Hey, Dennis. Not Dennis. It's Lisa. Hello, Lisa. Hi, Anthony. How are you? I'm doing all right. There we go. Admit are you is where'd he go? Just so you know, I was unable to get
into the meeting until just now. Yes, because they just let you in. Yeah. No, I mean it said that the meeting had not yet started. So maybe that's correct. That's correct. The meeting hadn't started because it hadn't started. It hadn't started because it hadn't started. Okay. I didn't know if it was a
link or not. It's starting. Starting now. Thank you, Lisa. You're welcome. Let me let more people in. David Mark, I'm making you a co-host.
Sure. There's one person that would like to speak during public comment. Okay. So I try dry [Music]
fear f [Music] So we have a quorum. We will start. I will turn on the recording. It's it's already recording. Okay. Um so welcome to the advisory committee
meeting of um May 7th 2025. I will share the agenda with people. We will start off with public comment. If you want to comment, put your name in the chat so David Mark can call on you.
Um, after that, we'll be starting with a fire department appropriations transfer request of $20,000. Moving on from that, the uh warrant article 21, the uh creation of a commission on thriving children and
youth and ending with warrant article 30 um resolution regarding the work of the moderators committee on forms of government. Get rid of this. Okay.
Um, David Mark, we can start public comment. Why don't you call? We have one right now. Uh, Jonathan Golden. Thank you very much. Thank you to the chair and to the advisory committee for the opportunity to make public comments. Jonathan Golden, town meeting member in
precinct 11. The advisory committee has made a very important role in making us aware of issues that relate to the financing of the schools and the need for audit and accountability. And it's good that the voters of Brooklyn agreed with that yesterday and who they chose for school committee. I want to thank you for your
leadership in that work. I want to bring to your attention one decision that was made in the budget just passed and I understand you passed it and I'm not making this comment to ask for anything to be changed this year but for future consideration as well as one of the Warren articles you'll be voting on tonight which is Warren article 21 you
may be considering uh tonight it's my understanding that one of the schools in Brooklyn will no longer have a vice principal and will be transferred to another school and I want to talk about why that has both financial consequences for the town of Brooklyn as well as consequences for the students.
To give you an example, as a parent at the Driscoll School, um, where my son is a fifth grader, I have seen a turnover of multiple principles over many, many years, every year, every other year happened. And we know that we've lost so much good leadership in the school. It
took years for Disco to get a second principal for a K28 school. And people often ask the question, why are we losing principles left and right? And the answer is you can get higher pay in other districts to run a K to 5 school than a K to8 and there isn't the vice principal support whichever schools
ought to be determined and that's up to the superintendent and again I know the budgets passed. I do want to ask for the advisory committee's consideration in their continued deliberations with the school committee a new school committee and how a new interim superintendent future superintendent to ask the questions about this both financially
and for students. What are the consequences of a school losing a vice principal? What does it look like when some schools have three vice principles and others have one? And I finally want to tie that to war article 21 which you'll be looking at tonight about the mental health of
students. Vice principles are the front line to that for students. I am thrilled about the and I understand I was in the subcommittee earlier. I'm happy to see the resolution that's come before you. I think CTOS did good work to make a resolution. I think there's a lot of buying in all the departments. I really
appreciate the cooperation. So, I want to put that on the record again to change nothing for this year, but to really think about the financial and other consequences when a vice principal is taken out of the school system. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much, David Mark. Anyone else? Not for public
comment. Fabulous. So, we will move on to the uh departmental transfer. Uh Charlie, are you the chief going to start us out here? Um, I don't mind starting off and then letting the chief comment if he wants to. That sounds good,
Chief. Great. Okay. Thank you, Harry. Uh, for those of you who don't know me, I'm Charlie Young, the assistant town administrator for finance here in Brooklyn. Um, one of the things I work on is the operating budgets and I work with the department heads on their utilities budgets. So, uh, we're here
tonight to request an appropriations transfer, which ordinarily would only require select board approval, but, um, certain transfers like out of capital accounts additionally require us to come to the advisory committee and, um, get their approval as well. So, uh, we're
here tonight uh, because we have a projected natural gas uh, budget deficit in the fire department of about $20,000 for FY25. And thankfully the chief has identified some places in his budget um other than the reserve fund that we can pull from
uh to uh to backfill that $20,000. So a little background on this. Uh folks who were here last year may remember that uh as part of the reserve fund transfer we did at the end of the year for fire overtime, we also needed to backfill this same natural gas deficit. Um and at
the time we attributed uh that $20,000 gap to a rise in prices which we'd seen across departments and that made sense. Uh so we you know we came asking for a reserve fund transfer said we'd look into it further and we plan to build it into FY26. So this is built into the
FY26 budget. Uh you'll notice there's a 20 to $30,000 increase. I think it's 30,000 to fire utilities and that is capturing this gap. Uh the the only problem there was that after we set the budget, we realized this was just a matter of how the bills are getting
paid. So uh the fire department has been paying a bill for uh natural gas supply that includes the police department, which ordinarily would get build and paid there. Uh now we're here tonight uh essentially saying we've we've realized that's how things have been working. Uh
thanks to a new public safety uh business manager who's been very great to work with. Um, and so we're we're saying, "All right, well, that's how we've been paying the bills. That's how they were paid this year. We're going to backfill this deficit, and then we can look to correct that going forward." And
the easiest way to do that would be to keep paying the bills this way because it's built into the budget next year and then correct FY27. Um, so that's just an explanation for why the why the gap is there. Um, and we're we're looking for your approval on this transfer out of
leased computer equipment and public safety equipment. Chief, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the the na the uh the surplus in leased computer equipment is due to buying some machines that were on lease. Um, and we're actually expecting to have that cost come back
here in a a a year very soon. Um, so we haven't taken that money out of the fire capital budget. Um, giving them the flexibility to uh to do things like this um in the meantime until those devices need to be purchased again. So, um,
Chief Sullivan, if you want to add anything, I think that sums it up. Uh, yeah. No, thank you, Charlie. Uh, just, uh, quick quickly, the the the the lease computer equipment, uh, it wasn't as a result of buying the but,
uh, unfortunately, the previous business manager had paid the lease ahead of time. And so, instead of having it be paid over a four-year period, he paid it all at once. So, we're realizing a savings for the years coming out. Uh but that that will end this year. Uh and the
$7,000 from the public safety equipment uh is is due to the fact that we had two rounds of state equipment grants uh that the state was uh you know generous enough to be able to uh put out for uh the um the fire departments and we were
awarded twice this year. Uh and we're able to offset some costs uh into the state grant in in that we would normally see in our equipment uh capital account. uh therefore giving us a little bit of room to be able to move that $7,000.
