. Are you all set? Great, Alec Leovitz. >> Thanks, Harry. Um, and my thanks to the petitioners for bringing this article, which I think is really important. Um, I I did want to add one clarification um, regarding Chaz's uh, presentation that
he gave to the Fiser Hill Study Committee. Um, which is I think it's important for folks to be aware that the Fischer Hill Study Committee has not at this point done any direct community engagement. Um, and what CHAZ presented to that committee represented a
synthesis of potential uses for the site um that were generated by town departments um and kind of synthesize that into a single proposal that Chaz presented. So I I see this article very much in line with kind of the community
engagement part of the process for Fischer Hill that we know is coming. Um, and I believe the intention of the committee is for that to start in November pending their potential receipt of a grant that would fund a consultant for that process. Um, so I think this
article is well timed. I think it's definitely gerine to this process. Um, and I agree completely with the sentiment of it. I think um, we have a really rare opportunity in Fiser Hill to do something exciting and original and develop new community assets for
Brooklyn. Um, and I think this committee certainly has been aware for several years, but I I think more broadly town meeting has been aware that our existing senior facilities are are just inadequate with the need that we have and the need the increase in need that we know is coming as demographics
continue to trend um towards an aging population. Um, I'd also just add uh I am other folks uh on advisory and a few others uh in town meeting um have been advocating for including a community outdoor pool on the Fiser Hill site. Uh
and I just want to say from my perspective, I think that comports very nicely with the aims of this uh this warrant article. Um, this would be one of the only recreational assets that could serve all members of the Brooklyn community regardless of age, mobility status, physical ability. Um, seniors
very much included in that. Um, and I think we have the potential on Fiser Hill between some kind of senior center annex, a community center, maybe a pool complex on that same site to build something really exciting um, and really accessible for seniors as well. Um, so I
look forward to supporting the article. I'd encourage the petitioners to engage in the Fiser Hill community engagement process uh when that comes up. Knowing a couple of them, I'm I'm sure they don't need that reminder from me. Um and I just want to thank you guys again for bringing this article. I think it's uh
well timed and very important. >> Thank you, Perry Gman. >> Yeah, thanks for your work on this. I think it's a nice articulation of the needs of seniors. Um, just wondering if the petitioners could comment a little bit more about how this fits with other
needs in the town. I know that maybe this would be competing with school needs such as swing space currently or potential beep use. Um, but to to follow up on Alex's point about the pool, um, could the petitioners talk about the
potential overlap between needs of the seniors and interest in having an outdoor pool there? Thanks. Brian. >> Um, hi. Essentially, what we're saying is consider the needs
of seniors. It doesn't mean don't consider the needs of anyone else. And as Chaz and other people have talked about the various usage for Fiser Hill, the idea of a community
center that serves the entire community and whether there's a pool or not a pool doesn't affect whether there are a couple of rooms that you know support seniors and um
the usages of Fiser Hill will be determined by the town. Um, and and so I don't think there's any competition with pools or schools or anything else.
You know, it's it's just, you know, consider what we need and what resources we have and um we're not in competition with anybody else as far as we're concerned.
Thank you, Carol. Carol. >> Oh, good. I'm I'm unmuted. Um I wanted to talk about both of the things about the pool. Uh this came up in our our discussion with the subcommittee that um if there is to be a pool at at Fiser
Hill, my concern is that it also be made accessible for seniors. Um, I'm a user of the high school pool uh any number of days a week and their accessibility is really great. It's all very accessed.
Anyone who's on crutches or wheelchair or hobbling along like I am that they can get access to the pool. So I think that's that's something that the senior influence on the establishment of a pool is important. The other thing is at this
point we are not asking for dedicated space. We are asking for consideration that the space that is there be shared and that seniors be part of that share. Um I think that's very important. Um
that the space be such that it can be used by multiple organizations here in town that it is not set up in such a way that it is only for for one type of activity. But the caveat with that also is it has to be accessible. I mean
seniors need different kind of access than uh the younger population. Um I hope that answers Mr. Perry. Where is he gone? Mr. Grossman's questions. >> Great. >> Thank you, Ma. Matthew, did you want to add anything? >> Uh, well, she said most of what I was
thinking of, but I'll just add the uh um that in fact uh that provides the opportunity for intergenerational activities, which is something that uh I think everybody in town would gain from. Uh and it's something that that's
difficult today to accomplish because there is no community center. there is no center where everybody comes and uh once that's accomplished I think that that uh that will certainly help uh older adults that will certainly help the disabled and that it'll certainly
help teenagers and then it'll help people in their 20s 30s and 40s but I think the intergenerational aspects of a community center is really something to be admired >> thank you Lee Swin Sorry,
I'm trying to get the camera going. There we go. Um, you know, I I agree with um a lot of things that Alec Levitz said regarding the the need for spaces uh for these kinds of activities, which
of course underscores the silliness of the town and not buying the whole property or or the silliness of the town and not buying the um myodities building when it was on the market. But, you know, that's that's water under the bridge. Um, I'm sort of curious about
one point though and it's sort of following up on something that Carol car Carol has raised which is accessibility. It strikes me that the geography the location of this of this site is is not particularly accessible
um to seniors. Uh it's it's not on public transportation. It's not where >> can I finish? It's not where most seniors probably live. whereas the existing site on Harvard Street at least, you know, is in an area that is
more convenient. And I'm just sort of wondering if the petitioners surveyed the the current users of the senior center to see what they would think about that location versus uh trying to do something in a more central
spot. >> Um Carol, >> yeah. Um I want to I want to say a couple of things about accessibility. One of the um things about that site that is attractive is the large parking
lot um that is uh that is behind the uh school building that now exists there. That that is something that is denied people on the Winchester location that parking is at a premium there and it's very hard to find a spot. Uh the other
thing is um about public transportation. I don't think enough people know about the 51 bus. The 51 bus goes from South Brooklyn to I don't know whether it goes all the way to Brighton Center, but it
it stops. There is a stop at Highip and Chestnut Hill Avenue, and that's just a walk up the hill. Um I live currently at the top of a hill and um I use a cane but I would be able to navigate from Chestnut Hill Avenue up high to the to
the location. So it does exist um public transportation and the uh Dline and the C line also stop at reservoir which is not that far from the location and um so
I don't think that you know where it is plays a role in whether seniors can attend. >> Thank you. Um um I I'll call on the petitioners, but >> you didn't answer my question though. My
question was, have you actually survey the potential? >> Let me call on the other petitioners who have their hands raised, Lee. And >> okay, >> they can answer that. Fran, we'll start with you. >> Hi. Um, so Lee, I don't know if two or three is enough for a survey because we
don't really have the capacity to survey, but all the seniors that I have interacted with who are from South Brooklyn think that Fiser Hill as middle Brookline, what they call it, would be
more accessible because there's no way of them getting up to Winchester Street. and when they do, they can't find a place to park. And if they find a place to park, they get a ticket. Um, so the
all of the people that I've talked to, and I have to admit it's a handful, um, think Fisher Hill is fine. One of the things that Chaz talked about in his description of what will happen there,
no matter what is put there, whether it's a community center or whatever, is to develop transportation to there, whether it's uh a Brooklyn bus or getting MBTA to have a better bus,
you know, and um it's a essentially Usually if they build it, people will go and we'll figure out how to get them there. And as Carol said, many seniors still drive and would
love to be able to park nearby. >> Thank you. Matthew, you're you're muted, Matthew. I haven't again I haven't done a survey obviously but I do know that in the various activities and meetings I've been in
there are people from South Brooklyn who cannot and do not come to the senior center and want to they've come for very special occasions where they've been able to get lifts etc but they very much look for something where the community is that's reachable by South Brooklynine
and I think that we should start calling it Brooklyn instead of south and north but But uh I think there's a whole aspect whole portion of Brookline with a uh many seniors there and many older adults throughout that area that cannot
easily come at all to a senior center and also don't have a community center to go to that they can reach. And this would get this would help a lot. It's a good question Lee because uh but the question is the wrong place. It's it's not less obviously people who live by
right by uh the senior center don't have a problem they have none uh getting to the senior center >> you know just >> everybody else does everybody else does >> I just let me just point out that when Newbury College owned that property they ran a bus and their students are a lot
more mobile than than typical senior I would certainly include myself in that category um but they ran a bus from from Cleveland Circle uh a shuttle bus all day that went from Cleveland Circle station to the reservoir station to do
the the property. >> Yeah, that's good. >> Thank you. Uh Janice Khan, >> thank you. Um, and um, thank you for this warrant article and I apologize if I missed this in the presentation by the subcommittee, but I was at that hearing
and I asked the question about how many people from South Brooklyn, seniors from South Brooklyn are at the senior center and the new Council on Aging Director Williams said that they don't keep that data, that that's not something they
keep. However, she estimated maybe 15% of seniors that use the senior center uh that yes that use it are from South Brooklyn, which is a very small number. And I can tell you there are a lot more than 15% of the senior population living
pretty far away from that North Brooklyn site. So, um and and in Newton, for instance, seniors are given stickers so they can park in the lots for two hours for no pay. they they in they do things
for seniors that really encourage them to come and drive to their senior center and and use facilities there. And we we really are are very much behind in supporting our senior population in this town. So, um, so that's one thing, but I
I wanted to follow up a little bit on Fran's comment about the importance of the of the support of town meeting and Alex's comment that to date, um, which is absolutely true, there's been no community engagement. And when I put those two together, I come up with that
um what makes Brookline really special is that we have a representative, in fact, we were the first representative um town meeting form of government in Massachusetts. And which that means that there are 20 270 plus members of the
public that get an opportunity to really talk about these issues and and to really weigh in. And so, um, while I appreciate that our town administrator is making these decisions and I appreciate that our town department
heads are weighing in, um, really it is in it's so important to hear from a broader audience that is connected to these ideas and and things that are going on in the town. Um and so I
wholeheartedly um think that this resolution is very important to begin this broader dialogue in the town. Um, you know, we we you know, as I'm sure was pointed out, this
council on aging has among the lowest, if not the lowest budget in the town and and 20% of the resource of the population is not an insignificant percentage of the population to require
a little bit more attention. And if this can help to broaden the conversation and really um really weave us together as a whole community, multigenerational as um Mr. Weiss said, you know, it's an important thing to do right now. So,
thank you again for putting this warrant article forward. >> Thank you, Ben Burnbomb. >> Yes, I'm going to reveal that I am a senior person. I know you're shocked and uh but it's
the truth and uh I will enter my 80th year, which is to say reach my 79th birthday uh in a couple of months. I have a sister in her 70s, my baby sister as it were, who lives in Cambridge, and I have several cousins who live in
Newton. And I will say this that the uh my sister, my baby sister, and my baby cousins are getting far better treatment, if you will, or care, if you will, in Cambridge and in Newton. I know
they're not they're not Brooklyn, but on the other hand, uh Brooklyn deserves I'm I should I will say seniors in Brooklyn do deserve at least the attention given in Cambridge and Newton. And and we
don't have it. And that's why I write a check every once in a while to our senior center. My sister does not do the same for the Cambridge Senior Center. uh nor do my cousins in Newton. Uh the town carries the weight. The least we can do
for God's sake is say yes to a resolution that will offer that will ensure that what we do on top of Fiser Hill has uh has is is welcoming and and
important to uh people who are my age and and just kids if you will and uh and older than me if they're really old. I I just I don't see why we would say no to this. I I just it's inconceivable to me.
