is up. All right. Welcome everyone to the advisory committee meeting of Tuesday, October 28th. Uh we have three items on the agenda for tonight. Uh first is a public hearing.
um on warrant article three which is a budget adjustment. Uh we then have two other warrant articles to discuss. Warrant article 5 which would simply be a proforma uh vote as we talked about at our previous meeting and then warrant article 19 which addresses the uh use of
the 25th amendment relative to President Trump. there are members of the public who would wish to uh weigh in on any of these items um prior to us getting started. Now will be the time to drop your name in the chat and we'll call on you and otherwise
we will get started. Don't see no I don't have my chat up but looks clear. Um well in that case let's start with um our public uh hearing on warrant article three. So Melissa I think you're the petitioner here for
from our perspective. So why don't you take us through what um what you're what's being recommended what's being asked for. >> Sure. Um so article 3 is a budget amendment for fiscal 26. Um at the time there were a few things that we were thinking we would be needing to use the
budget uh amendment for. Uh at this time it's um appropriation of TNC funds. Um and this is what we have traditionally done in the fall. We usually get our numbers from the state on what we are receiving and then we use the next available uh
town meeting to appropriate those funds. Um those recommendations flow through the the transportation board uh and ultimately their recommendation uh is provided in the memo that you should have in your packet. Um in addition um we did the bond sale at the end of the
fiscal year and so um obviously we have conservative assumptions when it comes to um you know what we are projecting for interest rates and and things like that and Lincoln always uh makes sure that he does better than what I assume. So um for the debt debt exclusions in
particular, we are essentially lowering the revenue uh because the bonds are less than what we had assumed and then we are also lowering expense. So there's really no impact on the budget. It's really just making sure that we're trueing up both the revenue and expense side.
>> Um thank you. Uh I have a uh a question um before we go to the rest of the body. Um I made you a co-host if you are um in case you want
to end up projecting uh the TM tables or the equivalent. Um my my my basic question was uh the DM uh tables that you present has a lot of of um
uh of um items that could be considered highlights or the only things that were are relevant are the items that have the um kind of beige color background. So town meeting doesn't vote revenue and
I'm highlighting it because there is a change in the revenue estimate for property taxes but the debt service budget is the only thing that is highlighted on the expense side and that is what we're asking town meeting to vote. >> Okay. Thank you. Um are there questions or comments from the committee? Uh Harry
>> um not yet but I have I guess I I'll start with a question um on the transportation um um allocation. for the first time, I believe it's now a pilot program um between the senior
center and the teen center, which um I believe is a change because previously it was always just allocated to the senior center. So I see that we have people here from the council on aging and I see we have Emily here from the
senior center. Is there any push back from the senior community on sharing this money? Now, >> I will let Emily speak to the um kind of the proposal itself and the details
behind that. I know that when I initially presented this to the advisory committee, um Fran had raised some questions. Um there's a slide deck that should have been part of what was sent to you that um Emily had presented to the council on aging. I think that presentation happened after um Fran had
made her comments. So um you know I I would defer to Emily in terms of um you know the proposal itself. >> Oh hi everyone. I just hopped on. I'm in the car. Um uh thank you for having me. there uh was question of what the
funding will how the funding will be split amongst the two organizations, but I just wanted to give a little background on the um the new electric vehicle that we were just received. Um actually a few weeks ago, we branded it. The requirements through the Department of Transportation grant state that it
has to be used during senior center hours for the senior and disabled communities and that will in fact be a part of this pilot. Uh what we hope to do is we have one we have a very aging fleet at the senior center. One of our vehicles is an old
shuttle 20 passenger requires a CDL license and we have a driver for that. Um that will be used um to bring seniors to and from the senior center as well as for the driver when he's not driving this large vehicle to provide trips in
and around Brookline for the seniors using this electric vehicle. In the evening hours, the teen center has a challenge getting the teens, middle school, high school kids down to um South Brooklyn. So, we've uh as part of
the pilot, we wanted to see what teens who are members of the teen center will uh be able to access a ride home after um the senior center is not using the van. And I'm not sure if the teen center director is on or not, but um
>> Case Casey Boston is here from the teen center. >> Hi, I am here. Um I will say I think back to part of your question too is how the seniors were feeling about it. Um, I'll just jump on Emily and I presented
um to that community at the board meeting and I think we had a a pretty overwhelmingly positive uh response to sharing the money, the funding with the teens in this way and and kind of adapting and having a new pilot program. Uh, everyone was pretty excited about that shift.
>> Thank you. Thank you both. Um, Josyn Murphy, >> thank you. Harry, my question regards um what took place at the last meeting when we discussed article 3. There was a reference to um the proposed lighting at
the golf course driving range and um can you explain how that h how the lighting pertains to this article presently? >> We're not planning on using it for this article. I think that we had hoped that there was free cash certified in time for us for the golf uh enterprise fund
to access that. um we are not anticipating that will be done in time. Um but also I think given the feedback on the project itself there needs to be more time for vetting and so we think it's probably more appropriate for the annual town meeting. >> Okay. Thank you
>> Susan Granoff. >> Thank you. Um, I actually have some questions about the uh senior teen pilot program uh that I really haven't had an opportunity to ask before.
Um, first of all, what will what benefits will the seniors uh receive from participation? Will there be any additional service to seniors than what they currently have?
So during the daytime, that's a great question, Susan. During the daytime, the seniors would be able to access a more efficient vehicle, but then in the evening hours, we were hoping to have a better ride to get seniors to South
Brooklyn through an intergenerational pilot with the teens. So they would be able to ride together after the normal business hours of the senior center. And it also so right now our our trips to and from the senior center stop at 3:00.
What this program does is it provides service from 3 after. So people if in South Brooklyn or people who don't walk to the uh senior center between the hours of 3 and 7, for example, could have a ride using this pilot.
I was not aware that rides to the senior center currently stop at 300 p.m. Is that something new? >> Uh, nope. That's always been that way. We tried a a program over the summer to extend it till 3:30, 4:00 and it was
very limited. We did not have a lot of wrership. >> Okay. Because I think I've taken it during other hours. But um at any rate, would this is a pilot program. Is there
any um thought to having the rides go to other than the senior center in ways that would benefit uh seniors such as to supermarkets or to um libraries in in
South Brooklyn or other parts of to parks uh like Lars Anderson Park. >> Yeah. So the pilot program um offers them the ability it's more like an ondemand service. So, it's like an Uber or Lift ride um just at a really
affordable rate and they can go anywhere within the Brookline limits. It's just accessible to um the senior center folks and the teen center folks. So, that's the intergenerational aspect um be able to go to the places that they need to that they select at the time they select
uh within Brooklyn. >> And how far in advance would they uh have to call? So there will be an app that um seniors and teens can use or or they can call the senior center and that can get booked. So it it really be based on
demand. So there potentially could be wait times um but it also could be at your fingertips much like the current ride share >> and and how much additional staffing uh hours would the senior center be using
for this? So part of this would be utilizing TS TNC funds for an additional driver potentially during the evening hours and possibly uh roping in the technology into our
existing services that sometimes are underutilized. So we would have possibly two to three vans going at the same time during the normal business hours of the senior center. is using technology or a software
system. >> Would there be any staff personnel uh assigned to to manage this when people are calling up to make their uh demands?
>> Absolutely. We would we've budgeted a coordinator to oversee this. >> Okay. So, and that's a a new staff position. >> It would be. Yes. Oh, okay. Great. And if uh seniors or even teens had physical
limitations, would they be able to make use of of these vehicles? >> These vehicles are fully accessible. Yes. >> Okay. >> Some of them. >> Okay. Um and
how many people so people see the the coordination uh would be that both seniors and teens would be on the same vehicles at the same time potentially. Correct.
>> Yes. Yes. Okay. And um All right. So, it's it sounds like something that is um definitely uh an interesting development and uh I guess my only concern is
whether there'll there might be a decrease in uh transportation to seniors that they current from what they currently have. And my question would be to Emily, would there be any decrease in
any uh hours or programs that currently seniors make use of these vehicles for? >> No, not at all. Absolutely not. >> Okay. Because I think that was my uh my key one of my key concerns.
Um Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Lindol Pelky. >> Thank you. So my understanding from looking at the slide deck, this is also a question about the TNC funds. Um I
noticed that in the list of currently available transportation options, I did not see medical transportation listed. So is that going away? >> I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?
What's happening to the medical transportation for the seniors that usually gets funded with this money? >> Uh we've used ARPA money in the past for medical transportation and prior to that we've used um uh a voucher system. I
think that was prior to co >> Okay. But my question is because we're doing this pilot, it is the medical transportation going away and I don't see how this is a substitute for that in any way.