Thank you, Chief. Um questions from the sub from the advisory committee. Uh nobody has put their name in the chat, but I'll give a quick one here. Um you said, Charlie, that the natural gas payment is for the fire department also
includes the police department as well. Uh that's why this $20,000 gap came up. Yep. Right. So, is this coming from the police department side or the fire department side? No, it's coming from fire. And I can understand why you'd ask that question. So, uh the police department does have a corresponding
surplus in that account. Um but we're we uh I'm expecting them to come forward shortly with a uh a reserve fund transfer request, not only for their personnel budget, the same as fire this year, but also we think for non-personnel as well. Um, and so we're
gonna we're thinking we're going to keep that capacity in police in case they need it to help resolve their issue. Um, and so we're here today to resolve this one with within the fire department. So, yeah, it's a good question. The bill has the police department bill has been getting paid in fire. That's why we had
a deficit last year. That's why we have a deficit this year. We have a new public safety business manager and we're going to shift it back to police, but we're not gonna uh but we're not going to do that now. We'll do that in a future year. we when we can do it, you know, without causing any issues. So
that was very helpful. Thank you. Still nobody in the chat, Harry. Okay, so Charlie, help me here. What I have, let me find it, is a uh favorable action on fire
department appropriations transfer request of 20 grand from accounts. First 13,000 from account with a number at least computer equipment to an account called natural gas and then 7,000 from an account
called public safety equipment to an account called natural gas to help bridge a projected budget shortfall in the utilities category of the fire department FY25 budget. Is that correct? That's right. Would somebody like to
move that? I'll move it. Would somebody like to second that? I'll second. Thank you so much. I will share my screen. We will go to a vote. [Music] this [Music]
again. All righty. See now that Michael Burgerer. Michael Burgerer. I don't think he's here. Okay. Ben Burnbomb. Yes. Harry Bors. Yes.
I'm having some problems. Hold on. Yes. Anthony Boro. Yes. John Dogget. Yes. Katherine Florio. Yes. David Mark. Yes. Neil Gordon. Yes. Susan
Granoff, yes. Perry Gman, yes. Alisa Jonas, don't think she's here. Janice had to leave. Alec Leovitz, yes. Carol Leen,
don't see her. Uh, she's not here. Pam Lodish, yes. Josyn Murphy, yes. Danell O'Neal, yes. Lindolson Pelky, yes. Marcus is not
here. Fran Pearllor, yes. David Pollock, yes. Lee Selwin is not here. Christine Westfall, yes. So, by a vote of 17 to 0 to zero, we
have passed this. Stop share. Thank you everyone. Thank you chief. Thank you Charlie. Have a good night. Good night. Thank you. You too. Um so the next thing on the
agenda is a report on warrant article 21 regarding the commission on thriving youth and children. Who's taking this? Mr. Burnbomb. Mr. Burnbomb, Ben, take it away. Mr. Burnbomb, as you can see, is
somewhat handicapped this evening. I will need some help from some of my colleagues. Um, the um uh C uh the the warrant warrant article 21 uh ran into some problems with us. And
one of the problems that seems to have run into is that we don't have the CTS version of it posted. I've been told just a moment ago. Can we get that up somewhere? Alec, do you have that available? Okay, let me um Alec, let me
make you a co-host. That is posted with the agenda. Um well, things hard to see, so I've been told it's it's not been posted. If it is uh very good. Thank you. Ale can certainly share it though if he has it.
And it's it's quite brief so it I can I can share the whole resolution. Um right if I'm co-host you're you've you've been well I thought you had hold on let me try that again co-host.
Yes you are now a co-host. Thank you Harry. Um so we began with warrant article 21 uh at almost at the same time COS uh began they got a jump on it and uh we
had some issues uh with the proposal when it was warrant article and and not a resolution. uh one of the issue well let me say what it was the notion the idea I won't it was an
idea not a notion and a very serious idea it was to bring together uh various organizations uh offices uh like the school system and the libraries and the health department and so on with outside
organizations as well that is outside the town's perview uh private organizations uh to put together a uh a a a a a unified um a unified uh
a here's here's where I wish I had my right eye. A unified um way of treating children and youth in the town of Brooklyn. That is to address such things as uh as as uh lack of
um uh well the con connections between moving from uh one level in school to another. uh other kinds of health related matters
and uh the number of students I think which we all have read about in in various uh newspapers and magazines and so on. Number of number of young people between the ages well from young to 18
who are who have developed a uh who you know depression or a lack of a lack of happiness. Let's put it that way. Um so that was the virtuous um position of the of the folks who put
warrant article 21 together uh the petitioners and uh the problem was there were some practical matters which we tripped over that is our our uh our our our subcommittee tripped over and other practical matters tripped over by CTO
and S I'll just mention the matters we tripped over one was expanded. You were going to bring together, the proposal would bring together uh nine individuals representing various organizations within the town uh and also within
within town government and also within the town and uh uh clearly that was going to end up costing some money. It could not any proposals coming out of that group would have cost some money. Uh the other problem was somewhat
technical. The warrant article u mentioned uh children and youth of Brooklyn and it did not seem to um carry over to 500 other children and youth
within Brooklyn who were not residents of Brooklyn but who attended Brooklyn schools for one reason or another. Uh and and and and and finally there was a third matter which was coherence. Uh if you had uh a a group of organizations
you're trying to get together once a month um with and who who are essentially free to work on their own. Uh you have a problem with u sort of musical chairs problem. Who's in charge?