Thank you. By the way, >> thank you. >> I I I want to say that I put three kids uh through Brooklyn schools and I'm delighted I was delighted to pay the freight. Uh I have since not put anybody through Brooklyn schools and I've been
delighted to pay the freight. Anyway, some of your kids rode my freight. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ben. And what I'm hoping is concluding comments from Alisa Jonas. >> Uh
um well, I actually have three points. One, I will acknowledge that I am a senior as well and a senior who lives in South Brooklyn. And I will have to say that although I fully want uh accessibility for seniors at Fiser Hill,
for South Brooklyn seniors, it is not particular, it is not that much more accessible. And what we should be doing is providing a location for seniors in South Brooklyn um at least at Putterham Circle to do more there. So
that that's that's one thing. But more generally, I support this Warren article because as other people have said, we are seniors are a huge percentage of our population and are truly ignored,
especially when it comes to the budget. this shocking that um that younger I mean everyone deserves their uh their needs met, but for seniors to have $1 million of our total budget spent on
senior needs when seniors I see I see them as having the greatest needs in town and we they are so ignored. So I think by putting this Warren article before town meeting, it just brings the issue of seniors and
their needs um to the forefront whereas it hasn't been done in the past. Uh, and then finally, because the outdoor pool is something that's near and dear to me and it's been it's come up a few times, I want to say one of the reasons that we think that a outdoor pool is so
important is that we don't have other accessible facilities for seniors outdoors. I mean, everything else, the athletic fields, the tennis courts, the playgrounds, they're all focused on younger people. It is only an outdoor pool that can actually provide physical
activity for seniors outdoors. And if you look at other towns that have outdoor pools that are modern, a huge focus is making them accessible to seniors. And that's something we've always talked about. We've talked about zero entry, which is something that the
indoor pool does not have and that most other outdoor pools do have. So just that's it. That's my summary on three topics. >> Thank you, Dennis. Back to you. >> Uh so before we go to a motion and a
vote, if there's anything um that the petitioners would like to uh add before we go to that vote, preferably um uh keep it brief and try to refrain from anything that we've already discussed, but if there's any final thoughts, this
would be the opportunity. See? >> All right. >> So, um, Liz, uh, you can make a motion on behalf of the subcommittee. >> Unmute.
>> Now you're on. There you go. >> Right. So, uh, do do we have a motion? Well, I would make a motion. You're the one you're the one making. I'm making a motion. Thank you. On behalf of this public safety subcommittee to vote on warrant article 13.
>> The recommendation is >> and the recommendation is to vote yes. >> Favorable action. All right. So we have a motion for favorable action on warrant article 13 from the subcommittee. >> We're going to go >> we're going to get on behalf of the subcommittee. We're going to go to vote.
>> Uh Michael Burgerer. >> Yes. >> And Burnbounds. >> Yes. >> Harry Bors. >> Yes. Cliff Brown. >> Anthony Buono. >> Yes. >> Elise Couture Stone.
>> Anything that supports individuals dignity across generations. An absolute yes. >> Uh Harry Freriedman. >> Yes. >> David Mark Goldstein. >> Yes. >> Neil Gordon. >> Yes. >> Susan Grana.
>> Enthusiastically. Yes. >> Harry Gman. >> Yes. Kelly Hardbeck, >> yes. >> Alisa Jonas, >> yes. >> Janice Khan, >> yes. >> Ryan Lad, >> yes. >> Alec Levitz,
>> yes. >> Carol Levvin, >> yes. But I also request that we have a tally of what people how many people that vote yes are senior citizens. >> Uh, it's the advisory committee. Aren't we all senior citizens? Police.
>> No. >> No. I know. I know. I know. I know. Liz Linder. >> Yes. And I'm not a senior citizen yet. >> Yet. Yes. Uh Pam Lodish. >> Yes. >> Jocelyn Murphy. >> 100%. Yes. >> Danell O'Neal.
>> I am not a senior citizen. >> Not a senior citizen either. Yes. >> Yes. >> Linda Olsson Pelky. >> Yes. And I am very dependent upon all of the services of the senior center. So, >> uh, Fran Pearllor,
>> I would love to vote yes, but as a petitioner, I think I should abstain. >> Thank you. David Pollock is >> Yes. >> Are you here? I'm sorry. >> Did you vote? I didn't hear. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Carlos is not here. Margaret Robbotham. >> Yes. >> Lee Selwin. I am a senior and I'll vote yes. >> Christine Westfall. >> Yes. >> Dennis Chondet here. I'm here and I'll
vote yes. >> Great. I thought you were away for some reason >> back back yesterday. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry I skipped over you. Um uh I am also a uh senior. I've I'm not voting. Uh so by a vote of
26 in favor uh and two abstensions we're recommending favorable action on war article 13. Thank you Liz for your your inaugural report. Thank you to the subcommittee. Thank you to all of the petitioners and we can move on to warrant article
nine. Who's giving that report? Ms. Grana. >> Okay. Um hopefully people have had a chance to peruse the report because this is a
fairly complicated article but uh I will start by saying that I will be focusing my comments on the amended version of this article uh which has undergone a substantial amount of revision during
the last two weeks or so. Okay. So, the human services subcommittee um held a public hearing on warrant article 9 on 9:25
as well as a public meeting that was then continued to 108 while we waited for the revised version of the warrant article uh to be born. And um
at the um second meeting there was an entire focus on the revised version and at the conclusion of that meeting the subcommittee voted essentially unanimously five to zero
with one abstension coming from uh Alec who is the primary petitioner of the article. Okay. So, what does the amended version of the article do? Uh, the article seeks a new general
bylaw article, article 840, to provide Brookline tenants facing eviction with essential information in a single document about their legal rights as tenants, the eviction process, and the
resources available to Brooklyn tenants facing eviction. This would be a Brooklyn centric doctrine document uh that would focus on the Massachusetts and Brooklyn law pertinent to Brooklyn
tenants. Uh it has three basic requirements. First, that the select board through the office of housing stability or some other body as designated by the select
board create and if necessary uh update annually by August 1st of each year a statement of tenants rights. Second, that the town annually publish the statement on the town's website and
make printed copies available upon request. And third, that individual agents of the town such as town councils and department of public health inspectors
uh who deliver a printed copy of um a notice uh uh related to eviction. uh also must deliver the first time uh that
they deliver said notice uh a copy of this statement to uh tenants who are facing eviction in Brooklyn. Why have the petitioners decided to to
bring this motion? Uh, one point that I think is uh, a prime motiv motivation is what neighboring communities who have um, a majority percentage of housing
units being occupied by renters are currently doing. And Brooklyn is in that category. uh like Cambridge and Somerville and Boston, more than 50% of Brooklyn's
um occupied housing units are occupied by renters. So this is very relevant to Brookline. But unlike these other communities which
provide notice to all uh tenants who are being given or have delivered to them any kind of eviction related notice. Brookline does not require that tenants under those circumstances be given a
copy of Brookline relevant information concerning their legal rights as a tenant under both Massachusetts and Brookline law, the eviction process, and resources that would be available to
them. Uh this is a a genuine concern because we as a community then are not providing the kinds of protection that neighboring communities are doing. Now,
the petitioners, now that we've gotten to the point of the amended version, the petitioners envision that this statement not only would be a Brookline centric version. uh but it would model itself
after the tenants rights and resources documents of approximately six to eight pages in length that these neighboring communities like Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville currently provide on their websites. It would contain essential
information about Brooklyn tenants rights and protections under both Massachusetts and Brooklyn law as well as information on potential potential sources of financial assistance, housing stability programs, emergency resources
available to Brookline tenants and information on obtaining legal and inspectional assistance related to housing issues. The petitioners believe that the town of Brooklyn is in the best position to
create this single Brooklyn ccentric document rather than simply referring Brooklyn residents or tenants facing eviction to statements of tenant rights and resources produced by other municipalities or the state which may
have different laws and procedures related to evictions than which would uh uh than Brooklyn law has, which would serve to possibly confuse and inadvertently misinform Brooklyn
tenants. For example, the uh cities of Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville have ordinance that place the responsibility of delivering these statements uh about tenants rights on landlords and
therefore their ordinances and their requirements would have an entirely different procedure than what Brookline would have. Um now in addition to providing this critical information to tenants facing
eviction, the required publication would be um required to be placed on the uh town's website which could then serve to make this information about Brookline tenants legal rights and resources and
landlord responsibilities readily and widely available. to both Brooklyn tenants and Brooklyn landlords. Um, often uh I mean this would serve to educate tenants who may be totally
unaware of their rights or how to access access uh legal assistance, but it would also help particularly smaller landlords who may not have a lot of uh legal advice unlike large landlords and may
not be fully aware of all of their obligations to their tenants and may want to be better informed. And by requiring the town to create and uh publish this document on the town website as a minimum, people would be
able to access this uh simple and clear and concise document uh very readily and for example as a an a PDF it could be easily downloaded. Um what would be the costs uh of doing
so? Uh the printing and translation cost associated with producing 400 copies of an eight-page statement. Uh that would be translated into five languages would
likely total anywhere from $3,200 to $6,400 depending on the quality of the paper used. Um, let me go into more detail about why uh
we need to uh have it in at least five languages. Uh, because the statement would be considered a vital document under the town's language access plan policies. Print copies of it would need to be made available in the five most
commonly spoken languages in Brookline. And in addition, individuals would have the right to request uh translated versions of this in uh any of the top 15 languages spoken in Brookline
uh which could then be downloaded from the town's website. Um so we were able to develop those uh figures by uh information provided to us from uh the
uh assistant director of a of odiker from uh Caitlyn Star and approximately for each a language that we need a translation of an eight docu page document it would cost approximately $354.