>> Well, it it what we've uncovered is on demand is not a good match for appointments because we don't want seniors to be able to miss their appointment. It's a great solution for medical type trip of urgent care as well
as going to the local pharmacy for example for a a flu shot or a COVID shot. But anything appointmentbased what we are looking at right now because our current model is funded 100% through ARPA funds which are ending in December 2026
approximately um is to utilize DOT funding in combination with some of our other services like go grandparent and then the lift subsidized programs to provide medical rides. And we're also uh looking
into other partnerships with for example the medical escort program at Friendship Works. And we have a a help program which is a um matched service. So the senior would pay a highly subsidized depending on the type of appointment
like a colonoscopy appointment and they would need somebody to bring them home. The person through this help program would be able to drive them home. So, we're looking at expanding different models instead of the current system that we have, which is very expensive at
approximately 20 to $25,000 a month contracted through Modern Ride Taxi Company. >> And but you're saying that that will be funded through 2026. >> Uh possibly the current model. We also
have many seniors who don't use this model. they use they get to their appointments on their own through our trips program. So what we do is provide wayfinding services um if they prefer to get on the green line or the bus routes
>> and what about the lift subsidies are they continuing? Uh, as far as I know, yes, it's proven to be highly um usable, um, userfriendly because it is an app-based and we have great staff who can always assist with
um, education if that, for example, if it's a first-time uh, Lyft app user. Mhm. So, this is going to be like you have an app on your phone and you call this van and you have to say where you want to go
and then they tell you how long you're going to wait until somebody can come and pick you up because you've done software that tracks where all the vans are. Is that about it? >> Uh, yes. Usually wait times for these
types of services are 30 to 60 minutes. And currently, what about this option of having different destinations that Susan asked about? I didn't catch what your answer was. Is it only going
to the senior center or can people use it to go anywhere else? >> We have to look at what the model would look like. Really what we're going to be in the process of doing very soon actually is surveying all of our writers
to see what the true need is. It with a combination of our current services. So we have medical, we have social going to and from the senior center. We really want to like ask our current writers as well as the public through focus groups and a survey
what their need will be. >> Okay. So, how have you determined the need that the teens have? What did Were they surveyed? Were they how did that come up? How did the whole idea for including the teens in this happen?
>> Yeah. So, we were interested in applying for this funding ourselves. Um, you know, it doesn't have to go to the senior center. It has historically. And we have massive transportation issues. We can't get teens from the schools outside of walking distance to the teen center and safely back home to South
Brooklyn. So, we um we do have a shuttle van. Uh it's a 15 passenger. It's filled up every day. Um you know, I've been working since I started at the teen center to figure out how do we expand transportation and provide this access to more students. Um so, we have the
shuttle van running. Uh we need capacity of drivers and then we need to be able to bring students back to South Brooklyn. So, those are the two main things that we know are going to happen with this is that those shuttle rides would happen from school and then back to South Brooklyn. multiple trips if necessary. Um, and then Emil Emily and I
really kind of dreamt up this other part of it. Um, the these populations have very similar challenges, right? Like they they want their own autonomy. There's this issue with like loneliness and um it just seemed like this really cool opportunity to kind of merge the problems both of our communities were
seeing in a way that that could really help problem solve um for the community. So this aspect of the the on demand part is kind of the the fresher part, the new part. Basically, this funding is helping us both do better what we are already doing and then also trying a new thing
where we're bringing together young people and seniors um and getting people where they need to go uh when they need to go there. So, >> but the the funding for the van was not part of the TNC funding, which >> correct?
Yeah, we we both already have our separate vehicles purchased with the other funding. >> Okay. So, the 183,000 or whatever it is, that's mostly for the technology and the staff. >> Yeah. I mean, vehicle maintenance, gas,
electricity for the EV um and and yeah, drivers and the technology. >> Okay. I'll let other people ask their questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Fran Per. Hi. So, I wanted to comment a couple of
things that this is really a pilot program because the van capacity is six people and if the teen center wants to get people back and forth to the schools
in South Brooklyn, when I drive to Warren Field from around here, it's 20 30 minutes. So we're talking about a 40 minute turnaround time um for six kids at a time. So this
is only um I think a small pilot to look at feasibility and if it works the teen center would need a much larger van depending on you know what they could provide. Um the
second comment I I wanted to make was when I brought up this issue at our previous meetings the it's just to differentiate the fact that this is a new pilot a supplemental program which may give additional
services may be able to provide some of the old services but the AC in town should be aware of the fact that um
the Council on Aging is losing $200,000 in uh ARPA funds and previously the $100,000 went to other transport. So now we have a $300,000 hole in the broad in
a flat budget for transportation. And that's something that um as a member of the Council on Aging and I put that hat on um I think is something that advisory in the town
needs to help us with. And finally, to answer Linda Pelky's question, the van was obtained from a Mass DOT grant, and my understanding is Mass DOT owns the van and rents it to us for
free. >> Oh, we own the van, Fran. It's ours now. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> And just to clarify, we the teen center has our own 15 passenger van. That's the vehicle we would use to shuttle the teens back to South Brooklyn. So, kind
of expands those numbers a little bit that you're referring to. >> Um, thank you. Um, Carlos Rudjo, >> thanks Harry. Um, how long is the pilot? I was looking for that and I didn't find it on the decks.
>> How long? Yeah, we hope to make it a one-year pilot program and it would commence upon hiring of the staff. >> Okay, great. And then for Melissa, I think uh this would be your questions for you. Um the APS,
so the TNC had uh funded the APS signal system in the past, but we're done with that. Correct. >> Yes. And I think actually on the select boards agenda tonight, there was a grant from Mass DOT to comp uh for Beacon Street for APS. So, um, but there was there's no request in the CIP for APS
next year either. So, >> okay. And and how does the TNC number compare to the last couple years? >> So, the the year before it's growing, but it's not where it was pre- pandemic. So, last year was 160,000. I think this
year is 180. So, um you know, it's not fully where it was. And but it's also um you know, there's a time frame on these funds, too. the legislation um basically allowed for this to be uh the fund to exist and for us to be able to benefit from these assessments. Um and I don't
think there's a lot of years left unless the legislation gets revised uh and extends the time period. So >> So this is similar to the um marijuana >> marijuana >> thing where it it keeps on sort of
there's an expiration. It's not going to go it's not this is not a fund that or money that we're always going to have. At one point, it won't be available anymore. >> This is not anticipated to be long-term recurring source of revenue. So, you know, a pilot seems to make a lot of
sense because it allows them to experiment without, you know, they can take a risk without, you know, >> Right. >> Yeah. >> But I think to Susan's I think it was Susan who said mentioned this. I think uh it's it would be great for the town to start looking for, you know, after
the pilot finishes to start looking for something that is more permanent um so that we don't fall into the ARPA issue of funding things that we uh you know that are one-time monies. So, I think
for the long term uh of the of anything like this, I think we start need to start looking for long-term funding. Thank you, >> Alisa Jonas. >> Um I I have two questions. Um, one is I don't know whether I'm being very slow
on this, but I'm trying to understand how these roots are going to work and how they get coordinated between the elderly and the young people. It I don't know whether I whether I missed something at some point. It seems like
the for the teens it goes there's a shuttle that will go from the teen center to a location in South Brooklyn and also a specific location in South Brooklyn to the teen center and I don't
and whereas for seniors it's on demand or is there also something explicitly from South Brooklyn to the to the senior center or is it are you stopping at the teen center or how I don't understand how you're
melding those two groups. So that's one question. Um and the other question is or concern is this is a pilot to see how well um providing additional transportation both
for seniors and for teens will be. But I can imagine certainly for teens in South Brooklyn if that's uh a big focus uh they don't just necessarily want to
go to the teen center. So I guess I'm wondering can they get dropped off at the teen center but then have the freedom to go anywhere else or is it explicitly for teen center use? And I'm just concerned that
there may be many more reasons why uh people might want to go to the more commercial areas of of Brooklyn from South Brooklyn and that won't be reflected if it's limited to the teen center. And I've been wanting
transportation from South Brooklyn to North Brooklyn for years. tried to get that on the public transportation advisory committee and I would hate to have that this one pilot make a determination
uh of success or nonsuccess for more broader transportation options. So, so I guess the first question is how how is the senior teenage uh mix? How
does that work? And second is how how are the teens what access do the teens have to go beyond the teen center or is that the primary purpose currently? >> Yeah, great questions. Um, and we have
like a couple different things happening at once. I think that's what's adding to the confusion. So for the afterchool shuttle ride, it will be from Baker Hayes and Wrl to the Teen Center and from the teen center back to South Brooklyn. That's just that shuttle service, that shuttle part.