Who's paying? Who's leaving? Who's not showing up? Um, so the virtues were strong, that is to say, to to improve uh the ability of youth and children in
the town of Brooklyn to mature and to uh and to be well uh not not simply well educated, but wellformed as as they say in some in some parts of theology. Um so
we we backed off uh in our in our hearing which is to say we just said we couldn't go forward with this and uh the uh CTOS at that time uh with particular
led by Dick Mena was already working on a proposition that would take the place of the warrant article that is this resolution which I hope at this point uh you can see um I say that with some
irony since I can't but the um so we reviewed that re that resolution this this afternoon just prior to this meeting and uh we found it
quite striking and quite good. unanimously. Um we we we we voted for it unanimously and the the petitioners also agreed that it suited them well. The difference there there are three
differences here. One is this would have a leader in Sigal Ree and the and the health and human services department uh which in in and of itself had been proposing and was working on a similar
program that would was going to break uh was going to come to the light in fiscal 26. I think I'm sure Seagalis here can tell us something about it. Um and uh and and and others in the town including
uh the town administrator also felt that this would work, this would be coherent. Uh if this was a um a a a commission or a committee that was guided by the town
and by a person in the town, namely Sigal, who would be in charge. Um the virtues remain the same. The virtues are let's make sure that every child and youth in Brooklyn uh who we could
possibly reach whether through athletics, through the arts, through school, through the library, uh anybody we could reach uh by working together uh as opposed to working singly or or in small groups that we would reach them
that we would improve the lives of young people in Brooklyn, which is an estimable estimable uh estimable proposition and uh the um and so we we we also found that the CTO
and S uh draft proposition resolution uh did did respond to the issues that had troubled us. that is to say, the subcommittee when we first when we first
uh looked at the uh the warrant article uh when it was when it was proposed as a bylaw. So uh that's where we are. We voted unanimously. Uh uh I believe it was four to uh zero or may have been
five to zero. Uh I forget Cliff. What was it? It was five to zero to one. There was one extension. I'm sorry, one obstension. Uh, and uh, and so we bring it to you with our
heartfelt um, heartfelt uh, well, we believe it's a it's it's a good idea and I guess we are ready to move on from that. Thank you. Thank you, Ben. Um, Sagal, is there
anything you'd like to add since this is being sort of put in your lap? Hi, thank you. Sigal Reese, director of public health and human services. Um, yeah, no, I think um what this does is it aligns it with the work that we are
doing with community health improvement plan um which was really convening a lot of the same agencies and what I think um this resolution will give me is to make sure we continue to have that youth focus and some of the strategies that we're implementing um as part of that
plan. And I keep emphasizing um and he has just confirmed Alec will be on that steering committee too as we're um gathering that up to move towards implementation. So I'm sure he will make sure we continue to follow this resolution and ensure that you know we are looking at the um like it says
well-being of all Brookline children from birth to age 18. Thank you. Um Alec, is there something you or the other petitioners might wish to add at this point in time? Um, just very briefly, I I'd like to
thank uh CTO and S and in particular Dick Banka for for being a a very willing and um generous partner in crafting this. Um, and as Ben mentioned, uh, the petitioners uh support the CTO and S substitute motion. Uh, we intend to offer that as our main motion. Um,
and I hope you'll join the subcommittee in voting favorable action. Thank you. Thank you, David. Mark, let's open it up. Nobody's in the chat yet. Okay, we'll give them a moment. Linda, thanks David Mark. Um I guess my
question u would be to uh seagal and that is just to I'm trying to understand a little bit more on the background of the um children's community health improvement plan or or I'm sorry I'm naming it wrong community health
improvement plan and I'm familiar with it in the past where it had been more of a kind of um data dive on what the um health indicators were in the town. So, I'm I'm less familiar with this iteration of the work. So, I'm just
curious um you know, what it encompassed, what it's telling you, and and how you see this resolution implementing that. Sure. Um so, let me back up then and give a little history. So, um it was about a two and a half year process where we
started out with the community health assessment which is just as you described a really big data dive looking at um federal, state, and local data including survey data, focus groups, key informant interviews. We went through a whole year round process where we gathered a lot of data and identified
what were the key topics in Brookline that affects community health that affects public health. And then um year two, I should say this was a two-year ARPA funded project. Um and then year two we went and I keep talking about it as like narrowing and narrowing the
priorities. We looked at what comm came you know all the data in the assessment and then evaluated with a group of about 40 representatives from different community groups. So again talking about this process of convening community groups. We did that throughout the whole um child the assessment and the planning
process and we identified four priority areas. Those four priorities are financial security, access to social and health services, uh housing affordability, and mental and behavioral health. Um so very broad topics. And then we went through another year and a half where we narrowed that down with
goals, objectives, and strategies. Um and now we're at the cusp of implementation. Um so it's a very broad report. It's really a strategic plan for a health department. And I think in the past um the department has done sort of smaller assessments related around
certain strategies but hasn't really taken the next step which is actually the improvement plan. Um so we have an actionable plan with specific strategies and action steps we're going to be taking and also um a monitoring and evaluation plan to ensure we're doing that and it's all posted on our on our website. Um, and like I said, we're just
moving into implementation now with reforming the steering committee and developing working groups under each of those four priority year. So, is the steering committee an ongoing entity or Yeah, that is the hope. I mean, it's a it's a five-year plan. Um, and there are
many, as you can imagine, under those four priority areas, there are many, I think within each of those, there are specific strategies targeted towards youth. and again convening those specific organizations listed in the original award article are all um implementers and consultants and take on
various roles depending on which strategy um you know I I can sort of get into a few examples um because I like concrete things to try and understand what's in the plan um so there's some collaboration with trusted early learners with some of the work they're doing around early education and
bringing together daycarees and providing support and education training um there's the wait till wait till 8th which is a program that the schools are very interested in implementing about social media and mental health and waiting till 8th grade to get those phones. Um there's a youth
work program under the financial security priority to work with youth around summer jobs and a lot of the great work that steps to success is doing. Um and then also there's a lot of work that we do within the department around substance use prevention and reformalizing that um the substance use
prevention work um sort of revitalizing that and again a lot of that is about convening different partners to address mental health and substance use with youth. So those are just a few examples of strategies that are really outlined in that in the health improvement plan. Great. Thanks a lot. That that helps me
a lot. Thank you. Sure. Uh there's nobody else in the chat, but uh I'll ask a question here. Before you ask a question, Alec, could you stop sharing so we can sort of get the people back? Thank you. Okay. Um Seagal, is there anything in the language of this
resolution that would be different from what you're already doing? Do you have to pivot to do something else or add add some new thing that you're not doing already? Because it sounds like you're already doing all of this. Yeah, for the most part. I think um like
I I think it will also give us there's a lot of voices in the room and a lot of competing priorities. So I think having a resolution that says we should be focus on um you know well-being of zero at 18 is is helpful. It gives us some direction um because we're going to continue through you know years 2 3 four
and five. Um the steering committee is really going to need to continue to set those priorities and respond to the changing environments that we're always living in and and what we're going to be able to do and really setting those priorities. It's really about priority setting. All right. Thank you. That's
it, Harry. That's it. Okay. Um Ben, do you or or Cliff wish to make a motion on behalf of the um subcommittee? Uh sure, I'll do it. Um the uh subcommittee recommends favorable action
on article 21 as amended by CTOS. Okay, let me just change this a bit. As amended by CO and S.