So even if we had a translation into 15 languages, the total cost of printing up 400 copies and making these translated versions accessible on the town website would be under $10,000 and probably
considerably much less. Um, now as for staffing needs, that's a little bit unclear and that was one of the concerns of the subcommittee when we were first presented with uh the
original motion. Um, we currently have in theory an office of housing stability, but it does not have a head and it it's not really fully staffed at this point. According to Melissa Goth,
it's located uh somewhere. It's been part of the planning department, but we have an opportunity uh of making use of a person who uh has recently been onboarded
uh in uh the town. The there was a survey done by an assessment done by the uh Department of Public Health about a year and a half ago. And this survey provided information that led to
making housing stability one of the priorities of the uh Department of Health and Human Services. And so they have recently hired um a human services navigator and that
position uh has been hired specifically to implement the priorities of uh the survey known and the community health improvement plan which was the result of that survey. And after discussions with the interim director of the health
department, John Kloinski, uh the petitioners have uh feel comfortable knowing that eventually the person hired to fulfill uh to fill that position will be able to devote uh time,
although it's not clear how much time to working on creating this uh document. Uh, additionally, there will have to be significant input and review by the town council's office to make certain that
the portions of the statement discussing the legal rights of Brooklyn's tenants and the eviction process of Brookline are accurate and upto-date. Um so it is unknown at present exactly
how many staff hours would be required. But one of the important changes in the new version of the uh article is that it is the uh responsibility of the select board to
designate who who uh and what uh department will be responsible or what body of the government will be responsible for the creation and updating of this uh new statement. So,
um I think that and the subcommittee felt that um there will there is uh a possibility with the more flexible wording of the uh uh amended version that uh we will be
able to find an appropriate uh uh portion of the town government to be in charge of creating this new um uh statement. Now moving moving on to other aspects of
this. Um the subcommittee h had a number of concerns that were um um created by some of the provisions of the original uh warrant article,
particularly the one that required the uh information to be comprehensive information. And at one point uh the petitioners were contemplating having two different versions including one that would be as long as 40 pages in
length. And that would have created enormous uh financial and staffing um burdens on the town. But that is no longer a requirement. And uh the actual content of the uh
statement is actually now being left to uh the select board to decide. And there are a whole uh number of different uh provisions that recommend uh key topics.
But it will be the select board that will make the final decision about what the uh the printed document would actually contain. And this gives us a great deal more flexibility
um in deter in making certain that what we promise and what we obligate the town to to perform can actually be uh done uh without incurring a great deal of of cost to the town. So for all of these
reasons, um we uh as a subcommittee felt that the final version was a very decided improvement that it was able to accomplish the core uh functions that
the initial uh warrant article wanted the town to to accomplish. uh specifically making certain that every tenant who is on the verge of being evicted has access to a current
upto-date Brookline specific uh list of requirements uh and rights of tenants and information about resources that they can turn to under those circumstances.
So by a virtually unanimous vote of 5 to zero with only the petitioner abstaining, our subcommittee recommends favorable action. >> Thank you. Um Petitioner Loveitz, do you have anything to add to what struck me
as a quite comprehensive um summary? >> Um I'll just be very brief. I I agree. I think Susan gave an excellent summary there and I and I thank her for her hard work on that. Um, I would just say the petitioners have accepted all of the uh subcommittee amendments as friendly
amendments and agree that um, you know, I think this this has been a good example of when the advisory committee process works really well. Um, and I think we've come up with a a more refined, leaner um, product here that that as Susan indicates accomplishes the aims of the article um, but contains
costs related to it. Um, and I in particular want to thank members of the subcommittee for all their hard work on this. Um, and also our colleague, uh, Neil Gordon, um, who also played a big role in in getting this finished product together. Um, drawing on his invaluable experience as a longtime constable. Um,
so thanks to all involved and, uh, looking forward to any questions or discussion. >> Thank you, Harry. >> Um, so I have the, um, first two questions and they all regard costs. Um, question number one,
uh, given the printing costs, um, inherent in all this, was any consideration given by the subcommittee to simply having the constable hand out a one page? You are the tenant. You have rights. Go
to www.brooklinemma.gov to find out what they are. I >> is my question not clear? >> Uh yeah. No. Um I think that one of the things that our subcommittee focused on was taking a close look at what
documents were being produced by um the other towns, the other municipalities. And we were very impressed by their brief statements because they do much more than simply have, you know, a paragraph on what their legal rights
are. They're very step by step and clear about uh what the eviction process involves, what specifically are the obligations of both the tenant and the landlord. >> Susan, excuse me. I I guess I wasn't
clear. and we didn't think >> but but this is going on the website as a PDF. So to avoid the thousands of dollars that the subcommittee was good enough to estimate that printing would cost. My question is was any
consideration given to simply handing out a one page that sites the the tenant to the PDF on the website? Um I don't think that we well I don't think
that that uh the purpose of it was would be to hand the person who is about to be evicted a document that they could then hold in their hand and know exact read it hand it to someone else know exactly
in a very clear concise way what that uh what the requirements would be Plus, it makes it clear that they have been actually delivered legally that document once the town obligates
uh involves themselves in the process of uh informing tenants about their rights, then I think that it makes good sense to know that they have actually been uh
served a copy of that when they are being served. served uh their eviction notice. Um >> okay, that leads directly to my second question, >> which is the town isn't doing anything here. It's being it's in some respects
it's an unfunded mandate on the um constables. Constables are presumably being paid by the landlord to deliver the papers regarding the eviction. The town is not paying the
constables to deliver this. The town is ordering the constables to deliver this. Um but um was there any discussion on on this unfunded mandate? >> Neil, do you want to weigh in on that
because you were part of the discussion? Yeah, just to just to just to correct the the who who pays what here and so uh constables are engaged by the landlord typically although yeah it's by the
landlord typically uh to serve a tenant for which the constables get paid. The landlord uh under the proposed bylaw has no additional obligation to the tenant. The service would be a service provided
by constable as an agent of the town on behalf of the town. It's a requirement of the town that the constable or the the other whatever other agent is serving. Uh and I suspect that that as defined by state law, uh it's a $5
posting and that's likely $5 per what the town is going to have to incur. there and I I I I and I can come up with probably uh an estimate of what that particular unfunded mandate would cost
and it's >> uh I think it's it may be in the printing and other uh it's it it's not terribly significant. >> Thank you, >> Chris Westfall. >> Um uh the first the uh conflict of interest disclaimer. Uh, my family owns
a three family in Brooklyn that's rental property. Um, the question that I have is how many evictions a year are there in Brooklyn? Did anybody ask that? >> I'll get to that if you can wait for my remarks. >> Uh, uh, can you give me a ballpark?
>> Um, yeah. So, I am one of five constables. Uh, I average less than fewer than one per year over 12 years. And how many eviction notices do you deliver each year?
>> Um, so year to date, um, year to date it's in the 40s, uh, 40 eviction related notices to 30 or so separate addresses.
>> Okay. So that's when each one would have to be delivered. It's not the simply the number of evictions, but the number of eviction notices for the first time that you're delivering it, >> right? It's not the number of notices. It's it's probably the number of addresses,
>> right? >> If you presume it's the same constable. >> So, let let's let's uh you know, I I'm I'm a little concerned with the printing costs here. Um I have to be honest about that. Um, I'm I'm also concerned in some
respects that this is um uh this is a solution in search of a problem. You know, uh virtually anybody can uh look this stuff up on Google and find it almost immediately.
Um the Secretary of State has an extensive published list of this stuff. Um I I share Harry's concern about the printing costs. uh and about the updating costs uh and the responsibility for updating in terms of the number of
people. I will say that we have owned the three family for probably close to 40 years at this point and to the best of my knowledge and belief we have ex evicted exactly one tenant.
>> Um so you know in that sense I I don't view this as as a particularly overwhelming problem. uh and the availability of this information uh is out there. Uh and I, you know, I I
I just did a quick Google search and looked at at Boston's website. I don't know if Boston requires uh the landlord to deliver anything to the tenant when they're evicting. I've never had to evict a tenant in Boston.
Um, but we're, you know, we're not, this seems like a lot of activity on the part of the town for a problem that does not appear to be that significant because we don't have any
sense that there are a ton of tenants who have no idea what their rights are. >> Thank you, Neil Gordon. >> Uh, yeah, thank you, Harry. As I think most of you know, I'm a long-erving Brooklyn constable. I have a modest but
direct financial interest in the article we're considering. I'm also a member of the town's homelessness task force. Um, so we're considering a a pragmatic statement of tenants rights. I'll note that the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office has published a
statement of tenant rights and landlord obligations. It's in the packet. Um it has been and remains readily available online. There are no um there are no specific rules or regulations
uh that are Brooklyn specific. Uh evictions and the eviction process is set by state law and and there are no local um there's no local bylaw rules or otherwise. Um I think that the AG's statement beyond being a good start
might suffice altogether. Um, as I noted, this year as a Brooklyn constable, I've served eviction related notices on Brooklyn residents at about 30 unique addresses. Two of those resulted in physical
evictions. Uh, COVID years aside, this year is a more or less typical year over 12 years of average less than one physical eviction per year with just two tenants apparently becoming homeless. uh and just one known to me to be homeless
long term. The substantial majority of my cases involve months of pass through rent in significant amount. Uh included in those are a few residents of subsidized units owned by not forprofits, including two at a property
owned by Brookline Community Development Corporation. Um they are hardly the epitome of mean, ruthless, uncaring landlords. One former case though involves an elderly owner whose tenant is best described in colloquial terms as
a quote serious serial deadbeat unquote. So much for the upstairs being a reliable source of retirement income. Of my non-ren related cases, several involve residents who are at significant physical fire or health danger to their
neighbors. those the tenants being a significant danger to their neighbors. One elderly homeowner felt unsafe living with her then tenant. A recent and still active case involves a landlord with a
protective order against her tenant whom court records now show has an arsenal of firearms including assault weapons. with the proposed bylaw uh and a bylaw mandating delivery of a statement of tenant rights have changed the outcome
of any of my cases? Probably not. My grandmother might have said shenan as nit uh in Yiddish. It wouldn't hurt in English, but if so, she wouldn't have had vulnerable resident landlords in mind. Considering my direct financial
interest, I'll be abstaining. Happy to answer any more questions. you on the other hand, I ask you to consider the actual merits and vote accordingly. Thank you. >> Thank you, Lee Selwin. Um, yeah, my my comments kind of follow things that both
Chris and and Neil have said. You know, there's sort of a an undercurrent in this type of proposal that there's a an imbalance or a ma massive imbalance between the landlord and the and the tenant with respect to their, you know,
respect respective um power. Uh and that may that may well be true in the case of a multi-unit uh building that's owned by a real estate company, you know, such as CHR or whatever. But um there are a lot of two
and three family um homes in Brooklyn that are uh where the tenant is the I'm sorry where the owner is an occupant of the building. And it seems to me if we're going to start giving the the
tenants a notice of what their rights are for these small landlords that are not in the real estate business, uh maybe we ought to concurrently give them a notice as to what their rights are with respect to evicting a tenant. And I don't see anybody proposing that. And
and I think that um it it it bothers me that we are not taking into consideration um the kinds of issues that Neil just raised with respect to why evictions take place. Um people who don't pay
their rent for extended periods of time. Uh people that are are are are uh create uh dangerous conditions. Um, I think that we need, if we're going to start
uh looking at ways to protect tenants, I think we also have to look at at ways to protect small landlords. And until we do that, I I'm not going to support this. >> Thank you, Carol Levvin.