>> And then outside of that, teen members um and seniors would have the opportunity to have on demand service to any location that they choose in in the Brooklyn limits. Um it's not not specific to the teen center at that point. And will you be picking up
>> very So if there's several people at Putterham Circle and it's a teen and an elderly person, >> you will try to coordinate which people should go together in a particular ride, >> right? >> Other locations. So it'll be more than
one person that's getting the ride. >> Yeah. And that's the part that we think is really cool and that we, you know, we think has the opportunity to really build this community up in a way that I think there's a there's a big divide right now in these two um groups and that's the part I'm really excited about. So yeah, everyone who needs to go
from Parm Circle to, you know, somewhere in Brooklyn Village, they would ride together um for that for that journey. So that's the that's that inter intergenerational piece. Obviously during the school day, teens won't have access to this despite the open campus. Um they will not have access to this
ride. this will just be exclusively for seniors at that time of day. And then um you know just there's going to be that those shuttle time blocks where the drivers will be focused on teens and outside of that then again it will be them sharing that time and space. And
also, I love these questions, too, because if that does there's just such a high user rate, then maybe it will be just for South Brooklyn residents to be able to access the the Coolage Corner area and the students obviously as Casey just mentioned that program, but to get
South Brooklyn older adults up north, so to speak, maybe it that's what it the the pilot looks like. But I think through these surveys to really identify the true need to to reduce social isolation and loneliness in our older adults is is super key in this pilot program.
>> Great. It's great. Thank you, >> Susan Granoff. >> Hi, I would just like to make an additional comment about the importance of medical transportation. Um and my belief that although the pilot
uh program with the large vans will be I think a real uh contribution and improvement to the town as ao to the teens and seniors using it. I don't see that as being particularly appropriate for medical transportation.
When you consider seniors with various illnesses or injuries, the last thing they want to do is to be going on a a more public van with multiple people. Um, I think that
having individualized car service of some sort is essentially what is needed and called for. Speaking as someone who has had to really make use of our medical transportation for the past year after I had a broken arm and after I've
had other uh various ailments and so I've come to really appreciate it. But even more important, our population of seniors is getting larger and is getting older and there is going to be increasing demand for medical
transportation. Um in all of the various public hearings that uh my subcommittee had with the Council on Aging Director Ruthanne Dobeck, uh she spoke about how there is
so much demand for medical transportation that the Council on Aging was currently being forced to turn seniors who needed this transportation away. and that was in uh fiscal year 24 and fiscal year 25.
So, I think that it's really important that this not get minimized or that we think that this is something that we uh can substitute van service for because I think that
having an individualized driver pick up someone who is going to a hospital in Boston or an eye doctor in Boston uh is very critical to the ability of seniors to maintain their health and I hope that
that gets uh sufficient emphasis in the budget and in grant funding opportunities in the future. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um Dennis, that's the end of the list. >> All right, then I think we are ready for
a motion. Um so will someone make a motion for favorable action on more article 3? I will move for favorable action on warrant article three. >> Second. >> All right. Um, let me share my screen.
>> Can I just have you reference the memo because the votes actually laid out in the memo. It's in three parts. >> Yes. Um, one second. Um, how would you like the our motion to be worded for your
>> as outlined in the memo from the deputy town administrator dated October 23rd? That should be >> from deputy town administrator >> dated what was the date? O >> uh October 23rd.
>> Okay. >> All right. So Harry, your motion is for favorable action on warrant article 3 as outlined in the memo from the deputy town administrator dated 23 October. >> You took the words right out of my mouth. >> I know. Uh and I is there a second? And
I think Cliff seconded it. >> Cliff seconded it. >> All right, let's go to a vote. Uh Michael Burgerer, >> yes. >> Harry Bors, >> yes. >> Cliff Brown, >> yes. >> Anthony Buono, >> yes.
Elise Couture Stone, >> yes. >> John Dogget, >> yes. >> Harry Freriedman, >> yes. >> David Mark Goldstein, >> yes. >> Neil Gordon, >> yes. >> Susan Granoff, >> yes.
>> Perry Gman, >> yes. >> Kelly Hardbeck, >> I think she's traveling, >> right? Alisa Jonas, >> yes. Janice Khan, >> yes. >> Brian Lad, >> yes.
>> Alec Levitz, >> he not here. >> He may not be here. >> Okay. Carol Carol Levin. >> Yes. >> Liz Linder. >> Liz is not here tonight. >> Not here. Pam Lodish. >> Pam is at a birthday dinner tonight.
>> That's correct. Jocelyn Murphy. Um, I'm sorry I couldn't find the motion in writing, but um I I believe this is correct based on your confirmation, Melissa. This is does not include the golf course lighting. Correct. I just can't find the language of the
>> correct. The only adjustment for Golf Enterprises for the debt service budget. >> Okay. Thank you. Yes. >> Okay. Dell O'Neal. >> Yes. >> Linda Olson Pelky. >> Believe it or not, I'm gonna vote no. Okay. Ran Pearler.
>> Yes. >> David Pollock. >> Yes. >> Carlos Rido. >> Don't hear Carlos. >> Oh, yes. Did I say >> now? You said yes. Okay. Margaret Rabotham.
>> I didn't. >> Did you hear me, Dennis? Yes. >> I did not. Yes. Okay. Lee Selwin. >> Um I wasn't sure if he was going to be here or not. Yeah. >> Uh Christine Westfall.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So by vote of 22 in favor, one opposed and no abstensions. Our recommendation is uh for favorable action on warrant article three. Thank you Melissa. Um,
let's move on to warrant article five. As you may remember, uh, the warrant article 5 is not going to be moved. This was the, um, elimination of the human resources board. Um, we would we we had the recommendation of a no action vote as of
our last meeting, but because it wasn't notice, we decided to hold it off until this meeting. So unless there's any debate, I would just take a motion for no action on warrant article 5 so we can dot all of our eyes and cross our tees. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Seconded.
>> Okay. So let's very quickly take a vote. Uh main motion and we have a memo uh to this effect already in our packet. So it's all very easy. Um no action on warrant article five.
Okay, sorry. Michael, >> yes for no action. >> Thank you. Harry B, >> yes. >> Cliff, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. >> Thank you. Elise,
>> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Harry F. >> Yes. David Mark, >> yes for no. >> Neil, >> yes. >> Susan, >> yes. >> Perry, >> yes.
>> Alisa, >> yes. >> Janice, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Carol, >> yes. >> Jocelyn, >> yes. >> Danell, >> yes.
>> Linda, >> yes. Fran, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> Carlos, >> yes. >> Margaret, >> yes. >> Christine, >> yes.
>> All right. We unanimously recommend no action on a warrant article that's not going to be moved. Thank you. >> Um, Dennis, sorry, sorry, desk. Um, is the report that we read about the subcommittee hearing, is there still going to be like a discussion about all
of this in the combined reports? >> There's uh I mean, tell me what you're thinking. >> Well, what I'm worried about is because the the uh minutes were super confusing because they didn't say who was there and who was there from the public and I
didn't know who the heck was on the subcommittee and whoever wrote that up failed to identify who was at the meeting. So I like that >> I listed everybody who was at the meeting in those minutes. >> Um >> so hang on. >> Well >> I don't know what was posted.
>> Yeah. Anyway, what's what's generally speaking what So that's two questions. One is whether the minutes are accurate which we should take separately for as far as the combined reports are concerned. My expectation is that we would do what we've done in other similar warrant articles, which is basically to include the briefest
summary of the fact the motion is not being moved and that our recommendation is for is for no action. Um, but if the if the if there's concerns about the about the minutes, then let's follow up separately on that. >> Okay. >> Thank Thank you.
>> Uh, we're going to move on to warrant article um 19. Uh, who's presenting from the subcommittee? >> I said Elise. >> Go ahead. Go ahead, Elise. >> All right.