Alrighty, go down here. Clock. Yes. Ben Burnbomb. Yes. Can can I just ask a procedural question? Sorry. The the in the document that was shared in the wherees, it talks about a bylaw. So that'll get cleaned up in the where's
um so Alec, is that what CTS has? the so in the first whereas clause it reads Warner article 21 proposes a general bylaw that would require the select board to appoint a nineperson commission etc. Um and then they go on to clarify
that in response to the article there's this is an amended motion. So my my sense was CTO and S included that to be um provide a description of the process through which the article is evolved. Um that but that's my reading of it. So I I
think it clarifies in the other whereases that it is no longer proposed. I mean I guess a resolution it's okay. It just it's a little confusing to put in the record. Neil Gordon has a comment. Yeah, I would
suggest that if the if the warrant article proposed it when the warrant article was filed and if the warrant article it if if it's no longer proposed, let's clear up the confusion and say that it proposed the warrant
article is only the warrant article as as it's filed when it's filed. And so that scrivener correction would then just be in that whereas clause striking the s at the end of proposes and replacing with a d to make it past tense. That's as simple as I can make it
as one letter. I I think the petitioners would support that. Thank you. Um let's go back to our vote if I can find it. So, um, I see from the chat that Michael
Berger voted yes. Ben Burnbomb votes yes. Harry Bors, yes. Cliff Brown, yes. Anthony Bono, yes. John Dogget, yes. Katherine Florio,
yes. David Mar. Yes. I got you. Thank you. She just voted for me, I guess. So, I'll go with her. Yes. Okay. Very good. Neil Gordon. Avoid a floor fight over this change.
I'll vote yes. Thank you. Susan Granoff. Yes. Perry Gman. Uh yes, with the assumption that the explanation doesn't need to be changed to be put in past tense about
the general bylaw because it starts out warrant article 21 would by general bylaw create a nine member commission. Yeah. You mean like would have? You're right. Yeah. I think um Alec, if you could add that to your scriveners uh
edit. Yes, we'll do. And it would be would have created a D on would have create. Now it reads in instead of reading warrant article 21 would by general bylaw create it now reads warrant article 21 would have
created by general bylaw a nine member commission. So yeah, not not not to throw a wrench, but if you continue reading in the article, so in in that uh explanation, I think if you're going to make those changes up top, you might
need to make some changes into another paragraph where CTS sort of comes around and says, and because of these things, we we recommend, you know, a resolution. So they're sort of again they're they're starting with sort of like here's what
it is and here's all the discussion that happened and because of this we re you know we therefore recommend and all I'm saying is we're going to play wordsmith up top we need to make
sure that it logically follows its reading down below. So but we're not voting the explanation. That's true. We are not. We don't have to worry about it at this moment in time.
Okay. Thank you. Let's try this again. Um I ask if anyone wants to change their vote. I'm not even I'm I'm not going there. Um Alec Leovitz. Yes.
Pam Lodish, yes. Join Murphy, yes. Della O'Neal, yes. Lind Olsson Pelky, yes. Fran Porer, yes. David Pollock, yes.
And Christine Westfall, yes. Thank you. by a vote of 19 to 0 to zero. The advisory committee recommends favorable action on the uh resolution warrant article 21 the
resolution regarding thriving youth and children as amended by CTO and ass. But may I say something Harry just personal? Sure. That is uh the respect and the uh cooperation that uh folks showed
themselves showed among the petitioners CTO and NS and uh the subcommittee I think was is an admirable example of how you do business in government. That's all I'm going to say. Thank you so
much. Uh Sagal, thank you for coming. Um, and so now we move on to our last business of the evening, warrant article 30, resolution regarding moderators committee form of government.
Perry, believe you're handling this for the ad hoc subcommittee. Yes, I am with the disclaimer that I don't know how little Perry Gman got stuck in the middle of this godforsaken topic. All right. Um so the advisory
committee ad hoc subcommittee um met on warrant article 30 to extend which is to extend the moderator's committee on forms of government and the subcommittee um recommended no action by a vote of 4
to 0 to zero. Um so warrant article 30 is a resolution that urges town meeting to direct the moderators committee on forms of government to extend its deadline for producing a final report. Produce a
collective committee report including majority and minority views if appropriate and critically evaluate each other's contributions and to allow for replacement of members unwilling to continue. The moderators committee was
created as a result of the passage of warrant article 18 at the November 2023 special town meeting. The petitioners of that noted that discussions about Brooklyn's form of government had increased and they believed there was insufficient
knowledge of the various forms of government and wanted a moderators committee to review, evaluate and report on that. um and town meeting voted in support of the resolution and a committee was appointed in February 2024 by moderator
Kate Pogberman. The committee was charged with objectively and fairly evaluating the positive and negative aspects of the forms of government in Massachusetts. Um including but not limiting to examining how changing the
forms of government could impact staffing requirements. um and holding one or one or more public hearings, optionally recommending one or more alternate forms of government for Brookline and presenting a preliminary report with findings and recommendations
and submitting a final report with findings and recommendations to town meeting and posting it online by May 1st, 2025. So, the committee held 16 public meetings from February 2024 to April 2025 and two public hearings. The
committee engaged in research into various forms of municipal government in Massachusetts and produced nine research reports and a final report of the committee and three memos which make recommendations to town meeting. The final report was presented at the
committee's last meeting on April 30th uh and then the committee uh then dissolved. In the discussion uh the petitioners of war in article 30 expressed dissatisfaction with the process and the output
um from that moderator's committee and they felt that the committee was uh dysfunctional and failed to objectively evaluate forms of government. Mr. Rosenthal the lead petitioner of article 30 highlighted that the committee's final um output was a collection of
individual memos rather than a unified committee report. Um and he and Mr. Gordon argued that the output did not equip voters with the information needed to make uh informed decisions. And so they emphasized the importance of a thorough unbiased
evaluation. And subcommittees members uh noted that the committee was not charged with informing the voters but rather to report to town meeting. Um and members noted that there are numerous ways for voters to become better informed about potential changes uh to forms of
government. During public comment, uh Neil Washinsky said that he had recused himself from hearing Warren Article 30 at town meeting and that he was speaking at the subcommittee meeting as a member of the public rather than uh as a
moderator. And Mr. Washinsky urged uh careful review of the committee's report and felt that the committee had uh fulfilled its charge. Um and the subcommittee discussion centered around the practicality of extending a dissolved committee not around the
quality of the committee's uh work or the process by which the committee executed it. Uh so members also discussed uh removing or amending some of the resolve clauses in light of the committee's dissolution. However, the consensus was
that with the committee dissolved, the article was no longer actionable. Uh the warrant article 30 ad hoc subcommittee voted 4 to 0 to zero uh to recommend no action on warrant article 30. Thanks.