>> Hi. Um, so two questions. The first is is there any policy or precedent within the town of when we provide this sort of written advice to consumers
um as to what their legal rights are and procedures. And the extension of that question is if we do have a policy, does it specify when we give something in writing versus referring them to a website? because I do feel like we're setting a precedent
by doing this. So that's my first question. >> Um Joslyn, you have a two uh two finger on that. >> Yes. Just responding to Carol's question. So in the days of your when I worked in town hall, um it was probably
the most prevalent complaint that we heard about concerned uh landlords and tenant tenant tenant and landlord law. And so our office and so people would call the town clerk's office and they would refer them to our office. They would call the select board's office,
they would refer them to our office. And so um we kept a compendium of materials available for people. Um so to Carol's point, we didn't recommend anything, but we would refer people to resources such as the attorney general's office or the
office of housing, um the state office of housing, whatever it's called. um and provide them with links to you know reputable sources so that they would have access to the information. Um we we didn't publish anything. We weren't
required to do it. We but we did it as a courtesy for folks who had questions about landlord tenant law. >> Okay. Thank you. And then I guess my my second question is I'm always concerned when we create a new
uh obligation for an employee to fulfill. And the question is, you know, what what isn't the employee going to be able to do that they're currently doing that they're taking on an additional responsibility?
And though I appreciate the um explanation of potential or attempt to quantify potential financial burdens on the town, um I I always sort of feel that a you know we really need to drill
down as to why we think someone whether it be an FTE or a part-time person now has room in the room above and beyond what they were hired to do. So, I guess that's a question for Susan
or Titioners. I don't know. >> Sure. Yeah, if that's okay. Um, so thanks for that question, Carol, for both those questions. Um, one more thing I'd just add to Jocelyn's answer to your first question. um and I posted a link
to in the chat is um the town has actually put together a series of know your rights resources particularly related to immigration enforcement um that we have put out proactively. Um so just wanted to to share that as another example of why I don't think we're
necessarily creating new precedent here. Um on the second question >> and Alex can I just ask are those websites or those printed handouts? >> Those are those are handouts that the town has created. Um, so what I've posted there is the PDF um, version on
the town website, but the town does have print copies that are available in certain uh, public buildings. Um, which would be very similar, I' I'd note in nature to what Warrant Article 9 is calling for, having that digital version on the town website. Um, and in fact, in Warrant Article 9, out of an
uh, desire to contain related costs, um, only making print copies available upon specific request. Um and I would note that the cost estimates you're seeing um we were very deliberate to um overestimate how many uh copies we we
expect to be required. So um I think those are conservative estimates. I would expect to see actual costs come in significantly lower um than what's been presented. But of course we wanted to air on the side of caution um there. In terms of the personnel related question,
um I direct folks uh if they haven't already to look at um the memo provided in the packet u by then interim now permanent director of uh the public health and human services department, John Klashinsky um which speaks a little
more in detail with um how we're envisioning the human the human services navigator position plugging into this work. Um, one thing you'll note in that memo is, uh, director Klashinsky specifically notes that, um, war article
9 very closely aligns with two of the goals of the chip, um, which the department is currently seeking to implement, um, its 5-year action plan there. Um, and so I I think from the petitioner's perspective, and certainly based on our conversations with DPH, um,
we view this very much as a a project falling under the purview of that chip. Um and to that point, what um is noted in the memo is that this project actually serves nicely as part of the onboarding activities of the human services navigator, particularly by
making them um conduct as part of the creation of the statement of tenants rights. um an environmental scan um not just of the kind of statewide legal architecture that exists around eviction proceedings, but more specifically the availability of Brookline specific
programming and resources that could be of service to tenants, particularly those facing eviction. Um and and just to underscore that um in response partially to some of the preceding comments we've heard tonight um I think it would be a mistake to evaluate the
need for this article based solely on the number of completed evictions that occur in Brooklyn. Um because that's not necessarily what we're we're only targeting. Um I I I would encourage people to think about the impacts of housing instability and where we can
effectively intervene to mitigate that as as more of a continuum rather than kind of are you directly facing eviction or not. Um many people many tenants in Brooklyn for instance who receive a notice to quit from a Brooklyn constable
um perhaps as Neil notes commonly for um uh missing multiple months of rent payments. They may not be aware of the fact that BCDC has an emergency tenants stabilization program that is designed specifically to augment the finances of people in that situation to make their
back payments and rent whole. Um, which would benefit I think in many cases both the tenant and the landlord. Um, so you know that there's a case here to be made for warrant article 9 better creating a pipeline for vulnerable tenants to those
kind of programs which could prevent or obiate the need for further eviction proceedings or an actual eviction to go forward. Um, so those are just a couple thoughts in response to your questions. Happy to to clarify if that if that is helpful. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you David Mark Goldstein. I will take that as a pass. Elise, >> hi. Yes, thanks. Um, so back when I first moved to Boston, I actually worked uh with Samuels and Associates in Boston and um we actually had to serve quite a
bit of these eviction notices um some along with the FBI which was fun. Um my question is now I don't recall whether or not the city of Boston required us to provide this um packet of
information about evictions or why we as a company would choose to evict. Um but it is something that we included in all of our leasing documents. And my question is um why didn't we choose to put the burden of uh providing this
document on the actual owner or the person who would be renting um out. Thanks. >> Yeah, that that's a great question and I'd be happy to speak to that. That's something we discussed with the subcommittee at some length. Um first off, in answer to your question, Boston
does legally require that. So the reason I if if this was in the last seven years or so that you uh were doing that work, there was a legal requirement >> that that that would be included. >> Um I I will note in looking at Boston,
Cambridge, Somerville, um the other surrounding communities, majority renter, where they have rolled out similar programs, um those have adopted a shared model that differs slightly from Warren Article 9. Um the main
deviation being um in Boston, Cambridge and Somerville the requirement to provide notice to a tenant um lies with the landlord just as you suggest. Um so either the landlord or their agent that they retain to deliver that notice is
required to provide the notification that statement of tenants rights. Um we initially liked this model and wanted to explore including you know designing the Warren article around that model. Um over the last several years um we've had
multiple conversations with with town council about that. Um we've also consulted with um I think at this point three or four other attorneys um several of whom um are AC colleagues of ours. Um
but all of whom are are um you know reputable members of town meeting um who provided um their own opinions that concurred with the opinion we received from town council um which indicated that requiring the landlord to deliver the notice would not be likely to
receive approval by the attorney general's office um specifically because it would violate um the permacy of state law in um governing certain kinds of civil relationships. Um that is a very high level paraphrase. I know town council was on earlier if um if he wants
to expound on that or correct me if I spoken error at all. Um but in summation we were informed that would not be possible for Brooklyn um because it would it would not be approved by the attorney general. And it's worth noting that the other communities that have that have passed this or these types of
programs have all been cities. So these programs have been put in place through ordinance. None of them have received legal challenge. Um, and so that's why we're in a situation where there are there's this other model out there that we liked but didn't decide to go with.
Um, because a we, you know, we wanted to follow the the legal advice we received. Um, and design a an article that's likely to receive approval. Um, and b we didn't want to in, you know, in a desire to extend these protections to Brooklyn tenants inadvertently create a legal
predicate to challenge these ordinances in other communities. Um, so that's that's uh that's why we went with this model. >> Thank you. That was really thorough. Thank you very much, >> Linda Olsson Pali.
>> Thank you, Harry. Um, do I have the right headphones on? Yes. Switching between meetings. Sorry. Um, so I did read the committee report. It was very helpful. Thank you, Susan. And um I just
have to add I'm I'm wondering if we're consolidating the the human services into uh the public health department and we're trying to set up the office of housing stability and we're hiring for
that. I don't understand why it's not appropriate to wait and let that office decide whether a packet of materials of this nature is really needed because we have heard disagreements about whether
it's needed or not. Um I tend to be sympathetic to the um the information is readily available and we would hope people would call that office. So I'm a little bit hardressed to think it's a
vital need to have this information compiled in a paper format and updated yearly. And I also agree with Lee's comment about the flip side of this. I mean, if we're giving assistance and
advice on legal issues um to one particular segment of the population and not others, it it just does feel kind of um unequal and
maybe a little um precarious for the town itself to be doing that. So, I I'm tending to oppose this Warren article for those reasons. Thank you. >> Thank you, Harry Bors. >> Uh, yeah, a couple of things. Um, we've
been looking at the cost and we've been looking at printing costs. I suspect the cost of actually producing this, at least initially, are going to be more expensive than we imagine and that it's going to require more work than we might imagine. Um I suppose we could hire an
outside firm to work on it at least initially. Um and that's work by different departments and certainly legal. Um so we may be underestimating what that will be. Um I think we also have to be uh concerned and careful
about liability uh when we offer advice. Um, and I know in the report that it mentioned looking at that specifically and recommending that in any pamphlet, um, there would be a clause saying this is not legal advice and be sure to to, uh, consult the lawyer. But that being
said, I think it's something we have to keep our eyes on. Generally, I think this does have the potential to be a resource of value, um, a guide of sorts, both for tenants and after having heard from Jocelyn, I think potentially, uh,
beneficial to the town also because it's something they can hand out rather than ask answering the same question over and over. Um, and perhaps even for landlords who want to get a sense of where the edges are and how they should go about it or if there's other resources to
direct their tenants toward. um though not a compendium meant to be an oracle. It it's really should be about orientation and guidance. Um what I am curious about though is why this could
not be accomplished um through a resolution as opposed to crafting a bylaw. We're still hiring people. Uh the department is that's going to work on this is is still being established. Um,
I would like to think that if Town Meeting asked for this, um, that we would get to it and and if we did not get to it, that town meeting would come right back and say, "We asked politely and nothing was done. So now we're going to insist upon it with a with a bylaw."