Okay. So, on behalf of the school subcommittee, uh, I'm here to, uh, talk about warrant article 19, which is a resolution concerning the 25th amendment and the question of presidential fitness for office. This article, as most of you
know, um concerns President Trump's ability to fulfill his duties. Uh it began as a call to invoke the 25th amendment. Uh but following feedback from both this committee and the select board, the petitioners revised the language to recognize that such an
invocation uh isn't practically possible. Um instead the final version ver version three uh asks town meeting to express in the petitioner's words um are quote shame disgust and horror that
the um nation remains led by a president who they believe has lost touch with reality. The article is intended as a symbolic statement of Brooklyn civic conscious. uh it is not a legal or binding act. Across both meetings, our
discussions uh focused on intent, precedent, and practicality. Um, some public participants emphasized Brookline's long tradition of uh speaking out on moral and constitutional matters in addition to expressing
interest in uh the development of a strong factbased based objective statement that town meeting can get behind. Um, Mr. Burnbomb uh acting chair at the first meeting questioned whether the 25th amendment
framing implied a medical judgment beyond the committee's scope. And Mr. Leovitz uh pointed out that the amendment doesn't actually require a diagnosis, only an inability to perform duties. He
also memorably noted that speaking up in this moment in history is worthwhile. Uh, I was still apprehensive uh about the language of the second version of the article. I asked about the article's purpose uh and um possible risks,
including whether the town would would or could uh face defamation exposure given the president's latigious history and what role the resolution could realistically play in a municipal context. Mr. Margolus confirmed uh the
Warren article seeks to affirm Brookline's civic conscious and commitment to democratic principles in a time when uh we're in national crisis. At our second meeting, uh, Chair, uh,
Brown, Cliff Brown, uh, expressed concerns about describing any president as of unsound mind, causing, uh, sort of cautioning us that such language could appear politically selective and set a
difficult precedent if not applied uh, consistently across administrations. Mr. Liowitz acknowledged that point but reaffirmed his support citing that recent public statements by the president about deploying the National
Guard to Portland where he described the city as quote in flames and quote war torn descriptions that local officials publicly disputed. Um Liuititz said that these remarks reflect a troubling detachment from reality reinforcing the
article's argument. Um, co-patitioner Judith Vanderay also spoke strongly in favor of the article, rejecting the need to have applied similar resolutions to other administrations, saying, "Not
calling out one wrong doesn't prevent us from calling out another." Finally, discussion turned to the article's last paragraph, which directs the town clerk to send copies of the resolution uh to state and federal
officials. Representative Vtolo uh informally suggested removing it, but the committee agreed that the language was standard and harmless. After uh a little bit more discussion, the committee the subcommittee voted 3 to 0
to 1 in favor of Warren article 19 version 3 with Mr. Liuititz, Ms. Rabbotham, and myself voting in favor and Chair Brown abstaining. We look to you this evening to determine whether warrant article 19 should be revised yet
a fourth time per representative Vlo's uh suggestion or to move the article along to town meeting to make that determination. Thank you for your time and consideration. That concludes the subcommittee's report. >> Thank you Elise. Uh Mr. Margolus uh as
petitioner, do you have anything to add before we go to the discussion and debate? Uh yes. Uh just a couple of things. Um one is I'd like to emphasize that the judgment under uh the 25th amendment is not necessarily
to be made by medical personnel. But but it's a it's to be made by ordinary citizens at least the ordinary citizens in the first instance who are the vice president and members of the cabinet. Uh and then members of Congress most of
whom are not uh medically qualified. Uh these are the kinds of judgments that people make every day. Um I would note if anyone has a doubt that last week Mr. Trump had his second annual physical this year in which he had an MRI, which
I know because I had one just a week ago, is not part of a routine physical. Uh, and was given apparently for the second time this year a uh a competency test involving identifying a few uh
common uh objects or animals. Uh he said that his uh MRI was uh was perfect. I'm not sure quite that what that means. Um, again, when I first drafted this, um, I I think I was thinking too much like a
lawyer. So, I I acted as if the 26 fifth amendment might actually be applied. Um, and after hearing from the select board and members of the subcommittee, uh, I was happy to concede that that's not going
to happen. And so it was revised, uh, in that way to express our feelings about in effect the the inability of the political system to react in the way that the constitution contemplates uh, that being done.
Um, to those people who say this this has not been applied equally, uh, I'll plead guilty. Perhaps in May of 24, we should have had a a similar uh, resolution. Uh, noting Joe Biden having
slowed down. Um, I personally think he slowed down a lot less, but it would have been a valid discussion. Uh however to say that we should have done that then doesn't mean that we should refrain now from acting uh uh if you believe if
if people in town meeting believe that Donald Trump is of sound mind they should vote resoundingly against this measure. Um if you agree with me that he is not of sound mind then I suggest this is perfectly appropriate and would be a
good idea. Um and before we go to uh comments or questions from the committee, could you elab uh you or um uh subcommittee elaborate on the uh Tommy Vtolo recommendation and what the issue is
there? Well, I I spoke to Tommy and he he felt that um this ought to be directed the notice of the uh resolution if it passes
should be directed to our elected representatives and not to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House. Um, a member of this committee has informally suggested to me that uh a routine
uh notice from the town clerk uh would not advance our purpose very much with the state legislature or with our congressional representatives, but that some people might see it as, oh, there's Brookline again. and perhaps uh it it
detracts a little from our credibility up on Beacon Hill. Uh we would not object if that whole paragraph were struck or if it were uh revised in the way that Tommy suggested to me.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um uh questions or comments discussion from the committee? Eric? >> Yes. Um, so far I don't have anything. Although maybe I I'll
start with a question for for the petitioners. Um, Jonathan, I if I'm hearing you correctly, those of us who might think he is of sound mind,
but simply an ineterate liar and con man are now being urged to vote against this. Do I interpret you correctly? I would not I would not suggest that you should vote against on that basis. That's up
that for one thing it's up to you. But the purpose of this is to go to uh his his ability not his skill but his competence to carry out the the job. My original purpose was
or perhaps I should say dream was that someone who uh identified as a with Mr. Trump on policy issues but who agreed that he has lost his grip on reality could vote for
it. Um does that mean that if you think that he's he he's a liar but sane you should vote against it? uh that I'm not going to comment on. >> Okay. Well, thank you for that guidance, Susan Granoff.
>> Yes. Before getting into those issues, there's one word in the uh first therefore clause that I have a problem with and that's the word shame. Because by definition, shame is what
happens when you are ashamed of your own uh conduct. And I don't believe that's what you intend. Uh he Trump should be experienced shame, but of course one of his psychological issues is that he he
doesn't. Um, but I think that we are not really expressing our shame, but rather perhaps I would substitute the word concern in instead of the word shame because I don't I mean in in a sense uh we are
saying that we're ashamed of what we've done. That is the the dictionary definition of shame is a feeling of embarrassment or humiliation that arises from the perception of having done something dishonorable, immoral or
improper. But we're not intending to say that any of us have done that. So I would recommend that the word shame be replaced by a different word. I would suggest concern. Other people might have
uh better choices, but uh I think that that's pro uh one thing that that I would be in favor of changing. Um as to whether there's value in voting for
this, um I do think it has value. I think that uh we are living in an extraordinary times and um I do think that
being able to go on record as having concern and asking that other competent governmental entities take action is something that um we should be doing.
Um and because many states and governors are setting themselves up as um having to take a stance against what is happening in the federal administration.
In this case, I don't think it would be improper to invoke uh the office of the governor, the house of representatives, the president of the senate, whereas normally that wouldn't be something we would be invoking. But I think under
these circumstances, there's a point to addressing our concerns to them in the same way that the governor of Illinois is making a point of taking a stance that one would not normally expect uh
governors to do when you know in the past. I think that the times may call for that kind of direct um uh communication of our community's concern.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Michael Burgerer. >> Thank you, Harry. Um actually, I have a question. This is a little bit um I seem to be having some some vibes from last
last spring and we had a an article by Neil and Gordon and um it was it was not the same but we had questions about the appropriateness of the advisory
committee to make a comment at all and uh who it should go to. a lot of the same arguments and um I I actually would like to hear from Cliff Brown. Cliff was on the committee too and I guess voted against it and I know in the past he's
questioned whether or not it's appropriate for down uh advisory committee to offer any advice. uh without bringing up everything that we've discussed before, I think it'd be good to to put it in context of how
we've acted before. So the question is to Cliff and to Neil, I guess. >> Thanks for nothing, Michael. Um so I did not vote against this. I abstained um as I generally do on um resolutions. Uh and so I have a whole
philosophy of resolutions that um you know the comments I made uh really reflect I I guess I guess Jonathan to a certain extent has probably defined it better than I did in
his answer to Harry. I don't like our president. I think you know yeah he's a liar. Every president is a liar. I don't know of a politician that isn't a liar. And you can take a look, you know, at any number of big
whoppers that Joe Biden told, Barack Obama told um you any any president. I personally think that suggesting that um one individual
is of unsound mind. Um I personally think that's a dangerous path to go down for a couple of reasons. Um you know it's inflammatory. There's no proof of anything. uh an MRI. You
know, I've had I've had MRIs I've had probably a dozen MRIs over my life. You know, I've had them for uh uh injuries, you know, did I break something? Is something, you know, dislocated? Uh I've had them for uh uh kidney stones. I've
had them for any number of things. So, the fact that someone had an MRI to me is it's nothing. I I just feel that there's a lot more
reaction to policies here than there is to the individual. A comment about, you know, the National Guard in Portland.
If you take a look at Donald Trump and you look at his history going back to, you know, when he used to get on the Howard Stern show in New York, which he did every, you know, other week, things he said, um, you
know, after the the Central Park attack, what he's done on television, the way he's campaigned, he is someone who um exaggerates on purpose. It is part of his style.