Thank you so much, Marty. As the uh petitioner, um we give you the ability to make brief comments. If uh the subcommittee report has missed anything, you'll be
given an opportunity at the end of the uh debate to again make comments. Um, so I will give you five minutes if you have any up to five minutes if you have anything to add at this point in
time. I think I'm on. Am I on? You're on. Okay. Thank you. Um Uh I got the subcommittee report um about two hours ago and I spent some time going through it. So, what I'm going to do is try to
go through that and highlight some things that I um have some questions and disagreements about. Before I do, I want to make four very quick uh introductory comments. Number one is my bottom line
I'm going to get to at the end is the petitioners I've talked to some of them and uh uh what we're going to do is not move the article. we're going to move for a referral to a new moderator's committee. Uh the second thing I want to thank the subcommittee for doing such
fast work and getting out a report which is um generally very thorough. I just disagree with some of the um facts and conclusions, but I especially appreciate I assume Kelly had a role in this. I I guess she's absent today, but um my
appreciation. Number three is the importance of this issue. This is the biggest existential threat to Brookline, not just government, but the community since the end of rent control. So, um, that will color everything I'm saying
and everything I've done for five months. And finally, I not going to belabor. I sent you all something objecting to Neil's uh thumb on the scale and saying I'm not here as moderator. I'm here as a citizen. Um, I
think that's frankly absurd. Uh, he's the one who appoints you. I think it was wrong for him to weigh in on this subject. So, let me move on to the report and some things I'll just mention briefly and get back to them afterwards.
U, I'm I'm using the executive summary and the written report. Uh first um there is a mention at the beginning uh the last bullet on the first page allow for replacement of members. I'm going to get back to that at the end but
that's very important. It's resolve clause number five. U secondly um I'm also going to get back later to the highlighting of the moderator's charge objectively and fairly evaluating positive and negative aspects. the word
I want to be labor there and I'll get back to it later is what does the word evaluate mean? I I'm going to make a case. I think we've made it in article 30 that the reports that are pro city are not evaluations. They're just the
opinions of four members of the committee u of the moderators committee not your committee. Um uh next u similarly at at the end of that first uh executive summary I'll get back later to
the non-actionable phrase. Um and um I think that's just a bad conclusion of all a mistake to say that. And I don't remember those words being used, but it doesn't matter. That that's a pretty
good uh caption for what the subcommittee voted. No, non-actionable. Okay. Uh now here we get to some more substance and things that uh I'll talk about at a little more length but trying
not to be longer than what you said. Uh the top of the right after the this executive summary the ad hoc committee held a public hearing on April 30th. This is by my page, page two, the top. That date is important because that is
the date that just I think two or three hours beforehand, the committee voted to dissolve. And that is the first I saw the three main reports that they're issuing. That's the so-called committee report which doesn't talk about much
except procedure. a wonderful report by Sandy Gatsby about retaining our town government and a report by the four pro city oh by the way signed on by David Mark Goldstein who did a wonderful job on this committee for many months worked
very hard and I appreciate it then the report by the four pro city people I had never seen those before I don't think the subcommittee had seen them and and that's all the more reason I'm going to ask you not to take the vote today. Um
so let me move on to the um uh the next point is the allowing for replacement of members. Well, all right. I'm going to wait on that resolve clause number five. Then uh getting down to the committee was
charged with and I I said highlighted the word objectively and fairly evaluating negative buzz and ne negative aspects. One thing that the four procity people almost entirely ignored is one
half of our government which is the executive branch. As you all know we have an executive branch or legislative branch and unlike the state or the federal government we don't have a judicial branch. So half of our form of
government not in terms of people or in terms of numbers is the executive branch. They told that if you look at their report it talks about the representative town meeting. They don't talk at all about the executive branch. The only people who talk about it uh the
Sandy and David Mark report which highlights very good things about our executive branch. So to the extent they were supposed to evaluate our form of government, even if you accept the word evaluate, which I don't, they opined on
our form of government and all they opined on was the the legislative branch. Marty, it it's been six minutes. I'm sorry. I I will give you one more to conclude. Okay. With the realization that you will have a shot at the end.
Okay. Thanks. So the the the report then talks about nine reports actually three of them are largely irrelevant by Larry Leig wonderful thoughtful reports that that really are not helpful for reasons that I don't have time to get into. And
finally let me conclude by getting to the bottom line here. Um the committee was fixated on the fact that they've the subcom that the moderates committee intended to make this moot by
dissolving. I think that's a lot of baloney. Uh I think that's their way of saying town meeting is irrelevant. I think resolve clause number five was a viable solution. But to clear up any confusion, we're now going to not move
the article and we're going to move for referral to new moderators committee committee which I think resolve clause number five would have done. That's it. Thank you. Thank you so much. David Mark, let's go to the list.
You're first, Harry. No, actually I think Neil Gordon is first. Well, if so, he didn't send it to everyone. He just sent it to he he he's he sent it to everybody at 7:40. I'm on the list at 7:43.
Okay. So, Neil, go ahead. So, that's without dispute. I apologize. Thank you, Harry. Harry, thank you. Um, one one quick comment on the uh the subcommittee's report. I spoke for five minutes uh in in in summarizing some
detailed descriptions uh of the the so-called work of the moderators committee on form of government. None of the flavor of my remarks uh is even suggested in in uh reducing that to uh dissatisfaction
essentially with process and function which is the extent of what the subcommittee said about my report. I spoke for five minutes. That said, Marty Marty talked about the uh dissolution of the committee and and in fact the
committee one committee member uh in writing uh to you know the uh the chair I believed uh said we'll vote to end the work of the committee. We'll vote to dissolve right in part to avoid
criticism and make article 30 moot. It was intended right to make article 30 moot without discussing article 30 at the uh moderator when I said talk about the committee announce the moderator the moderator's committee on form of government. So that's a stated by a
member. It's a partial purpose for ending is is to shut down the the will of town meeting and it's the second time that the committee has essentially shut down the will of town meeting and I'll get to that in a minute. The committee's charge was was clear. It was evaluation
by the committee by the committee. What was the the essence uh though uh as in of a committee chaired by uh Jeffrey Barry, Professor Barry was that the process of the committee didn't do that.