um and if maybe that was considered um rather than the bylaw given that there's still some organization to be done within town before they really can even start working on this project. >> Alec, do you want to take that? >> Yeah, I'm I'm happy to speak to that and
thanks for that question, Harry. Um we did consider uh whether a resolution would be more gerine for this article. Um and ultimately we decided a bylaw um was worth moving forward for or forward with rather um for a couple main
reasons. One being um we you know from the beginning wanted to be very flexible about implementation deadlines. Um and in fact the amended version um we've ensured at the very least that four months following the attorney general's
approval um will elapse before the effective date of the bylaw. Um given the previous history of AG approval from fall town meetings um that would likely place the effective date um sometime
either late summer or early fall of 2026. Obviously that's pending any changes in in the attorney general's office or um any concerns they may or may not flag with the article. Um, another piece, um, and so and and I should mention in the petitioner's
discussions with, um, the director of DPH, um, about the onboarding of the human services navigator and feasible deadlines, um, we we were told that this would be an achievable deadline um, at least for for their office and for this
position uh, to conduct that work. Um the second piece here that that's important in terms of bylaw versus resolution um is the fact that the notice requirement, the delivery of the notice by town agents is not something that we could require through
resolution. That necessitates a bylaw. Um if we want that to become standard practice, um we certainly could, you know, pass a resolution calling for the creation of a statement of of tenants rights completely in agreement. I I would expect that's something the town
would honor in a timely manner. Um and could potentially be appropriate for consideration. Um but the petitioners at least and and I u I think based you know I don't want to speak for the subcommittee but based on their vote I I hope we're persuaded by the notion that
um creating this notification program is really an important aspect of this article. Um it aligns us with surrounding communities. it it extends what's now becoming quickly in greater Boston a standard protective measure for tenants to Brooklyn residents as well. Um and it's something as I mentioned
that we could only create a standard of practice via bylaw. Um so for that reason we felt it was important to move forward with bylaw format. >> Harry you're all set. Okay. Uh Anthony >> Yep. Anthony >> I just want to hop off something Harry
brought up quickly. Um Harry mentioned that it might cost more to produce and maintain the documentation um than we expect. And I I I guess I just I I don't I I guess I would push back and just say I don't know if it would because as Neil
mentioned before and I'm I'm not an expert on this type of law at all, but um eviction procedures and eviction law is regulated statewide. Um, and if a bunch of our neighboring communities have already produced the documentation that explain your rights as it relates
to that to the state law, um, there isn't too much that needs to be changed from a Brooklyn perspective if if we're not managing that. So, I think there's a lot of potential to just lift and shift what Boston has already done, um, and just take advantage of the work they've already completed. Um, Alec, petitioners, am I right on that or what
do you think? Yeah, I I think that comports with our understanding and I would just dovetail onto that that I think the the arguably most town staff labor intensive portion of this is the local the Brooklyn specific piece of
this which I do think actually >> there is no Brookline specific piece. >> Well, there is >> than delivery of the notice. >> Well, the Brooklyn specific >> resources are different. I'm thought resources are a different issue. >> That's right. And and I feel like that's the part of the work that the human
services navigator will be best equipped to handle. And I think that represents the majority of the original staff work that's going to be required for initial implementation. >> And that comports with the idea that the Department of Health says we can probably do this in a timely manner because that's the only part they
actually have to work on. Right. Yeah, >> that's right. Alisa Jonas. >> Um, I guess I'm wondering since most of the legal issues are state issues and there is the concern about liability.
Um, Alec, I guess, why why haven't you considered providing some kind of a handout, but the handout saying primarily if you're wondering about your legal rights, um, you can go to the attorney general's
office and that relieves Brooklyn from legal liability, but then also include information, helpful resources, which, as you mentioned, um, are useful to perhaps save people from being evicted.
>> Well, you haven't taken that approach. >> I I think what we've what we've tried to present here does mirror that approach uh in a lot of respects. Um I I think to Susan's point that that she mentioned earlier, one of the things we saw that um I think is of real value to tenants
where these um notices are provided in other communities is a step-by-step telling of the eviction process. for instance, that's something that you can put in the hand of a tenant um that will provide real value to them really regardless of where they are in that
process. Um and it's not something that I I would say we could necessarily assume if we gave a one-page flyer to someone, they would eventually access. Um we don't know what they would do with a onepage flyer. I'll say from an accessibility perspective, I I'm loathed
to assume in anything related to public noticing that every member of the public has reliable internet access. So I I I'm very wary of a situation where uh we provide a resource like this only in its comp, you know, comprehensive form to
people who can access it online. Um, and again, as I mentioned earlier, you know, we we look to our neighboring communities um, for how to best implement this. And all of them, they've been running these programs for close to a decade now. Each of them um, require
these more comprehensive but still, you know, relatively brief notices be provided inhand in paper copies when those notices are given. Um, and it's really, unfortunately, I think the only way you can be assured that when this trigger triggering event or notice
occurs that the information we've laid out in this bylaw does get in hand to the tenant. Um, so as I mentioned, you know, we did endeavor to contain costs in this as much as possible, particularly compared to the original draft. We've really streamlined what's going to be in that notice. We brought
the page count down significantly by over twothirds. So we we are cognizant of of cost concerns. We want to be sensitive to that. Um and I think what we've presented tonight strikes a good balance. I'm at least just wondering is there a
way that whatever is provided by the attorney general is just summarized and making a statement uh according to the attorney general the these are the guidelines these are
the laws that have to get followed. so that it takes less of a burden on our staff to make sure that we're doing it right. >> Um, yeah, I I think as has been discussed, like the availability of of some of these resources that are are
currently out there should make implementation a lighter lift um in Brooklyn. Um and as I think others mentioned, it's it'll be important in how we present these um statements that we clarify that um this is not, you
know, binding legal advice. These are we're connecting you with resources and encourage you to speak with a lawyer um who will, you know, will provide referral information for legal services for tenants as part of this statement. Um so you know I I do think the other resources will help make this a lighter
lift as mentioned but um we did feel it was important to have a local specific um resource. Um and you know I I don't want to necessarily get over my skis with um uh what town staff may feel are best practices here as well. So we we wanted to provide flexibility for um you
know the experts in in town council's office and DPH um and our other excellent departments uh as they move forward with implementation. >> Thank you Janice Khan. >> Yes, thank you Harry. Um so Alec just
confirming that the other municipalities you mentioned have in fact created ordinances that contain this. Okay. >> Um so I have a second question. So, I've been thinking about Lee's earlier comment and also Carol's. So, um about
about the um renters, the people who are renting their units in these smaller places, the three deckers or whatever. Um so, just so so people are aware, this is not theoretical. I know a real life case where this was a problem. And I was
thinking, Alec, when you when you put the um that um you know, the link to the resources that the town has for about immigrants. So that was not done with an a bylaw, but they put up this
information. And I'm and I'm thinking um I really would hope that this this body and and even your group also encourages that the town put on resources for those who are renting
units as well um so that they are have some guidance as well. It was a a scary situation and um for this person that I know and and it took a lot of um a lot
of work to try to resolve the situation. But I think if there had been some sort of guidance um that would have been really helpful. So, at least in the resources part, maybe not in the in the actual um bylaw,
but encouraging the health department or the legal department, whatever department is appropriate to have to also have that information available. >> Yeah, I I really like that suggestion. Um, and and I just note my my hope as as Susan mentioned in her report is the
resource created by Article 9 will be helpful um to to smaller landlords particularly who may not have a lot of experience in um you know tenant law or even they may not know what resources are available for a for a struggling tenant um or even you know what legal
resources are available for them. Um, it's certainly I think beyond the purview necessarily of this article, but it is something that I I'd like to see implemented as well. So, I appreciate that suggestion. >> Thank you, >> Carol Leven. >> Just following up on Janice and Lee, do
any of these other communities, Boston, Cambridge, or Newton provide any type of the resources we're talking about to landlords? >> Not to my knowledge. >> Pardon? >> Uh, not to my knowledge. >> Okay, great. Thanks,
>> Dennis. Um, that's it for questions, >> right? Um, so we are going to have a motion from the subcommittee and Susan, do do you say you have a you're you're muted, so you need to unmute. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh, I do have a motion.
I had actually had planned to make a minor amendment to this and that was simply to word to add two words to uh let me get it
uh communication of tenant rights and uh statement of tenant rights. I wanted to add the words and resources as being part of the document because that is in effect what was being asked for. And it
just seemed to make uh sense that a critical part of the document was not only the statement of the tenant rights but also the local resources that uh would be available to help. And uh so
it's a it's a simple change and it's already uh been vetted by the moderator and it just seemed that it described more accurately what this bylaw was requesting
and it's not only a statement of tenants rights but it's a statement of tenants rights and resources. So that was the uh very minor amendment that I was going to offer and it appears in four places and
I uh good Dennis post I sent it to Dennis earlier you you could see one two three it's just on the first page there's nothing on the second page >> so that that's just the the only
amendment just to make it clearer what it is that uh is being uh um requested uh by by this warrant article. >> All right. So, we'll take >> commissioners accept that amendment. Could could I save you a vote there,
Dennis? Or I don't know how that specifically works. >> Um if you're not going to object, I'm under the given the the trivial change here, Susan, if you want to propose that as the main motion tonight, I think we
will all stay a few moments. >> Okay. So, I will now move uh >> we'll just need a second for it. >> We'll need a second because it's not from the subcommittee. >> So, I I'm uh moving article 9 as uh
amended with those two additional words in four places as shown on the screen. >> Seconded. >> Yeah. Second. So it's the f it's it's it's it's it's favorable action on war article 9 as
amended through the subcommittee process and additionally by your um uh by your amendment correct because there were two correct or okay just want to make sure
>> on warrant article 9 as amended by subcommittee plus Susan Gran up in. All right. And we have a second for that. So, now we're going to move on to a
um to a vote. Uh Michael Burgerer, >> yes. >> Ben Burnbound, >> yes. >> Harry Bors, >> yes. >> Cliff Brown, >> yes. >> Anthony Buono,
>> yes. Elise Couture Stone. >> Yes. >> John Dogget. >> Yes. >> Harry Freriedman. >> Uh, come back to me at the end. >> David Moore Goldstein.
He may have disappeared. Uh, Neil Gordon. >> Ebstain. >> Susan Grano. >> Yes. >> Perry Gman. >> Yes. >> Kelly Hardc. >> Uh, abstain. Alisa Jonas, >> yes.
>> Janice Khan, >> yes. >> Brian Lad, >> yes. >> Alec Levitz, >> abstain. >> Carol Levin, >> Liz Linder, >> yes. >> Pam Lodish, >> abstain.