It's part, you know, so I don't think he's I don't think he's incompetent. I think he's actually pretty good at what he does and the way he goes about it. I don't like it. I don't like his policies,
but I it's really hard for me to say he's not of a sound mind. And and that's that was the the commentary I was making in terms of whether or not we should be getting involved with this at all as an advisory committee. We obviously have to review every article that comes before a
town meeting. We have to write reports. We have to discuss it. Do we need to make a recommendation? No. People like to make recommendations here. That's why I abstain. I I just don't think I don't think it's our business to make an opinion like this. But
>> there you go. >> Neil, the question was also directed towards you. Do you want to do now or I have you on the list later on? >> So I'll I'll I'll Yeah, I'll save it for for later on. >> Thank you. Um Janice Khan. Uh actually,
Michael, you're you're Are you done? >> Yes. Thank you, Cliff. >> Uh Janice Khan. >> Yes. Thank you, Harry. First, I want to thank the subcommittee for your due diligence. I think that it reads a lot better with your edits than it did
originally. I was very concerned about the article when it was um first submitted and um I I still have some concerns. Um Jonathan, I'm wondering um if you're tracking this in other communities in
Massachusetts. I am not aware of of other communities who have done something along this this exact line. I know that Burlington passed uh a resolution at its town meeting. Uh but I think that was fixed more on the
ICE detention center that's in their community uh than on the the the president's um uh fitness for office. >> Okay. Um thank you. So, um, that makes perfect sense to me. That's a community
that is dealing with the repercussions of of action that's being taken against members of their community and beyond. So, um, so that was my question. Um, and my my
comment is I'm still not sure that this makes sense for for Brookline to do even though it would not be the first time Brooklyn has made such statements. Um, you know, it it it doesn't if if it's the policy issues,
then um the entire cabinet is with these policies, the vice president is with these policies. So, I still have my concerns about even talking about the 25th amendment um invoking that. So, um
but thank you very much for your for your efforts and I understand where um you know why you submitted it. Thank you. If I may make a brief comment along that. >> Actually, we're trying to unless there's a a
specific question, you'll have time at the end to to rebut anything else. Elise, you have a two-finger on other communities. >> Yes. I just wanted to say that in our follow-up meeting there was a a comment
or a small discussion about how or whether um the petitioners would be able to reach across different communities and sort of coalesce around this to see if we could do some sort of other um building up around this. So this was a
conversation that um certainly took place and so at that time Jonathan had some really good thoughts and I wanted him to sort of share those if that's okay. >> Sure Jonathan go ahead on that.
>> If only I could remember what I said. >> This is what happens with advanced age. you know the memory goes >> okay >> in our minutes so everyone can read those. >> Thank you. Thank you both. Uh David
Mark. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm having some connection issues so I'm going to keep my camera off and and hope that I don't freeze. Um uh first I want to say that I agree with Susan's uh proposed amendment. I agree
with Tommy Batollo's. And I'd like to uh thank uh Cliff for his remarks, too. Um, a couple years ago, we had another one during the first Trump administration uh urging that the Republican House and the Republican Senate impeach Trump, which I
thought was a complete fantasy. Uh, and the original version of this I thought was even worse. It's It's less worse now, but I'm I'm still having a lot of troubles even thinking of voting for this because it's focused on the wrong thing.
focusing on somebody's mental health uh and mentioning the 25th amendment rather than, you know, with lawyers doing this, you'd think that there would be a a legal uh argument to be made of all the times he's broken the law and the
unconstitutional things he's done, including ICE and the rest. And that should have been the focus of this warrant article. >> I think this is a mess of a warrant article. It's even with the corrections, it's still badly written. Um, and I just cannot believe that we're going down the
mental health road when when there's no proof. And it's just in inflammatory. It's going to sound like, oh, you know, the the Democrats are uh just just insulting Trump rather than laying out a methodical point by point argument as to
how he's broken the law here, here, here, and so on. And I would urge you to to pull this article and redo it. So, it is that focus on on the legal violations that he's done as president and the
unconstitutional moves he's made >> and that should be the focus and that is what I would certainly support. But this this is just insulting him. It's just a mess and it's not going to achieve anything whatsoever. Um, and that that's uh that's my two cents. Thank you.
>> Thank you, uh, Neil Garden. >> Yeah, thank you. So, I'm I'm going to be somewhat uh bolder than the petitioner in the current draft of the Warren article. So, let me say this. The president of the United States is a
narcissistic sociopath in mental decline. That's my opinion, right? When those who control the federal government won't say so, we need to say so. And when the browbeaten White House press corps won't say so, which for some
reason they won't, we need to say so. The plain language of the 25th amendment provides a solution to Donald Trump and his deranged administration. Right? It requires a declaration by the vice president and a majority of the cabinet
that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. That's the language of the 25th amendment. Following that, a twothirds vote of the Senate and the House of Representatives is required. The vice president then assumes the powers and
duties of the president. There's no requirement in the 25th Amendment for medical or psychiatric examination. There's no obligation to take expert testimony. Invoking the 25th amendment simply requires the application of
common sense. And by that standard, we're as capable as those actually cited in the 25th Amendment to declare that Donald Trump is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Those who control the federal government won't
do it. The White House press corps won't do it. We need to say it out loud what they won't say. So, six months ago, town meeting overwhelmingly affirmed Brookline's commitment to democracy and the rule of law. We heard then, as we
hear now, that non-binding resolutions, especially on issues beyond our town border, are not our business. But town meeting has a long history of expressing its will. As non-binding as that expression might be, we also
have a very long history of standing against mad kings. As non-binding as those stands might be, the president of the United States, in my opinion, is a narcissistic sociopath in mental decline. And when no one else will say
it, we need to say it. The notion that, by the way, um, o oh gee, we might be be subject to retaliation if we say that too loud. That's the problem is that too many people are afraid of retaliation if
we say that too loud. We need to do what we need to do while we're still free to do so. I'll I'll come back to the uh to the issue of the uh the Tommy Vlo comments when we're time. When it's time to vote,
I'll propose an amendment. Thank you. >> Thank you, Alisa Jonas. >> Um yeah, I just wanted to follow up a little bit on what Cliff and David Mark said. Um, I think the focus on unsoundness, and I I agree with Neil
with his diagnosis, um, but I think the focus of un um unsoundness was to get to the 25th amendment, but you're no longer trying to get to the 25th amendment. And I do think it would have been
more appropriate to focus on all the ways that he is not following the constitution >> which is what I think is particularly disturbing about him. A lot of people are unsound and
uh might not go against the constitution. But I would say if we are focusing on on soundness, which if you're unound enough, you really shouldn't be president either. But then um
as Cliff was talking about policy issues, I think what this has to focus on is only those things that show unsoundness. So for example, twice asserting that Alaska is part of Russia. That's a s
sign of unsoundness. But um cancelling medical and scientific research grants including including programs to help detect and treat cancer and other life-threatening diseases. Um I think it could be seen as a policy but
I would very explicitly say lacking any policy rationale to make that clear. Um, and the second one, refusing to spend appropriate and allocated billions of dollars for food and medicines. Um, there's a lot of people who agree with
him that we're spending too much money on foreign aid. So, that one I would just completely eliminate because I don't think that that's a clear sign of unsoundness if that's what we're focusing on in this Warren article. And finally, if that's what we're focusing
on, talking about um the horror, where are we, um uh our horror and disgust and shame, it
doesn't really match having someone unound. I I I guess there would be a concern that we're having someone who's unsound and it's dangerous. So there's a clear and present danger of having someone who's
unsound. But I guess the disgust and horror would that would ring better for me if it was constitutional concerns and going against um the laws
of the country and not someone who has a mental illness. Um so I guess those words don't match well for me with the unsoundness argument. it would match better with probably the real one of the
real reasons that you've filed this warrant article, which is concern about losing our democracy. Um, so I'm struggling a little bit with this. >> Thank you. Um, Chris Westfall,
>> I I want to I want to be clear. I think Trump is crazy as a bed bug. >> See, there's retaliation right there. And I don't want to have a long >> very succinct. >> I don't want to have I don't want to have a long argument about legislative history. The reality is this amendment
was passed after the Reagan uh uh Ronald Reagan assassination attempt. We elected Ronald Reagan when virtually everybody knew he was scenile as all hell. Um, and that wasn't the concern. The concern was what happens if somebody puts a bullet
in the head of the president and he can't actually do anything. And that's not the situation we find ourselves in. We have a a crazy guy and uh that's not what the 25th Amendment
really is seeking to address. So, I'm not going to support it. >> Thank you. Um, Elise, >> yeah, I guess this is actually um geared toward Neil. Just as a
I guess an open-ended question. If the 25th Amendment is a federal mechanism, how can we at a municipal level like h how are we able to actually enact that?