It didn't involve a lot of evaluation by the committee. And what Professor Barry did was he assigned the various members of the committee um homework assignments. Uh doled them out uh the committee members agreed. They went and
they did their work. They came back. They gave a report to the class. I mean I mean the you know the committee um individually gave their report to the committee. There was little discussion by the committee. There was never a vote
to accept. Uh and then next week or the next meeting they did another one. They entertained a series of experts came in had chats. Um there was no little if any discussion by the committee no vote and
at the end uh if you read the committee's report and and I'm going to go through this uh and and we'll have comments on that uh before too long. Um they talk about you know we did and they did individual members of the committee
did individual committee members um did their homework made their report little discussion by the committee at the end uh professor Barry stapled them all together and attached them to what's essentially a cover mount the committee
didn't evaluate. That's not what town meeting asked for and that's not what their charge uh suggested that they do. That's that's a total I I'll take away total. Uh it's a disrespect to the will of town meeting. That's not what town meeting asked for. That's not what the
charged the charge asked for. And the committee having not done that uh then dissolves in order to avoid criticism of the very work they failed to do. And they actually have in writing from a
member. We will dissolve to avoid the criticism and I'll add parenthetically of the work that we didn't do. And what we'll do is we'll make Marty Rosenthals, which they didn't say, article 30 moot because that's just more criticism of
the committee. They want us to go away. They want town meeting to go away. That's not fair. The will of town meeting is, pardon the expression, the will of town meeting. I could talk this on this for an hour. Um I I won't I'll leave it at that. Um
but but to be clear, um I have undertaken to work with Marty uh to come up with a uh substitute motion in the form of a referral motion to a new committee. uh and I don't know exactly
what that language will be but it will be refer referral of the subject matter to a new committee to undertake uh some uh a work uh to reach a conclusion that the moderators committee on form of government was asked to do
and didn't do. Thank you Harry Freriedman. So, um, I received an email this afternoon from Sandy Gadsby, who was a member of the moderators committee, and he asked me to convey his
thoughts, which I will do. So, these are from Sandy Gadsby. Um, the moderators committee concluded its business on April 30 and and voted to dissolve. I'm sure I speak for my fellow colleagues in stating that none of us will do any
further work as committee members no matter what town meeting does with article 30. So this article is moot. Um there's no committee whose term can be extended. Um with regard to the work of the moderators committee I call your
attention to approximately 100 pages of reports that the committee issued. Here's what I wrote as part of my final report. Work of the moderators committee. Readers of the committee reports will have noted the accusation by a committee member that the work of
the committee was stymied in some fashion and that the committee essentially failed to carry out her interpretation of its charge from the town moderator. It is true that the committee faced difficulties owing to the strong bias of many of its members,
the unavailability of research assistance and town resources and the essential complexity of the task before it. However, I firmly believe that under the able chairmanship of Jeff Barry, the committee was as successful as I had
dared hoped and that it was has made valuable contributions to the important discussion of the future of our town's governance. Um, please convey my remarks to the advisory committee, which I am doing despite the fact that I really
don't agree with them, but I said I would convey them. Um, so let's um let's go back to the list. But it is my intention um given that I'm not really seeing any
more people on the list uh as of right now that while I will take a motion for no action from the uh ad hoc subcommittee, I will also entertain a motion to
um uh defer consideration to table this until a later date. Uh we have Harry Boris with a comment. Sure. So um I actually appeared before this committee briefly. Um I went up there with Dennis. We both spoke. I
think we both came there uh with a number of thoughts and a number of things to say. Uh we were not asked about any of that. We weren't really asked for our thoughts. We were asked more uh mechanical questions. Um there was one opportunity with a
question that came up that I was able to respond a little bit and sneak something in because at that point there seemed to be a focus on the notion of efficiency and I pointed out that efficiency and effectiveness are not necessarily the same thing and can work across purposes
and you really sort of have to look at the structure of the government and how it plays out whether it's a town meeting form of government or whether it's a city form of government but we really had limited opportunity um to make our opinions known. Uh it was pretty clear
at that point that there were a couple of members who were former municipal employees who made no secret. They're very pro city. Um and if I'm a town manager, I suspect I would as well. Um
some other members who just were not familiar with the town meeting form of government. Um so I would have thought there would have been a little more work to kind of um elucidate some of the issues around town meeting form of
government. Um as to the notion of this being uh non-actionable because they have dissolved. Um, I will say on on that count, um, I'm a bit disappointed that there wasn't at least extended to
town meeting a courtesy to see what town meeting thought. Um, you can wait for town meeting to say yay or nay, we want to hear more, we don't. And town meeting may very well say this is fine. Thank you very much. But sort of when you're on the eve of it and you know votes
coming before town meeting to sort of pull the rug out from town meeting as I say I I found that a bit disappointing. Uh now I'm hearing that the petitioners um are going to look to do this as a referral. We don't know what that
referral is. Um I don't have a any particular opinion on that. But I guess the question I put out and maybe u Harry sort of uh uh touched on that a bit is would it make more sense for us to table
this until we knew what it is we're going to vote on because if they're going to refer it, we're going to have to take it up again anyway, take up the referral before town meeting. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Uh Christine Westfall,
I recognize that the original intent apparently um was to form a committee that would make a recommendation yay or nay about city or town to town meeting. I'm not sure that that's going to be
terribly helpful. Um the I I don't know what you refer. Um so probably tableabling is a good idea on this. I don't think that the committee was necess the uh committee that dissolved
itself was necessarily disrespectful of town meeting. I think it felt that it was not prepared to make a yay or nay decision on a form of government and that appears to be what the original proponents were looking for. Um I'm not
sure any committee is going to be able to make a on what kind of government we should have that would be effective. What the committee did do was it uh provided information uh some information about uh
certainly uh what the advantages of a city government would be but um I'm I'm not sure that that this is the horse we should be beating it. Okay, Alec.
Thanks David Mark. Um, a couple thoughts on this. Um, one, I I have served on a moderator's committee in the past and and chaired one, and I imagine a number of other folks in this body have done as well. Um, and I just want to recognize
one that serving in that process requires a remarkable amount of work. And as we heard from the meeting schedule and regimen of this moderator's committee, I think it would be hard to question that there wasn't a tremendous amount of work and volunteer effort put
into this by the members of this moderator's committee. Um, and I have to say in a volunteer form of government and one that frequently turns to such panels to conduct indepth explorations of complex issues, I worry about a chilling effect
resulting from harassment of these groups. And I I use the word harassment because in the packet provided to us this evening, the petitioner describes himself as having harassed this committee. And that concerns me and I I think it would be we'd be remiss not to
have that as context in reviewing this vote for dissolution. I also want in looking at the specific language of the charge. They were charged to deliver a report by May 1st of 2025. They did this. They were charged to objectively
and fairly evaluate the positive and negative aspects of our form of government. They've done that. In my estimation, they have a report stating both of the options available to Brooklyn. They have to hold one or more public hearings. They held two. They h
they may recommend one or more alternative forms of government for Brooklyn. They've done so. Um so from where I'm sitting, I I see a moderator committee that's fulfilled its charge and it's done so in a timely manner as set out by the resolution that created
them. Um, and I I really feel we're in a sense beating a dead horse here. And from my perspective, I I am ready to vote no action on this tonight. Um, I don't really see a further purpose to this. I don't think reconstituting another moderator's committee is the way
to go here. Um, I understand the petitioners disagree with some of the recommendations or the findings of this moderator's committee, but I I don't see that as as a reason to then reconstitute another board. basically reformulating the same committee to look for another
answer. Um that that doesn't seem productive to me. It doesn't seem like the best use of our very valuable and limited volunteer time and expertise. Um and as I said, I I intend to vote no action this evening. Thank you. Uh Neil Gordon, was that a two-finger that you put in the chat? Yeah, I'll call two
finger response specifically to Alex. Number one, the harassment word. That was a that was a word used uh the harassing person is Marty Rosenthal. That's a word that was used by Sandy Gatsby in the email in order to stop I
didn't say harassment, but but maybe I should have that to stop the criticism and harassment by Marty Rosenthal. Uh I I clearly identified and his I don't remember the word that Sandy used
cronies that was his uh uh I don't I don't remember the word that was me right obviously Neil Gordon that came from Mr. from former moderator Gatsby. That's not Marty's description of what he was doing. That's Sandy's Gatsby.