>> Jocelyn Murphy, >> yes. >> Danell O'Neal, >> yes. Lyn Olsson Pelky, you may have stepped away. >> She may be at the planning board. >> Yeah. Pearler, >> she's she's here.
>> I'm abstaining. >> Ah, okay. Fran Pearllor, >> yes. >> David Pollock, >> yes. >> Margaret Robotham, >> yes. >> Lee Selwin, don't hear Lee.
Uh Christine Westall >> abstain. >> Barry. >> Well, for all those abstainers who really wanted to vote no, I'll vote no. >> Okay. Is David Mark here? >> I was at abstain. Sorry, I didn't
realize I was muted. >> Okay. And is David Mark here? >> I I'm not seeing him on the list. >> Okay. >> Oh, wait a minute. He he is, but he's muted. >> Okay. All right. Well, if he drops me a note in a second, I'll adjust it. But
otherwise, is 18 in favor, one opposed, and eight abstensions. We're going to recommend favorable action on the as amended version of warrant article 9. So, thank you again to the um subcommittee uh and to uh the
petitioner. And we I don't know who's presenting the summary of uh warrant articles 11 and 12. Is that >> that's going to be me. >> Oh, good. Go ahead. >> Okay. All right. Sounds good. So um we
took up under the capital subcommittee we took up warrant articles 11 and 12 together um with a by with a meeting with the CTO and s u the committee for town um I don't remember what CTS stands for >> town organization and structure.
>> Thank you. Um so I'll start off with the executive summary here. Um, it's a little detailed. Um, and I won't get into all the details because explaining Robert's rules is boring and it's late. Um, but I do want to give some insight into this. So, executive summary.
Historically, members of the advisory committee um have also served on a variety of other town standing and select committees. A recent review of the town's bylaws, however, has raised the um appropriateness of appointments
to certain committees with some oversight of expenditures into question. Both these warrant articles seek to address this issue. So, the exact portion of the bylaw that's getting discussed here is in section 2.21 um where it talks about the appointment of
members of the advisory committee. It says uh at the last sentence, no member of the committee shall be an employee of the town or a member of any standing board or committee having charge of the expenditure of money. But this restriction shall not disqualify from
appointment to the committee, members of special committees which may be created from time to time by town meeting, the moderator or the select board to report on specific matters. Um so that by
voting yes on our vote we voting yes on war article 11 and 12 would do two separate different things. I'll explain the difference um between both but both attempt to clear or remedy this problem in their own
ways. Um the article 11 focuses >> can you clarify the pro I don't think you've clarified the problem yet. So please >> Oh sorry. So that the problem is that this section of the advisory committee bylaw um
uh disqualifies or purports or town council purports to disqualify members of the advisory committee from serving on boards and committees that are related that are standing and in relation to the expenditure of money. Now, recently um three advisory
committee members have received notice from town council that their positions on boards and committees um either need to be or need to be terminated or you were not able to serve on that committee. Um that's happened three instances since this notification since
this got brought up. Um, town council recognized that this was an issue after a advisory committee member got elected to the school committee and then upon their election they stepped down from the advisory committee. This um inspired town council to then go and investigate
the the proper law, the proper section of the bylaw related to it and then made this determination with the uh brought this to the town um administrator who then made the determination that certain advisory committee members couldn't be on other committees. Um, one advisory committee member who was affected has
since been reinstated because the nature of their control of the expenditure of money um was redefined. And that gets into the real crux of the problem. Um because defining what is a standing committee and what is the expenditure of
money are issues that article 12 tries to tackle um in depth. Um so that's the problem statement. Dennis, I hope that makes sense. Thank you. >> Um, so like I said, articles 11 and 12 serve extremely similar purposes, uh, aligning the town's bylaws with
historical practices regarding advisory committee members service on other boards and committees. Article 11 focuses only on boards and commissions related to construction projects, while article 12 addresses the issue by clarifying the definition of a standing
board or committee and quote having charge of the expenditure of money. Um, like I said, the town bylaws limit the boards and committee members of the advisory committee can serve on because the advisory committee has a unique relationship to the town budget. The advisory committee works in subcommittees, as we all know, for
numerous months with town departments to bring a budget to town meeting for approval. This places the AC at the heart of Brookline's financial management. Um, we were not able to actually find where the origin of this section of the bylaw comes from, but it's safe to assume that that is the precipice for including this in the
bylaw originally. So, the petitioner of article 11 uh was the select board. The select board believes that advisory committee members have demonstrated significant beneficial impacts on capital projects by their service on such building committees and that the negligible and this is quote the
negligible potential for abuse of those positions and the continued protection of state and local laws and regulations that serve as guard rails against public corruption. The select board respectfully asked how meeting to adopt this narrow exception by amending the general bylaw. So, like I said, article
11 is exempting only boards related to construction projects. Now, the petitioner of article 12 believes that the current town policy um is actually not being interpreted the right way under town council's current formulation. Um and the existing bylaw
language in the way that the original authors meant for um it to be used um just need further definition so that these um these discrepancies are cleared up. So they the the petitioner cyped the conflict of interest law um explanation
for municipal finance committee members and the definition of special mun municipal employees um that would cover any type of conflict of interest that would arise between AC um and other board AC members and other board and committees. So like I said, both
articles would have a similar effect of expanding what boards and committees members of the advisory committee would be allowed to serve on um though through very different means like um article 11 cards out only construction and article 12 um clarifies the definition of
certain legal terms. So, the two legal terms that need um re-enter redefinition to uh to to make the this section of the bylaw um more reflect the historical practices of AC members serving on
boards and commissions. Uh first, you have to address the word standing. Um so, like I like in se like I said in section um like it says in section 2.2 to one um no member of the committee shall be an employee of the town
uh members. Okay. Uh having charge blah blah blah no member of any standing board or committee. So first we have to say okay well what is a standing committee that an advisory committee
member cannot serve on. So, town council cites a standing committee. Um, he cites that a standing committee uh is defined by Robert's Robert's rule of orders section 50.7. So, he says that a standing committee
are considered to perform a continuing function and remain in existence permanently for the life of the assembly that establishes them. So, let's take the example of a construction project for a school. Let's do the pier school. The pier school standing comm uh the
pier school committee will not be around for indefinite amount of time. It will not be here forever. It will not perform a continuing function forever. It will go away. However, um it will exceed the
life of the assembly that establishes them. And why is that? Because the assembly that establishes it is town meeting. And town meeting has a lifespan. The assembly of town meeting has a lifespan of one year since people come in and out of town meeting at an
annual basis. So that is town council's position of why standing committee should only be one-year time. So that that begs the question, can AC members serve on any committee? And town council says yes, they can as long as the committee lasts less than a year. If the
committee goes beyond a year, except for like some circumstances with special town meeting timing, but if the committee goes beyond a year, then an AC member cannot serve on it under current town council formulation. Okay. So, um that is one area. The other is the
expenditure of money. What does it mean to be in the expenditure of money? Town council says um that a a committee or a board is in charge with the expenditure of money if it meets um one of two qualifications. First, decisions about
the allocation of funds regardless of whether someone else is involved as well. So I think the pier school building commission is uh committee is another one where the pier school has to okay a certain amount of funding but then two other committees like the select board has to agree to a contract
signing and the building commission has to agree. So even if you're only one step in that process of okaying the funding you are still quote in charge of the expenditure of money under town council's current formulation. The second point is the distribution itself
of those funds. So, town council interprets the phrase in charge of the expenditure of money as both those who recommend how it is spent and the body who physically spends it. Um now warrant
article 12 seeks to remove that portion uh or red not redefine I shouldn't say redefine but reinterpret what it means to have the expenditure of money um in a way that would allow the historical
practice of advisory committee members to serve on other boards and committees um as has happened previously before this section of the bylaw got in interpreted and enforced this way. Town council also made it very clear that he
has no he says he has there's no he has no dog in this fight. Um it's not that he is saying that we are going at whatever with enforcing this law um because he thinks it's the right thing to do. That's irrelevant to the case. He's saying simply that this is the law
that is currently on the books and he is agnostic to the idea of whether or not we want to change it. So um what the CTO and S um uh what the capital subcommittee has decided to do in this
case given the technical nature of this situation think there's a lot more work to be done um we voted 5 to 500 five in favor none against to refer articles 11 and 12 to the committee on town organization and structure to further
study and report on the subject matter thereof and that the incumb Incumbents in any potentially impacted boards, commissions or committees continue to serve and remain eligible for reappointment to such boards, commissions or committees while such study is pending. Um, and that's the end
of my report. >> Thank you. Uh before we go on to uh questions or comments, um I'm not sure if uh town council is here representing the petitioners for article 11, but I know we have
petitioner for article 12 here and it would be I would like to hear from either or both of them before we go on to questions and comment. So, uh, Joe Kalanian, uh, not really here for the, uh, petitioner, but I can say that, uh, Chaz on behalf of the
select board, um, doesn't have any objection to the subcommittee's recommendation to a referral to CTOS, but I'm mainly here to answer any questions. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Murphy. >> Thank you, Mr. Downey. Um, Anthony, did
you repair the vote? I didn't hear you clearly. Did you add the recommendation language >> to the referral? >> Yes, I believe I did. If I if it's not it's not physically in the report yet, but I will make that change. Join. >> Okay. The committee will just need to
hear it before they vote. But um so I think it's important to give a little bit of context here. Um, for me this adventure began when after some 27 years of service as a Walnut Hills Cemetery Trustee and a little more than three years of service as a member of this
committee, I was informed that I'm no longer eligible to serve on both of these bodies. And I learned that Carol Levven Levven is no longer eligible to serve on the Pier School building committee. Um, and I learned that this decision was based upon town council's
interpretation of the sentence Anthony referred to in section 2.2.1 of the general bylaws, which states that no member of the advisory committee shall be a member of any standing board or committee having charge of the expenditure of money. Um so in my view
this opinion is defeated by the fact that the school building committees are not standing committees are not permanent committees and the cemetery trustees do not uh have charge of the expenditure of money under the rules of construction in the
town's general bylaws words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language. Thus, I submitted article 12 for the sole purpose of clarifying the meaning of the word standing and of having charge of the expenditure of
money by simply inserting the dictionary definitions of these words in the bylaw. In my own view, under the commonly accepted usage of these words, they don't apply to the Pier school building committee or to the cemetery trustees. Uh after the warrant deadline, the
select board submitted article 11, which seeks to carve out a single exception to town council's interpretation of the relevant section of the bylaw, which would preserve uh Carol Levvin's uh seat on the Pier School Building Committee.