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, so I'll answer that right there without I won't speak for the petitioners, but I'll speak for the reality of Brookline Town Meeting voting on passing this resolution or resolution
of this type. The uh Republican Congress and the U Trumpappointed cabinet, right, are not going to remove Donald Trump, right? uh because uh whether whether they believe he's capable of executing
the duties of the office or not, right? Uh they're they're not going to remove him from office and they're not going to do it because Brookline Town Meeting suggests that they ought to do so. The problem is from my point of view that the president is not competent, right?
the president um you know by by his his actions the what aboutism is just you know off off the chart right um yes everybody tells untruths right uh everybody uh has you know some sort of
bad behavior in their history right that's not the case with the current administration the problem is that what we have are institutions of government and of the press who won't say so and
somebody has to say so. Um what effect will this have about the same effect as Neil Gordon standing at Coolage Corner on Saturday morning you know and you know whether I go there or not uh is as you know I've said to others you know
one one raindrop means nothing. Uh you put enough of them together and you've got a hurricane that's about to hit Jamaica. uh you know in in in devastation that's not ever seen before, right? And so yeah um you know it adds
up and I think we need to take a position uh speak up and and stand up. >> Thank you. Um Dennis, that's the end of comment. Uh no, I take that back. Linda Olsson
Pelgate. Yeah, I believe it or not, I actually want to speak against removing the word shame. Okay, so stay with me. So when you see those the the the press coverage of
I can't even say his name overseas with foreign leaders who are dignified normal people. I feel shame. I didn't I didn't help him get there, but I for our
country I feel shamed. I am ashamed of what is happening in this country. So therefore, I want that word still in there and I'm going to vote against taking it out. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Dennis, I think we're
ready for motions. >> Actually, I think we're ready for final words. our final round >> from from the petitioner and then we'll go to any number of motions. >> Uh thank you. Um and um what Linda just
said is is is exactly the right the sense in which the word shame, disgust, and horror were used or intended to be used in the resolution. It is the national shame, disgust, and horror that we're in a
situation where the vice president and the members of the cabinet who are the f the first ones who can say that the president is not competent to do the job that they refuse even to consider it for purely political reasons and that
Congress would not uh would never consider would uh actually voting in a in a clear uh and honest way on the subject in terms of some of the things that have been brought up very quickly. Um
I did not originally draft this in terms of a possible impeachment because there have been two impeachments. There isn't going to third time is not going to be a a charm. Uh Mr. Trump was transparently guilty the first two times. He's not
going to be tossed out of office through impeachment. this time. Uh so I turn to the the very different or significantly different p uh 25th amendment. I think
if we try to recast this in terms of uh political errors, policy differences, etc. that there's going to be a serious question as to whether we're within scope. And so I I did not go down that road at the second time when I could
perhaps I could have. Uh so I just think and I would say one thing it's always possible to find reasons to do nothing. Um we who are who are behind this motion are hoping that Brookline will weigh in
to do something. It probably won't change things materially. Um, but I think of the man who stood in front of the White House with a processed sign every day and someone said to him, "You know, you're
never going to change them." And he said, "I do this because I don't want to change me." Thank you. Um, Dennis, I think, well, I leave this to you. I think we need a main motion and then the chat indicates there'll be
at least two motions after the main. >> I'm assuming that there's probably three. It sounds like there's the motion from the subcommittee. Then there's a uh a motion um a substantive motion to
remove the last paragraph. there appears to be a substantive amendment coming from Susan to discuss the elimination of the word shame or the replacement of the word shame. Um and then there's also a referral motion from David Mark. Um I
would like uh I think we should have a quick um uh we should hear from both Neil and from David Mark as to the content of their motions. the way I know the order will take them when it finally comes, but I'd like to get all this on the table before
we take our votes. >> So, >> so Neil, why don't you go first and then David Martin? >> Sure. So, so I'm going to move deletion uh as an amendment, deletion of the final paragraph. Um and and I'll tell you why. Um if we leave it in, um the
the letter that goes to the named officials will be from the town clerk. It will say no more than uh at uh you know special town meeting on November whatever uh day we we deal with this uh
town meeting passed the following resolution right sincerely Ben Calfin Brookline town clerk um that costs us a little bit as uh I think Tommy Vlo indicated uh to the
subcommittee and to the petitioner and has said many times, is it a big deal? Uh they they'll roll their eyes a little bit on Beacon Hill. Here's what I think would be much more effective. Uh I think what's much more effective is for the petitioners or anyone else, and I'll do
it if the petitioners won't do it, uh is to send a letter to the impacted parties that we would like to act. For example, Governor Healey. Um, and if I were to do it, I would thank her for the resistance
to the actions, political and otherwise, of the Trump administration. Uh, the fact that Brooklyn Town Meeting passes a resolution is one element, but it's not the only element of how you might communicate to uh the governor or any or
any other official that we think might be um uh you know, where there might be value in in informing that uh official, but a you know, a cold a cold letter uh and an
obligation of the town clerk to so inform does does nothing for me. Uh there's no positive. There's a little bit of negative and I'm going to move that we just take the paragraph out. >> And that includes the uh everything after the semicolon uh after Donald
Trump in office. replace that with a period. >> I'm not I'm looking that's the last paragraph that that I believe only speaks to the uh letter, >> right? I just mean that the previous paragraph ends with semicolon and you probably want to eliminate that as well. That's what I'm saying.
>> Yeah. Well, well, let's eliminate the Yeah, eliminate from the semicolon in the preceding paragraph >> all the way to the period at the end. >> Not including the period at the end. >> Okay. >> Um All right, David Mark. Uh is planning on
>> who are you planning on referring to on on what grounds and with what um with what charter? >> I I could easily offer 10 amendments on trying to change the language on this thing, including the elimination of the 25th amendment part. Um and there's just
way too much to to to work on here. There's too much to change. It it's so and I respect the the petitioners so much. I I I'm sure that they know that over the years. I I really do respect them a lot. But this is so badly written and the hyperbolic language and the
complete mis aiming at the target. Um I would like to refer it back to the petitioners asking that they rewrite it uh and bring it back in the spring. We cannot fix this mess here or on the floor of town meeting. It needs to be rewritten. It needs to be refocused. And
I'd like the petitioners to have a fresh chance at doing this uh where they won't have to worry about scope issues. Right. And it looks like there's one other potential amendment. >> Um, sorry. Yeah, just
what I'd mentioned before that I would get rid of the refusing to spend appropriated No, sorry. Yes. And allocated billions of dollars. I I just don't see this as a sign of unsoundness if that's the focus
and also adding to cancelling medical and research grants adding lacking policy rationale to make clear that it's that it isn't policy it's who knows why.
Um, yeah. So, those two. >> Uh, Jocelyn, what are you proposing? >> Thanks, Dennis. I'm having trouble with my u equipment here, but um I would propose an amendment that would replace
in the last whereas clause in on the first page, I would propose um changing unsoundness of mind to unfitness for office. Um and then in the second in the next
part of the sentence, replace unsound mind. um numerous actions that demonstrate his unfitness for office. >> Okay. Um thank you. All right. So, uh David Moore, could you write your referral motion um and drop it in the
chat? Um I know that Lisa is not here to do that for us. She was feeling ill. >> Okay. Um >> give me a minute. >> Sorry, Dennis. >> Dennis, I'm sorry. I let go. >> You got cut off. >> I was cut off. Well, I did it myself. I let go of the um space bar
>> so I could speak. Anyway, my my point is I agree with those that said who have said that we're treading in difficult territory referring to the president as being I mean I I I don't disagree and I I too respect the petitioners and and
everything that they do to bring attention to this presidency, but I I think it would be preferable to refer to him as being unfit for office because that that is my own belief that he is unfit for office for so many reasons that don't need repeating here. Thank
you. >> All right. So, what we're going to do as soon as um David because the referral motion always takes precedence is we're going to um we'll vote on uh uh David Mark's referral motion as soon
as we have it uh drafted. And if it passes, we are done for the evening. Uh well I mean there's other business to talk about but we're done on this particular topic. Um and if it fa referral motion fails then we will um go
through our uh you know um editing by amendment. Um and there are several um um several changes which I will have to display. Yes, Harry. >> Um I'm I'm trying to grasp how a referral back to the people who brought this
>> is right. I am as well. >> Different from a noa action vote. >> Well, it it's it's not rejecting what they're trying to do. It's asking them to come back with something better. So, it's considered a soft no action.
>> Are there any historians here? Have we referred to the petitioners in the past? I I have no recollection of that. That's why I'm wondering. >> Not in my tenure. >> You might ask Harry Bors. >> Yeah, that's what I was hoping that Harry would answer. You you you can ask
me, but I you're going to get the same answer. Not that you know, it sounds familiar, but I have to confess I don't recall that we've actually done it. >> I do I do recall a comment about referring a select board motion back to the select board.
>> Yeah, that's a comment that that's that's sort of silly because it's their motion. They can do what they want with it. I think as a body we typically have not done that because we're the vetting we're you know we're a vetting agency so
when it comes out of our subcommittee presumably it's ready for town meeting to vote on it. >> Um >> and this one clearly isn't given all the amendments we're being asked to change. It's still very badly written and I beg them to either withdraw it or or just
say they'll bring it back in the spring when they have a longer chance to work on it from a legal point of view and not a mental health point of view. Um otherwise vote no action. >> Um I say that David Mark I hate to make this suggestion because I hate to do it
to the subcommittee but what about referring it back to the subcommittee to work with the petitioners? We we've still got several weeks before town meeting um to work with the petitioners to come up with something different.