Sandy Gatsby's description. And let me just add and then I'll have one more very quick point. Uh that um you know, one person's, you know, criticism, you know, this is a public body. You agree to chair a public body, you agree to serve on a public body and have public
meetings, you're fair game for criticism of your work or lack of work. And that's what they heard. And if they can't take that heat, then volunteer or otherwise, just move aside, please, and let somebody do the work. And I got several
comments, by the way, from one committee member who was saying, you know, we're volunteers. We put in a lot of work. One of the attendees at that meeting sent me uh you know a private chat and said this is not going to sell well on
the members of the moderators of the advisory committee sitting here listening to this you know excuse me you volunteered for a committee they did how much work one meeting a month please I'll make one more point and this is important to Alex's comment the work of
the committee the reports the conclusions Right, the writings, the papers, none of that is the work of the committee. It is all the work of individual members. None of it was accepted. None of it was
vetted. None of it was discussed in any meaningful fashion. Those are individual papers prepared by individual members of the committee. And to describe them as otherwise is simply not factual.
Linda Belkkey, thank you. Um, so my question is, has any other board, committee, commission, etc. taken a position on this warrant article yet? There have been votes anywhere. My understanding is that the select board
voted 3 to one to one in favor of of War Article 30. I don't think they've taken up the uh the motion to refer yet. Um yeah, there is no motion to refer yet, right? So, and COS did not take it up as far as I know.
Um so that that's where we stand on that. Okay. Um I have to say that I pretty much agree with what Alex said about this. I do think I mean I can't recall any other moderators committee
where people started saying we don't like the results we don't like the way they did their work we question everything about what they did and we want a doover you know and I'm I'm thinking about committees like the
moderators committee on parking and you know the moderator assigns these folks to do the work and they in their best judgment attempt to do uh what is in that charge. And I think that Sy's
statement made a lot of good points in terms of what resources the committee had at their disposal. And I'm not sure, you know, they didn't have researchers. They didn't have a travel budget. they didn't have, you know, um, money to to
to buy research papers or or anything like that. So, I cannot I think that what we're seeing is people don't like the results of the committee's work. And that's fair. That's a fair criticism. But
to elevate that conclusion into this means we have to do it all over again. I I really question and I really question that if the results had been otherwise whether we would be having the same
discussion in in my view uh they did the work the way they felt it needed to be done and and and they dissolved. Um, if you want to criticize their work, that's fine. I don't think we would have ever gotten
what the petitioners have in their mind that that they think it should have been. I mean, how would you go about evaluating the effectiveness? I I can't imagine that. I I don't know how to do that. I mean, somebody could come up
with some interesting comparisons about, you know, the pace of change or how much legislation passes or uh, you know, fiscal outcomes or something like that. But is that really an objective comparison? I don't know.
So, um, I guess I too am willing to vote for no action tonight. I I don't know that it's going to be productive to try to have a doover. You've heard from the members of this committee who want
nothing to do with it over again. So, um yeah, I I just am not sure that would be productive at all. So, I'm going to vote for uh no action. Thank you.
Um there's no more people in the chat, Harry. Okay. [Music] Um, then Marty, how much time do you think you
need to add any other comments? In 50 years in court and in Brooklyn, I've never been accurate on my time predictions. So, um, I checked off I made some notes of things I want to respond to. I'll be very quick on each
one. Uh, I'm hoping hoping maybe three minutes, but I I don't know. Okay, I'm gonna give you five. Thank you. You start. That's that's what's happened in court. I've always been wrong on my own predictions. So, um, Sandy made
reference to a 100 pages. There are only two reports that are worth anything and they're both by him. And um then he made reference in his um whatever it was an email that he they've
been accused of stying of being stymied. That was one of the pro city the vice chair Katherine Donaher that said they've been accused of being stymied. I've never said the word styi and I'm frankly not sure what she was talking
about. that's in her separate report, one of the new ones that came out the day of the subcommittee hearing. Uh Harry made a wonderful comment about the difference between efficiency and effectiveness. I I really welcome that. And and I the word I've used for what
Harry said about the committee's attitude towards this article is they've had disdain for town meeting and disdain for this pending article. They they really have never talked about it. they had it on the agenda and the chair announced we're not going to talk about
that. So, he pretty much took it off the agenda. Um Christine made a U comment about recommendations. The war in article 18 in 2023 said they may make recommendations if they want to, but that was not the
thrust of it. The thrust of it was the language that's in the subcommittee report here. Evaluate the pros and cons. And that's what we question that they did not evaluate the pros and cons. Getting to um uh a couple of uh both
Alec and Linda's comments. Um and that gets to the word evaluate. This committee is the hardest working body in Brooklyn government for my 40 years I've been here. I'm not just not just you folks, but all your predecessors in my 40 years. This
committee has a capacity and always has been very diligent about studying things, sometimes nitpicking to the death to death. I really wish that some of you, including especially Linda and Alex had really looked at these reports.
I'm going to read you two sentences from Professor Barry's report on so-called civic engagement. Uh um all right. In summary, Brookline has a high degree of civic engagement. This is in one of our appendices and one of
their reports, but is not out of the ordinary due to our due to our structure of government. Representative town meeting has nothing to do with that. And then he goes on to say, is town meeting a culprit in bold print?
Although our civic engagement generally is strong in Brooklyn, there may be a negative connection between our structure of government and a particular type of activism as representative town meeting may work against neighborhood organizing. I mean, we had a word in the
Brooklyn high locker locker room for those kind of opinions. I'm not going to say it publicly. It's just anyway, the best I can do is the word baloney. So, and Linda says there's no precedent. The reason there's no precedent is in my 40
years, and that started with town meeting, advisory committee, select board, cos, I don't ever remember a moderator's committee this bad in terms of the results. The people are great. The people are smart, but there is no
evaluation by the pro city people. Those reports are not evaluation. They're just opinions. Chair Barry at one point said Brooklyn lacks leadership and contrasted us with Cambridge where he credited
leadership with getting Kendall Square built and he pointed for leadership from the speaker of the house John McCormack from South Boston. So that's the quality of stuff that we're we're talking about and I wish you would all look at it
including people like Linda and Alec. This is not just our opinion that we don't like the result. Our I'm talking about the trees, not the forest. The forest was a lot of bias. Sandy is biased, but if you read his reports,
they're excellent. And I don't think you'll find anything that you disagree with. But if you read the other things we've highlighted, you'll find a lot of what I said before, so-called baloney. And um I I do urge that you do nothing
tonight and wait until there's a referral motion because um I think the subcommittee could have used where resolve clause number five, but they didn't really talk about it at length, but apparently they didn't find it clear
enough that this could just be new members. I never we never thought when we filed this in February that we could do involuntary servitude for members and make them stay on the committee. And we put in there number five almost as a
throwaway if any members don't wish to continue. That's fine. And assistant moderator John Karen could appoint new people. I knew already then that Neil Winski ha had a problem. He was treasurer of the chart city charter
campaign and he should not have been involved in this. And the last thing is that the report says and misinterprets frankly that two members of the committee had to resign referring to I don't know if Mark Levy ever resigned.