During a select board's consideration of these articles, select board member Paul Warren fairly asked what the intent of the relevant language in the bylaw is and whether it's necessary to retain it to avoid conflicts of interest. My response to that question is that the language is not necessary because the
conflict of interest law, which was enacted after the bylaw was enacted, strictly governs our conduct as members of these and other public bodies. However, this question should also be weighed against the several advantages
of of appointing members of the advisory committee who are typically conversant in municipal finance to other town committees. In some cases, as in the school building committees and the town school partnership committee, these appointments are either required or recommended.
And in my own experience as a cemetery trustee, my own knowledge of municipal finance led me to recommend against the DPW commissioner's request to access cemetery trust funds, which by the way are paid voluntarily by individuals
seeking um interment rights in the cemetery. They're not appropriated taxpayer funds. Um, I recommended against the DPW commissioner's request to access these funds to pay for a part-time administrative assistant because I knew that under state law, these funds may
only be used for the expansion or embellishment of the cemetery. Certainly, uh, there's no conflict or potential conflict there. Town council's opinion impacts more than Carol's and my appointments. Should another member of the advisory committee be ineligible to
serve on the standing taxation aid committee? Should the chair of the advisory committee be deemed ineligible to serve as a member of the standing town school partnership because there is a danger that he will steer funds toward a personal interest? Of course not. Again, our conduct is strictly governed
by the conflict of interest law. I also believe that it's a mistake to carve out a single exception in a bylaw, especially where the full impact of this decision is unknown and likely to impact future interpretation of the bylaw. How many other bodies will it impact? Will
it unnecessarily prevent otherwise qualified individuals from serving on public bodies where they have particular expertise? To be clear, I firmly believe that neither of these articles are actually necessary. However, in view of town
council's opinion, I strongly support moving to refer these articles to the committee on town organization and structure to further study the subject matter to recommend that the incumbents in any potential potentially impacted boards, commissions or committees
continue to serve or remain eligible for reappointment to such boards, committees or commissions while the study is pending. And as town council has said, it is also my understanding that the town administrator supports referral as
well. Thank you, >> Dennis. Can we >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Um, yes. Go ahead. >> Okay. Um, Joselyn, you were actually the first on the list. Uh, can I assume you've you've said your piece or >> for now? Thank you.
>> Okay. Neil Gordon. >> Thank you, Harry. So, I I support referral and maintenance of the uh status quo um for for for those who are impacted. I serve on the taxation aid
committee. I served on it since 2019 uh when it was formed. Uh I was already a member of the advisory committee. I actually raised the question. I found the email to Sandy Gatsby and said, "Hey, by the way, um we got this little provision in here uh in in in the
bylaw." And Sandy said, "No, it doesn't it doesn't apply." Now, Sandy was not town council, but he is uh uh was at at the time my appointing authority. Um similarly to the cemetery trustees, the
members of the taxation aid committee don't um spend appropriated funds. They're not it's not in the budget. It's voluntary contributions to a fund that's used for taxpayer
uh uh tax relief uh for property tax. I want to point out another sort of silliness here. We have um uh as an advisory committee
made a recommendation on the funding of the construction of peer school. It's not coming back to us. It passed. There was a debt exclusion. It passed. There was an appropriation to spend a gazillion dollars for peer school. It
passed. It's already been appropriated. Where's the conflict of interest of serving on both committees at this point? It's just not coming back. The um uh the the provision makes no sense to me. Um at the time I
was appointed to the uh advisory committee. Uh I was appointed by a dulyeleed moderator. At the time I was appointed to the taxation aid committee. I was appointed by a dulyeleed select board. that was perfectly aware that I
was on the the advisory committee. If they felt there was a conflict, they could have picked somebody else. That's true of every appointed board committee and commission in Brooklyn. I can't find an exception that's not appointed by
either the uh moderator or the select board. I think the appointing authorities are more than capable of deciding whether there is some future present or future conflict of interest. Um I support referral and I think the uh
the answer is to just remove the provision. Uh come back in six months and uh ignore it in the meantime. Thank you. >> Thank you Harry Bors. >> Um so I I've sat through these conversations a bit on COS. Um, I'm not
going to speak for COS, but I'll speak about COS and say simply that a number of COS members did say out loud that it might make sense to have this referred to COS. Um,
artic these two articles address um some of the weakness I think in in the existing uh bylaw, but but not all of it. Um, speaking for myself, I think it's important to have advisory committee members or at least a an
advisory committee member uh sitting on uh uh building project committees. Um, but I think also sitting on other committees as well. Um, I'm not sure what the impetus was for the original bylaw.
I suspect it may have been that people were worried about when it comes to finances that people may get too much leverage. There may be double dealing or they may have a peculiary interest. Um, fair enough. There are other ways of
getting around it and I think we should be able to figure this out. um either by rescending the existing bylaw that's causing the problem or if we really are concerned about the spectre of double dealing or having a pecuniary interest.
Um and this is not to open up a big discussion on it. It's just as a for instance because there are a number of ways to go at this. Uh one thought that had come up was simply when the appointing agency in this case it would be the select board most of the time uh
they can just make a provision that when they appoint a an advisory committee member it was with the proviso that an advisory committee member doesn't vote to expend funds. They can vote on everything else and have the discussion
and just refrain on that part and that would kind of take care of it if people really worried about it. The point is there are a number of solutions that probably could be applied including just removing the provision but it is in the
town's best interest to have advisory committee members serving on boards committees commissions. >> Thank you Linda Olson Pali. >> Thank you Harry. So, um I guess I my question I mean I guess
we're far down the road on our discussion on this and I think I am in favor of the referral, but my original question was to the petitioners of article 12. Um I too was affected by this provision. When I was appointed to
the advisory committee, I was told I had to resign from the transportation board. I had been appointed by the select board to the transportation board a couple years um in advance and I racked my brain trying to understand this and um
so my question really was whether the language in article 12 was going to be sufficient which it may be mood at this point but I would make the claim that the transportation board as well does not um allocate expenditures or allocate
your or spend money. And I think the only possible um way being on both boards might have influenced my votes on advisory is maybe I would think DPW needs more money because I understood what projects we were trying to build. I mean that that's
as far as I can go with my thinking. So, do we think that the transportation board really qualifies as a committee that expends money? >> So, Linda, your your question was
directed at the petitioner of article 12, and that would be me. >> Yep. Um, I don't have the enabling legislation for the transportation board in front of me, so I I don't know exactly what its authority is, but the language in the in the relevant bylaw
refers to having charge of the expenditure of n money, not whether money is spent, but having charge of the expenditure of money. So, you would have to apply that language against the the authorization and the enabling um legislation. Maybe town council has
has an answer. Perhaps he has looked at that. >> And can I add a can I put a two-finger in on that, Eric? >> Sure. I just want to be clear that in the language of the proposed article 12, the petitioner has described or defined
having charge of the expenditure of money as quote shall meaning having control of or responsibility for the expenditure of the money not recommendation of the money which I think is that's the real crux here right so article 12
>> as by that definition I just shared of having charge the expenditure of money >> would deal with that problem that you're talking So, in your opinion, Anthony, that it >> the transportation board does not meet that definition of >> I don't know enough about the
transportation board to be honest, but um I have spent like way too much amount of time reading into this. Uh but yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Linda, do you want to direct your question to town council? >> Um only if he's looked into it. I kind
of doubt he has because that would have been a thorough scouring of every possible board and committee. But um if he has an opinion, yes. >> Uh my opinion is I would need to do more research on that. Um because this has been uh what lawyers refer to as a fact
inensive inquiry. Um what uh Neil referred to as a taxation aid committee. I came to an opinion and then he gave me a contrary fact that I learned from staff. Well, I'm still figuring out tax taxation aid and um you know, council of aging, we saw a budget committee and we
misunderstood the under uh the purpose of the budget committee. So that's why last year we thought council of aging was covered. This year we realized it isn't. But from my experience in uh transportation, I don't know I don't I'm not familiar with you expending any
money. So >> when we vote um roadway improvements, you know, so that will trigger the need to expend money. >> But do you pick like streets and, you know, contracts and things like that? >> We do not pick contracts, but we do look
at designs for projects and either approve them or not. >> I'd have to look into it more and check with staff because, you know, then that's that's the problem with this bylaw. you know, as Anthony said, I'm agnostic, but it's a bylaw and I need to
kind of implement it and I don't know what it means either, but I'm trying to implement it in a way that um, you know, is understandable, you know, kind of justifiable. You know, like when I pointed to what a standing committee is, at least I could point to uh, Robert's rules. I understand that we
don't necessarily, you know, uh, think Robert's rules is determinative, but at least it's something. I wouldn't know what a permanent committee is. You know, does that mean, you know, it's only uh committees that have been in existence since the 1705 when the town uh you know
was in existence? That doesn't make any sense. Is ZAB going to be a permanent committee? Hopefully, everything will be zero emissions. So, what is a permanent committee? >> At least a standing standing committee. I can point to Robert's rules and say a committee that's expectation is to be in
existence for more than a year. You know, that makes sense. But >> I would just like to inject that a large portion of this conversation seems to be in service of a bunch of questions that could be answered as a result of a referral notion. Yes. >> So I'm hoping I'm hoping that we move
towards that as quickly as possible. >> Go ahead, Harry. >> Jyn, you had a two finger. >> I just want I just looked at the transportation board um authorization. I don't see anything offhand that would would um deem you ineligible, but I
guess I'm curious, Linda. Whoever told you that you couldn't serve on both must have had some reasoning behind it. So, who told you that? >> Yeah, I'm trying to remember. I think it might have been Sandy. >> It was I mean, but it was Kate who
appointed me. So, >> yeah. So, I think this sort of underscores what what Mr. Dowy just said. Mhm. >> Well, I know Sandy told me that I had to resign from the public um transportation board. >> So,
>> all righty, let's move on. Um Lisa, >> I just want to reiterate that there's also a long-standing history with that particular person who does not like um females very much. So just gonna share that
not relevant. >> You um couple things I I I've been serving as the advisory committee representative to the audit committee for a dozen or more years now or thereabouts. Um I don't know what the
you know the underlying uh bylaw that created the audit committee you know said about this but it it's my been my understanding that there are various committees and in the town that have a designated advisory committee representative such as the the audit
committee um and it's not clear to me um I mean the audit committee after all does select an auditor uh which typically involves paying the auditor which typically then involves the expenditure of funds. Uh so you know
I mean where do you draw the line on this and and if you have if the underlying legislation u designated or specified an advisory committee representative then it would seem to me it would be in conflict with this bylaw. Um, and that certainly would
be something that COS would need to look into. Quite frankly, um, now from this discussion, I think that one of the things I would hope COS would look at is possibly scrapping this bylaw or fundamentally rewriting it. I
mean, I think that the the the notion that a member of the advisory committee serving on on a a a board such as that is involved in the expenditure of money, it somehow creates a a a conflict of
interest. I I find really surprising. I mean, and if if that were the case, then why would this carveout that's being proposed in in uh article 11 um uh be appropriate? Um, I don't like the idea of a carve out uh in a situation like
this because when you carve one thing out, the implication is that nothing else is carved out. Quite frankly, from my perspective, I'd vote a no on on 11 and a referral on 12. Uh because I think 11 is really wrong-headed. Um and um um
in any event uh uh where this needs to go is to have this whole issue revisited and and and not just as to the specific language that's being proposed here, but as to the entire uh appropriateness of
uh advisory committee members serving on on committees. And uh and maybe what needs to happen is that rather than prohibiting such service u the scope of their um uh responsibilities needs to be more clearly delineated.