>> Well, I mean that's >> that's a two points very quickly. One, I did not know if the subcommittee wanted to spend more time on this. And number two, Jonathan had mentioned earlier that there might be scope issues if he changes it too much. And that was what concerned me
>> as far as a scope issue. >> Okay. Although I I have to say that um referring to a body um makes a lot more sense to me than referring to the petitioners. I I I I
would much rather a motion to refer to even an unwilling body such as the even if the subcommittee were unwilling. >> Well, we could give it to CO. No, I >> Okay, then I then I will speak up and I
>> um >> um and and I will say that having you go back to the subcommittee um you do have time and a number of what I think are reasonable suggestions were offered this evening and
>> including four amendments. Yeah, I'm thinking particular like Jocelyn Murphy's um suggestion and there were a couple of others. Um you know, I don't know that we're not that far away. I will confess I'm I'm wrestling with it
because of the language and I have very personal direct animus with this uh president, but but I'm also wrestling with the way it's written now. But I thought there were some some good comments made tonight that could could make it a bit better. Who who's chair of the subcommittee?
>> Me. Me. >> Would you be willing to take it up again? >> All right. So, um I think the question is first whether or not the petitioners are uh interested in going down that
path. I I think to the extent that they are, and Jonathan, if you're not, that's fine with me. Um if they're if they are then um you know the subcommittee's been working on this I think if you're going to refer
to anybody on advisory it makes most sense to refer to subcommittee and and le Elise even said today she was looking forward to writing more than another document on this. So there you go. It's all you need to know. Um no I I I I'm going to speak
on behalf of the subcommittee. I think we're happy to work with the with the uh petitioner petitioners if they uh so desire. So what if uh this is a friendly um
suggestion for David Mark's motion given what Cliff just said whether the referral motion could say something like to refer the article to the school subcommittee um to uh you know revise the language within appropriate scope to
emphasize uh focus on legal violations of the law and to incorporate the other suggestions from from um from the discuss question tonight. >> I would be fine with that. I'd be fine with that. >> So So again, I think I think from my
perspective, the first person to ask is Jonathan. >> No, I agree with that. I'm I'm talking about just getting our motion on the table with we're going to give Jonathan an opportunity to weigh in on on this. >> Uh can I >> Yeah, go ahead, Susan.
>> Okay. My concern uh I've come round to really agree that the focus would be much better to deal with issues of violation of uh of democratic uh
requirements and constitutional unconstitutional actions. Um, but I'm very concerned that the moderator would see that sort of change as not within scope.
And I don't want the subcommittee to be spending or the petitioners to be spending a lot of time on something that is not going to uh be approved by the moderator. Because when you look at the original language, um there really isn't
any focus on uh actions that are uh threatening the our democracy. And just just keep in mind, well, let me let me interrupt for one second that you know there we always we always look at resolutions in two in two parts on the
whereas side and on the on the resolved uh side and scope is is often quite um narrowly interpreted on the resolved side and is and generally speaking the moderator historically is quite liberal
in terms of whereas uh descriptions and So, we want to make sure that we're not focusing on on um warehouses as much as a resolution, >> right? >> Sorry to interrupt. >> Right. But I think focusing on his unfitness
because of something within him which is I think the whether you're talking about his mental unfitness uh in terms of a decline in ability or because of his innate nature
uh is different than talking about actions that are a threat to our democracy. that is happening every day and is probably only going to get worse, including his setting up the possibility
of running for a third term, which I don't think is as far-fetched as I might have uh a year ago. Um, so I don't I mean I think that it may be hard to
reinterpret in the way that David Mark is suggesting and still have it within scope. And for that reason, you know, on the other hand, I hate to vote down something where I don't disagree with
the conclusions. But um but I do think like David Mark said that this isn't the the most serious concern uh because we've had presidents who frankly who who haven't been capable but
if we agreed with the you know there were guard rails there were people around who got things done in in appropriate ways. In this case, we have a situation where there are no guardrails
and therefore the damage can, you know, can be extraordinary. And I'm not certain that it's simply a question of his being unfit for office or unsound of mind dealing with it from a purely psychological point of view or
a physical point of view. Um, I think that it goes far beyond that. But anyway, that's just my my concern at this point. So, let me make another suggestion. I again,
let's hear from Jonathan. That's number one. Number two, if Jonathan and the co-etitioners are um interested, willing, you know, to take this step, then the first thing we can do is
actually, you know, Jonathan and either myself or Alec or one of the other subcommittee members can, you know, have a conversation with Neil and, you know, if everyone were to send in their comments so that we don't have to go through the transcript and try to find
it, you know, we'll we'll be able to have that discussion with Neil and he'll be able to tell us. And, you know, the the problem in doing it that way, of course, is that ultimately we're going to have to come back to this group. It could be a very short, you know,
situation where we come back. Um, but I yeah, I it's a valid question, Susan. I I don't think that we should decide on behalf of the moderator. I think you need to determine whether or not you want to go down this path and then we can just >> have that conversation with him.
>> If he says no, then we're going to have to reconvene pretty quickly. That's all. >> Um, hey Harry, I'm having trouble keeping track now of who's signed up and in what order. >> Gordon had a comment and then the least.
>> Thank you. So what what what I hear this is this is this is somewhat an unfair debate because the advisory committee members get to hijack the intent of the petitioner and the petitioner really can't participate fully in the debate. He sort of get makes a closing comment.
The petitioner has been consistent from the warrant article as printed in the warrant through any number of of revisions that the core uh of of the
issue that he wants to bring before town meeting is that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Unable for whatever reason. And now we're taking this in a completely different direction, right?
Scope aside and saying, "Well, okay, but we don't want to go there. Let's just list all the things that would cause him to be impeached." That's not where the petitioner started. My advice to the positioner is if that's where the advisory committee wants to go and
that's what the referral to a subcommittee would would do and take it in that direction, my advice to the petitioner would be move your version at town meeting and let's let town meeting decide on the floor. But this is just hijacking
uh the petitioner's uh basic concept here. Um, I'm going to Elise next, then to Cliff, and then to Jonathan. >> Well, I'll actually concede to Cliff because part of what uh I was going to
ask or comment on was what Neil just said. >> Very good, Cliff. >> Yeah, thanks, Eric. So when I first joined advisory and several times since then I've always heard that
when something comes to advisory you know the petitioners can present what they want but once it gets here it becomes advisories. The petitioner can decide they don't like what advisory does and stick with
their own motion, which is fine. But to say we're hijacking something is to be painting the suggestions tonight in a completely different way than we typically
paint the process. And I I think that is really unfair. The first thing we've said is does Jonathan want to do this? If he doesn't, that's fine. No one's forcing him. And
the advisory committee if it doesn't want to if it wants to do something different, we will go through our process like we do with every warrant article. It is unfair and incorrect to suggest that we're doing anything
differently here than we do with every article. >> Thank you. Uh Jonathan, I think it's time we got some input from you. >> Hey, thank you. First of all, I'm I regret that uh you have had to spend so
much time on this uh this article for what is after all in the end a resolution. Um, I do think that there are parts of the resolution that could be trimmed, edited, uh, without cutting the heart out of it. I'm I'm perfectly
willing to work with the subcommittee on trying to do that. And if the moderator will consult on scope, um, perhaps that can help to guide us. I don't know that he will or not. He may say, "Let me see it and then I'll decide." But if he's
willing to talk to us about scope, I'm happy to talk to him about that. I have no particular pride of authorship here. There's not the I I do have some pride in the in some of the ideas, but not the particular words. >> So, the one one question I have is then
instead of referring the article to the school subcommittee with a whole charter, why don't we just take a motion to table and let the school subcommittee do what Cliff described? I mean, it's the same effect. And that way, we're not having to come up with the perfectly crafted language for how
we want the subcommittee to resolve this. We have a whole debate tonight. >> I would so move >> that. That's fine. I I think that um I I will say that I'm not sure that's pretty good, Elise. Um, I'm not sure that uh
I'm going to suggest that, you know, eight people try to recraft this. I think it might be useful and Jonathan and I can talk about that um to have one or two folks work with the petitioners and then bring it to the full subcommittee and then blah blah
blah. But um I I would ask people who made suggestions or comments tonight to please send them along to me um so that we can compile them so that when we have a discussion with the moderator, we can you know raise the ones that uh might
seem to be the most likely to be ruled out of scope and see what you know he thinks before we have to go through a process in drafting. Um, and you know, happy to happy to take this back and try to resolve this to everyone's
satisfaction. >> The lease. >> Yes. I just want to share that I am out of town at a conference next week for work. So, just want to get that on the record. It's >> okay. We'll manage. Thank you though, >> Margaret.