He was on the committee until at least February or March, but he has been ill and referring also to Elizabeth Child's a year ago. And moderator Winsky replaced them with two other people.
That was after Elizabeth resigned and Neil put on two pro city people that are active in Brooklyn for everyone. So that that was just one more editing mistake that was definitely
based on Chair Berry's uh bias. But in any I I need to I need to cut you off. So I I think I've pretty much uh gone through everything. Thank you very much for everybody for listening. Thank you. So,
um I will take a motion from the ad hoc subcommittee and I think the clearest way to do it is as they stated for no action. Perry, are you making that motion? Sure. Um the ad hoc subcommittee
uh recommends no action on Warren article 30. Okay. And is anyone interested in moving um tableabling this? Yeah, I'll I'll make that motion. In anticipation of a substitute motion
from the petitioners, I believe I'll I'll move uh a tableabling to uh I'll say a future date and and uh I will uh as a dear friend of the petitioner
uh work with him diligently to make that date as soon as possible. I'll second that, Harry. Thank you. because since we take positions on everything and if there is going to be a motion coming before town meeting, we're going to have to deal with the updated motion at some point. So, let's just do
it at once in the future. Okay. Thank you. Um before I start to share, are there any comments on the tableing motion that someone needs wants to make? Seeing none, I'm going to share my
screen. All right. Could you just clarify the language on that again for tableabling? [Music] Um, so I have moved to table further action on warrant article 30 until a
future date. Okay. And I guess I it's not part of this. I will remind people town meeting starts on May 27. It is now May 7. So it's another almost 3 weeks. So if you are in
favor of tableabling, we will vote on that first. Vote yes. If you are opposed to tableabling, vote no. And if we do not table, we will then take a vote on the main motion.
Michael Burgerer to table. No. No. Ben Burnbomb. Yes. Yes. Harry Bors. Yes. Yes. Cliff Brown.
No. No. Anthony Buono. Yes. Yes, John Dogget. Yes. Yes. Katherine Florio.
Yes. Yes. David Mark Goldstein. So, I do have a conflict of interest, but I don't think voting to table something would constitute a conflict. Um, if anybody disagrees, I will abstain, but I'll vote yes. Thank you, Neil Gordon.
Yes. Susan Granoff. Yes. Perry Gman. No. No. Um, Alec Leovitz. No. No. Pam Lodish. Yes.
Ja Murphy. Noting that I'm a co-artitioner. Yes. Danell O'Neal. Um, same as what Johnson said and yes. Thank you. Lindolson Peli.
No. No. Fran Per. Yes. David Pollock. No. No. Christine Westfall. No. No. By a vote of 12-7 to0, the
advisory committee is recommending tableabling further action on warrant article 30 until a future date. Thus, we will not get to the main motion tonight. That pretty much concludes our business
for the evening. I believe, although I don't want to be held to this, that our next meeting is probably on Monday, May 19 for a discussion of warrant articles
14 and 15, accommodations, zoning bylaw changes regarding reasonable accommodations. David, is that still the plan? That is. And if I can just briefly say that this will be uh the the subcommittee is meeting tomorrow morning at 9:00 for a third time to discuss
these articles and I would encourage anyone who's available to get a jump on our discussion uh because they're complex for the 19th which is you know getting pretty late but even if you don't come to our subcommittee meeting on the 19th I mean excuse me tomorrow
morning uh Mark Penszel has put together very uh thoughtful minutes of the two previous meetings which are available. They're they're um they're posted uh either to minutes or maybe to the agenda
for tomorrow morning. Thank you. Does anybody else have any announcements? Um Harry, I I think I sent you an email. We're going to have some um uh article two collective bargaining um uh things
coming our way apparently. Okay. I have not se I have not seen them yet. Um but they appear to be just simple um payraises for the next fiscal year or for the last fiscal year. So Christine, I guess I would suggest that you uh
maybe you you quiz the other two members of your subcommittee and set a date as soon as possible just so we can get it out of the way. Yeah. No, it I I I've got to see the memos before we we we go there. I've just gotten an informal
email right right now. Right. Right. Um maybe you can um I'll I'll try following up. Follow up with Anne Baraga. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Um so we're not meeting again till the 19th.
We have no current intention to meet until the 19th. Wow. The only I believe the only outstanding issues are warrant articles 14 and 15 on accommodation, warrant article two on collective bargaining as
as Chris just uh to which Chris just referred and now the tableabling of warrant article 30 which I guess we will figure out I'll discuss with Dennis whether we want to refer that table that
until the 19th or we whether We want to do that um at some point when we meet at the high school. There also might be some budget adjustments at some point. Yes, there might be. Thank you. So, with that being said, I
um uh I um uh and regarding a question that just came up, um we could do warrant article 2 on the 19th, uh assuming the subcommittee gets its information and
meets on time. Um or we could do warrant article 2, the collective bargaining, when we hit the high school. Um, that remains to be determined. Um, thank you. Can I ask a question about at meeting at the high school? Yeah. Is there an
option for hybrid at all for that? I do not believe so. They stick us in a classroom that I do not believe has remote capability. Um, and I'm
I Lisa and the Lisa is telling me that's correct. Lisa and the school administrators and I have gone back and forth regarding where they stick us in the high school. I have
requested tables and desks that do not pose a tripping hazard like the last one did. Right. Um I don't it remains to be seen whether they have managed to satisfy our request but given
the number of empty classrooms in the high school at night one might have thought that this was a pretty simple request and one might have been wrong. So that's where it sits right now. Um,
so I'm afraid there there really is no hybrid um solution to this. Uh, I I'll just say that the town also has Owl, which is a little coffee pot-sized thing that they put on the middle of a table and uh it can be hooked up to a
television and do hybrid that way. So, if we could get a television or a room with a television, we could take the Owl front town hall and use it there. Um, the sixth floor knows how to set it up. Lisa, could you possibly um investigate
that and see if that's Thank you so much. Thank you, Linda. Thank you, David. Um with that, I'm putting an end to this meeting. I thank you all for coming and um we'll see you on the 19th,
if not before. Thank you. Good night. Good night.