>> Thank you Lee Fran Porer. So um to be short um I think this whole issue has to be clarified not only regarding uh committees but regarding who decides.
I am a member of the council on aging and the advisory committee and I was told I had to choose. If I were a more passive person I would have had to choose. Instead I sort of said council on aging has no fiduciary
responsibility and after investigation it was agreed upon. So I think that from both sides of who is making these decisions of who can serve on what
committee and what is allowed. I think there has to be some more clarification in the rules and I'd get rid of them all. That's it. >> Thank you, Fran. Uh Dennis, that's
that's the end of the list. >> All right. So, um Joselyn, as petitioner, you can get the last bite at the uh apple here before we move to a motion or two. >> Um I'm all set. Thanks. Thank you. Okay.
All right. Um, >> yes, I will say Lee's comment notwithstanding, I think a motion to refer the subject matter of both of these articles we could take as a single vote unless somebody wants to vote on them independently. >> I'm going to vote no on 11. So, I hate
to prolong the time, but unless everyone else agrees with me, then I guess we have to vote separately. Um, >> so Lee is making a motion to vote on article 11 right now. >> Well, it's not my motion. I mean, it's
>> So, well, there's a I mean, you're about to make a motion to refer the subject matters of articles 11 and 12. If we took those as two um independent votes, one on article 11 and one on article 12, if the recommendation of referral for
article 11 were to fail, we would we could still take a up or down vote on it at that point. >> Yeah. >> Um so why don't we why don't we do them independently? Um >> okay. Uh um >> Dennis, if that's the case, I just like
I I would like to um echo what Lee said. I mean, I think it's a terrible idea to carve out one committee for the very reason that Lee said because future interpretation will be informed by that. >> Can I just note that even if we voted these down,
the underlying legislation that that is still hanging out there, um that issue has not been resolved. And it would be nice to let town meeting provide a little direction and say yes, we would like to have this looked at and considered. >> 12 would do that.
>> 12 would do that. >> Not not if not if both of them get voted down. >> No, but if 11 gets voted down, 12 gets voted to refer, then doesn't that address that issue, that concern? >> I I thought I heard Justin say she thought both of them were bad.
>> Well, I know. I said I I said I don't think they're necessary, but town council apparently does. So, we have to um manage that. So, I I actually think it's less complicated. CTO and S and the the capital
subcommittee both voted unanimously in favor of referring both. Um you haven't heard from CTO and S yet. Um so, I think it's less complicated to take them together. I think that's probably the best way to do it. Um, Neil, you have a two.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Very, very quickly, I just want to note that favorable action by town meeting changes the bylaw. A no vote, right, would not change the bylaw and a referral to CTO
and S would also not change the bylaw. So, the outcome is the same uh unless there's favorable action. And so if we just want this to go to CTO and S and the second half of the uh the motion
which is let's just live with the status quo then uh you leave the bylaw unchanged and you refer it to CTO and s if you just vote no. What what message is that? >> Well, all right. Having having gone having gone on the record that I think
that 11 is wrongheaded because we shouldn't be carving out >> and I'll agree I'll agree with that. I'll uh I'll I'll agree to vote vote vote on both together. >> Okay. Thank you, Lee. I appreciate it. Um Dennis Dennis, I I I'll be making a motion on behalf of the capital
subcommittee for the referral motion. >> All right. So as the motion is to refer the subject matter of articles 11 and 12 to the committee on town organization and structure to further study and report on the subject matter thereof and a recommendation that the incumbents
and any potentially impacted boards, commissions or committees continue to serve and remain eligible for reappointment to such boards, commissions or committees while such study is pending. >> That is correct and that's what's in the chat right now. Yeah, I was just reading it aloud for the record. >> Perfect.
>> Uh, all right. Uh, so on the referral of these two articles to CTO NS, Michael, >> yes. >> Ben, >> yes. >> Harry B, >> yes. >> Cliff, >> yes.
>> Anthony, >> yes. >> Elise, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Harry F. >> Yes. Uh, is David Mark back? Maybe not. Neil, >> yes.
>> Susan, >> yes. >> Perry, >> yes. >> Kelly, >> yes. >> Alisa, >> yes. >> Janice, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes.
>> Alec, >> yes. >> Carol, >> yes. >> Liz, >> yes. Pam, >> yes. >> Jocelyn, >> how's a petitioner? I'll abstain. >> Danell, >> yes.
>> Linda, maybe Linda is muted or something. Fran, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> Margaret, >> yes. >> Lee, >> yes. >> Christine,
>> yes. And if David Mark is around and if Linda is around. >> Linda is around but she's muted. David Mark does not appear on the list. >> Okay. So by vote 25 to 0 to1 we're
recommending referral um as per the subcommittee. Um we can go on to a couple of uh announcements. Um so first off we have uh uh Janice
Khan had signed up and to attend uh the Mass Municipal Association meeting this Saturday morning in Sharon will be unable to attend. So we have an extra ticket if anyone would like to go.
Um if you would follow up with uh with Janice andor me. Well not me. I'm busy tomorrow, but follow up with Janice. Um Harry, you want to outline um the upcoming meetings? >> The upcoming meetings. So,
next week we are meeting both Tuesday and Thursday. Tuesday, October 21 is virtual and we will be doing um collective bargaining warrant article 2, warrant article 15 resolution on LGBTQIA
pride, warrant article 17, uh tree protection resolution, and warrant article 18 resolution on recordings of public meetings. That will be a a Zoom only. On Thursday, October 23,
we will be doing a hybrid. So, we'll be meeting in room 103, presumably at 7:00 um presumably Lisa will send out a dinner order um so that we will be fed
that night. We will be doing warrant article five on the dissolution of the HR board, warrant article 19, a resolution on the 25th amendment, and I believe we're doing warrant article 7 on the Clark Road zoning.
And so after next week, just so you know, we will be doing uh Tuesday, October 28. Um, I believe that's a virtual. Um, it'll be a warrant article 8,
lighting, warrant article 3, budget, warrant article 10, renaming a baseball diamond. It looks like the executive session on litigation involving the town is now going to be on November 4, which
is a Tuesday, and that presumably will be a uh a hybrid meeting. >> So, uh Lisa just dropped a note in the chat and I gone back in my email. In the last hour, we got email that the select board is withdrawing warrant article 5.
So, do we want do we want reports on article five or >> or do we just uh uh take them at their word for that and call it a wash? >> I I would not you can't you can't retract a warrant article. You can just
simply not move it. >> Not move it. And we already had the meeting. We're going to have to write our report. Um >> Okay. I'm just checking. >> Yeah. >> But you can feel to be you can include a little snark if you like. Um and we're we're also getting um from
Lind Olson Pelky unlikely that uh warrant article be uh that land use will be ready by the 23rd >> or article seven. Well, I don't think uh if that's the case, let's follow this
over the next couple of days because if we are only going to meet in person to have pizza and debate the 25th amendment, I'm not sure that is the best use of our time, >> right? >> So, um let's follow up in the next couple of days. >> Okay,
>> thanks everybody. >> Planning the planning, uh Kelly, the planning board, uh deferred article 7 or did they? >> They didn't they continued they continued continued. Okay. So, >> is it still productive uh you guys,
Kelly and Linda, who maybe were attending that tonight, is it still productive for us to meet on Monday as land use on seven? >> Yes, very much. >> Okay, fine. But you don't think, Kelly, do you agree that because we're still waiting on the planning board, we shouldn't take up 23 at AC on the seven
at at full AC at the same time? So it there seemed to be um uh a concern about both boards meeting the same night to come to a recommendation on seven. I think the subcommittee should meet on
the 20th. Um planning board had some uh questions and action items for the petitioners and for town staff. Um, and I think it would be good uh at least for me to check in with town staff tomorrow to see if we would have that
information by Monday's meeting. Um, they seem to indicate that they would be able to deliver it by Thursday the 23rd for the planning board to retake up article 7. Um I will say uh planning board was moving in the same direction that the subcommittee was um
about a lot of the um basically in their discussion and so I think a lot of the work that's being done will further sort of collective progress on the article but it seems to me like we can't both meet on the same night and make a
recommendation for town meeting. Um, so Paulie did say that she'd reach out. >> Um, >> but Dennis, I I think I agree with what Linda uh said, which is that it's probably not perfect for uh AC to take up the article 7 on the the
>> Okay. All right. So then Harry and I will go talk to Carla about scheduling. We might not have an in person on the 23rd. >> All right. And while we're on uh land use subcommittee, land use subcommittee also meets on article 8 on Monday the
27th. And then uh full AC is taking up the same article the following day, Tuesday the 28th. I am writing up and presenting that article. So I'm prepared to assume assuming land use comes to a vote on
Monday, I'm prepared to present it to AC on Tuesday. I've written an 11page minutes from our earlier meeting. So, anybody on advisory who wants to get the background that's already been published, but the final subcommittee report is going to be kind of wet. The
ink will be wet if it's done at all for full AC on Tuesday. But, but I think that's an okay schedule. >> Jocelyn, was your comment about article three basically when are we going to get that from >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I haven't heard anything from Alyssa. uh uh since she met with us a
couple weeks ago. >> Thank you, >> Janice. >> So, just to entice you to take my spot, I just want to tell you a little the agenda very briefly. Um the executive director of the Mass Municipal
Association is going to talk about um a fiscal report of perfect storm. Cities and towns face historic fiscal pressures. Um then there were two concurrent workshops in the morning. one budgeting 101 and then taming the healthcare budget what finance committees need to know. In the
afternoon they give you lunch and then in the afternoon there are two concurrent workshops to choose from a tale of two or three overrides and revenue and expenditure forecasting. So um and it is in at the Sharon Community Center in Sharon. So if you're
interested let me know. >> Thanks everyone. We'll see you on Tuesday. >> Good night. Thanks everyone.