>> Hi. Yeah. I'm just thinking about this as a school subcommittee member. What? I I don't think I've listened to all the comments tonight. What exactly would be the goal of us rewriting this? Cuz I can't imagine a world in which we work
with the petitioners and we create something that makes everybody happy. I thought part of the point of having town meeting was that you just need 10 signatures to make a warrant article that has to be presented in front of town meeting. I I don't I think I'm I'm
losing the plot a little bit on what exactly we're supposed to come back from school subcommittee with in hand that will make this body happy. Can someone just like fill me in on like what the exactly the deliverable is? >> So
>> I would happily let I'll happily let Cliff since it's going to fall on your plate. I'll let you start. >> Yeah, sure. I I I I'm going to you know so the question was asked last week why why is advisory doing this you know why are we listening to these things you
know at all and you know I I took the moment to explain the process and the process of um putting things on the warrant and what state law requires an advisory committee to do what our bylaw requires an advisory committee to do and
so I'm gonna you know, ask Margaret to remember those thoughts. Okay, >> I remember I was there. >> Okay, so 10 people. Yeah, you get it something on the warrant. And now I'm going to repeat something I said a little bit earlier, which is, you know,
just because you get it on the warrant doesn't mean that it's not going to go through, you know, the sausage maker. And that's what happens. And you will see that lots of articles get completely reworked
in the process of going through not just advisory but with the select board or with the plan uh the planning board or with you know the historic preservation committee what whatever it is whoever has an interest in a particular article
they're going to hear it and they're going to make comments and so It's it is not uh typical that a warrant art a warrant comes out in the articles get voted on at town meeting as they are
published in the warrant. So this process that we're talking about is exactly what we'd anticipate. You know this one has a few a few wrinkles to it in terms of what we might be able to do. Well there have been a lot of
suggestions tonight. a lot of them overlap. You know, there's a lot of concerns about, you know, specific language and illusions to certain uh things. And the question is going to be, can we craft
something that achieves what Jonathan and the other co-petitioners want that also um removes the concerns that people have here? And the the reason to do that is
so that this committee for those who vote on resolutions will support this because I think you're clearly hearing tonight that people are um you know uncertain at the same time as they want to be able to support something. So, I I
that that's the goal and I think that would make Jonathan really happy if we got there and I think it would make a lot of people who are on this call happy as well. Um, so that's that's why we're doing what we're what we're doing. >> Okay. So, just so I'm clear, the
deliverable that we want to get out of school subcommittee is to rewrite this warrant article to which it could therefore get a passing vote from advisory committee. I I I I think first we want to work with the petitioner to
craft something that the petitioner is happy with and that we hope the folks on advisory are happy enough with. I'm going to say it like that. >> Yeah. Can I interrupt for a second and
say Margaret that there's actually kind of two ways that people tend to approach approach this and the challenge that comes up and I don't know that this warrant article falls into that category or for any particular person but it will happen during your tenure is that there
will there may be a warrant article that you um the flip side there may be a warrant article that you dislike but um fear might pass and so therefore you would like to uh amend it into ways that it is more amendable or less
objectionable. Um and so the goal is not I think to get an article um that will get definitely pass the advisory committee or definitely pass town meeting, but it's to soften edges that would cause um severe problems to
individuals that are going to have to have to consider it whether or not it ultimately passes. Um Janice Khan. >> Yes. Just to add to this, first of all, um Cliff, your explanation is is to my
understanding right on that our role here is really to work with petitioners to help craft an article that is the best votable article at town meeting. Whether or not it passes or not, we have
no say over that. that's the body that works on it. But our role is really to work with petitioners to help help um refine the article. I have yet to see an article that has gone um directly from what was placed on the warrant directly
um as worded into town meeting. I mean it it it hardly ever works, but the process that Cliff described does work. And on the rare occasions when a petitioner may not like so once once we start working on it once a petitioner
puts the article on the warrant then the bodies work on it and it becomes less the petitioners but our role is to work with the petitioners not to just take it away from them but to really to work it
so that that it it's the best product that can come to town meeting for a vote and I will say just um as a word to the subcommittee that uh the public safety subcommittee has had an article referred not once, not twice, maybe three times
back to them when a when an article is really complex and it just still needs some more work. And so take heart. It's it's not the worst thing to happen to a subcommittee. And um and um
>> All right. So with that, we we have a motion to table from Mr. Freriedman. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. So, we're going to vote on to on whether we're tableabling warrant
article >> 19. >> 19. I'm just bringing up my screen. Michael, >> yes. >> Harry B, >> yes. >> Cliff, >> yes. >> Anthony, >> yes. Elise. >> Yes.
>> John, do we lose John? Harry F. Did we lose me? >> No, we hear you, Dennis. >> I don't hear Harry or Jean. >> Yeah, I I said yes. And um I don't see John Do's name on the list.
>> Okay. David Mark, apologies to Cliff. Yes, >> Neil. >> Yes, >> Susan. >> Yes, >> Perry. >> Yes, >> Elisa. >> Yes, >> Janice. >> Yes, >> Brian.
>> No, >> Carol. >> Yes. >> Jocelyn, hit that space bar. Joselyn, excellent. All right. No, Jell. Um,
>> so I think we need to take a position on our own town administrators, but that's all I'm going to say. So, I'm going to vote yes on this. >> Okay. Uh, Linda, >> yes. >> Bran, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> Carlos,
>> yes. >> Margaret, >> yes. >> Is that a yes? I'm sorry I couldn't hear. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Christine, >> abstain. >> And Jocelyn, did you give an answer? I didn't hear. >> You voted in the chat. It says yes.
>> Oh, yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Okay. So, 20 to one to one, we're tableabling warrant article 19 and the school scope committee will bring it back. And I might be out when that happens. >> Yeah. Lucky you. So, again, >> well, I'm not I'm not that lucky, I think.
>> Well, that's true. Can I just can I just once again ask everyone who had suggestions that they went over tonight to just send them to me in an email um so I can compile them um and
you know to the subcommittee to avoid open meeting law violations. It's only going to be one or two of us and um uh you know we'll talk about who that who that might be. >> Um >> okay. Thanks.
>> Thank you, uh, Harry. So, before, uh, >> you wanted to take a poll. >> Yeah. I wanted to, um, we have a meeting next, we don't have, so we don't have a meeting on Thursday, correct? >> Correct. >> We have a meeting next Tuesday, a hybrid meeting, ideally in person. There's
going to be an executive session. Um, town council has sent out an invitation to a shared drive um with a number of materials that should be reviewed prior to that meeting. I have heard that there
are some members of this body uh specifically Linda and Carlos, but possibly others who have had trouble accessing >> that drive. And I wanted to find out um by a show of hands or by chat or whatever if there are others who have
had similar concerns because if there are I want you guys to have the opportunity to hear from town council about how he's planning to remedy that. >> And he's here too. >> Yes, that's that's I know he's here and that's why he came off that's why he's
turned his camera on. So, um, if are we is it just, uh, Carlos and Linda at the moment? Has everybody else been able to access or some of you haven't tried yet, so you don't know? >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Go ahead, Joe. Why don't you let us uh let us know what you've discovered this far? >> That's not it, Harry. That's not it. Nope. So, um, if anyone has any problems, just shoot me an email. You don't have to reply all, but just shoot me an email. I
understand Carlos and Linda have problems. I'm going to try to give you access under a different, uh, email address that I hope uh, addresses that. So, I'll do that. Shoot you an email that that's changed. And if you still have problems again, just get back to me. >> Yeah, the problem is two different
emails, >> one for AC and one for my Microsoft. And whatever. I think Carlos has the same and I think Carlos has a similar problem because of >> dual roles, >> right? So So you sent me addresses that did not look familiar. So I'm going to
add them and see if that corrects the problem. >> Okay. >> And please keep me and Harry in the the loop um with I mean you Joe, but also Linda and Carlos so we know what's going on because it's very important that you have a chance to read this before Tuesday.
>> Correct. Yeah, there's a lot of material in there >> and and if you haven't tried to get in, I I suggest maybe tonight or tomorrow you give it a try. Um because we want to be able to have the conversation.
>> Great. All right. Thanks everybody. We'll see you uh hopefully face to face on Tuesday. >> On Tuesday. So no meeting on Thursday. Two meetings next week. The first one, we encourage you to come live on Tuesday, and the second one on Thursday,
November 6, will be um will be Zoom. And it looks like it's warrant article 8 on naming the baseball field and warrant article I'm sorry, warrant article 10 on naming the baseball field, warrant article eight on lighting.
>> And thank you to everybody who has already sent in um uh reports. That's great. I'm gonna be trying to work on them over the next couple of days. >> Dennis, if everybody's internet went wild on the last uh discussion, maybe the NSA has been
>> it can become truly paranoid. Truly paranoid. >> The three eye atlas. All right. Good night, everyone. >> Good night. Good night. Good night.