All right. Well, it is 6:31 and I will call this meeting to order. This meeting is being recorded by us. If any other person is recording, please say so now.
And I'll do a roll call. Councelor Garrett, >> I am here. Councelor Gordon, >> here. Councelor Williams >> here. >> Councelor Golib is here.
>> And I have a motion to accept the minutes from September 10th, 2025. >> Uh so moved. >> Second. >> Patty can have it. >> Any discussion? >> All those in?
>> We got a roll call. >> Favor. We're going to roll call. Councelor Garrett. >> Yes. Council Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Golib says yes. Approved. Accepted.
>> Public comment. Speak now. >> Spoken. Okay. Public hearing. I will read the public hearing now. Oops. One sec.
In accordance with home rule charter of the appointments and ordinance committee will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, November 12th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. at the city hall meeting room, second floor, 14th court square and zoom to receive public input on the
following. Amend code on the following chapters. 120 Crossroads Cultural District Committee. Chapter 136, Human Rights Commission. Section two, membership terms vacancies. Chapter 193, Ways and Means Committee. And chapter
423, wetlands. >> What time is it, guys? 6:33. I'm opening the hearing at 6:33 and closing the hearing at 6:33. Gone. Thank you, John. >> Motions. Um,
I will read the motions tonight because it's easier, I think, for somebody in person and you're doing all that work over there. So, I'll just read them. >> Okay. Order number fiscal year 26 041. The city council moved that it be
ordered that the Greenfield City Council amend the code of the city of Greenfield as written in the attached here to chapter 120, Crossroads Cultural District Committee sections 121 and 122
ABC and further amends the index of the code and further that non-substantive changes to the numbering of the ordinance be permitted in order that it be compliance with the numbering format of the code of the city of Greenfield. Majority vote required. So moved.
>> Second. >> Second. >> Give it to her. >> What happened? >> We're fighting over a second. >> Rachel's an auspicious prize. >> John can be the the referee. The judge. >> I'm just going to do every other one.
That's how I'll be fair here. >> Yeah, that's true. Well, I expect they both listen. They're so enthusiastic, you know. >> All right. discussion on this change. >> Yes, John. >> This is a very small thing, but I
noticed when I was looking at it in um under 120-2 heading C um it says the CCDC committee and the C in CCD the third C stands for committee. >> Ah, >> so we should get rid of that other committee. >> All right, that other
>> I noticed the same thing. >> Thank you, Council G. >> I was just I don't know. It's one of those like proof reading things I'm just like well but actually >> no that's good >> that is all right so you'll make a note about
>> sure um let's see so I'll just make section >> and if you can please >> 20-2 >> that so I guess >> see remove word committee
And that's a non-s substantive change. So, >> right. Right. So, we don't have to redo the public hearing. >> No, we better know. >> Yeah. >> I don't think there's anyone who could argue this is a substantial change. >> Amy's last words, my friend. >> I know. I know. I mean, you anybody can
argue anything, but >> wouldn't be in good faith, >> but let's not. >> Any other discussion on this motion? >> No. All right. So, we will vote on whether to
um recommend positively or uh send a send a recommendation to council and with the amendment of crossing out that extra C. Yes. >> Mhm. That extra committee. The word committee. >> So, you're going to cross out the word
committee instead of the letter C. Either one is fine with me. >> Let's get rid of committee because cool. >> That works because you're working with an acronym. I concur. Okay. All right. So, all of those in favor of No, I have to do a roll call vote. So,
>> do we need to make a motion and do that tiny amendment? >> Don't >> I don't think so because sending forward a recommendation. Okay. I think it gets amended at council. >> Yes. So, Tammy, if you can please make sure to delete the word committee so we don't have to amend it at council would
be very good. Um, all right. So, I have spent a lot of time since I put forward a motion here. So, um this is a vote to approve the >> Yeah. So, we're vote because typically I say all those in
favor and we go I all those >> That's right. Oh, yeah. So, but we have to go around and so I'm thinking so I'm just going to do a roll call vote. Say yes or no or abstain on passing this motion forward with a
positive recommendation to city council. Councelor Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Council Golib is yes. Okay.
Order number fiscal year 26042. to the city council move that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council amend the code of the city of Greenfield as written in the striketh through attached here to chapter 136 human rights commission section 2 membership terms vacancies paragraph A and further
amends the co index of the code and further that non-substantive changes to the numbering of the ordinance be permitted in order that it be in compliance with the numbering format of the code of the city of Greenfield majority vote required. second. >> So any discussion on this?
>> So on passing this with a favorable recommendation to the city council, councelor Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councilor Williams, >> yes. Councelor Golib, >> yes. Order number fiscal year 26043. The city
council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council amends the code of the city of Greenfield by deleting the existing chapter 193 Ways and Means Committee in its entirety and further amends the index of the code and further that non-substantive changes to the numbering of the ordinance be permitted in order that it be in
compliance with the numbering format of the code of the city of Greenfield. >> So moved. Second >> session. >> We This is We should be prepared for silly comments from the members of Ways
and Means about us deleting them >> except >> but just to be clear, we're not deleting them. >> We're not, >> right? >> Uh and will they be intentionally silly or will they be actually believing that they're weird committing them like
deleting them? I bet you it'll be a I think it'll be intentionally silly. I think if folks look at the packet, they'll realize because it explains it right there. >> Right. The rationale is is right here like >> it's right there. >> It will be a test, I guess, to see if somebody reads the packet.
>> Okay. So, can you make a request that um and this is I'll write say it for you Tammy when you're listening but also we'll write it here that can you please include in the city council packet the rules of procedure section that articulates the existence of the ways
and means committee as part of the city council so that people see that in writing that was a really good point >> that's a good idea people will be any other discussion on this Okay, we'll wait till you to give you to
do that. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Um >> Okay. You ready? >> Yep. >> Okay. So on passing this forward with a re favorable recommendation to the city council council council Garrett
>> yes >> councelor Gordon >> yes >> councelor williams >> yes >> councel is a yes okay number fiscal year 26044 the city council moved that it be ordered that
the greenfield city council amend the code of the city green field as written in the strike through attached tier 2 chapter 423 wetlands protection further amends the index of the code and further that non-substantive changes to the numbering of the ordinance be permitted in order that it be in compliance with
the numbering format of the code of the city of Greenfield majority vote required >> so moved >> second only thing I'll say about all of these is if members of the public happen to be listening to this recording and wondering why we're not talking about
them, they can listen to a previous meeting in which we talked about all of these. >> Y >> sure. So it's not that we're not discussing them, just that we already have. So given that, any further discussion on this item?
Can someone just remind me in 423-3 uh C, >> what was the reason for this change? I can't. It's a little hard to for me to read what it is being changed from, but
>> yeah, just hold on a second. I'll reread this one. It's been hard for me to keep all of these in my brain, but it's just >> streamlining, right? It's streamlining the application process. But do you see the difference? >> Yeah. So the change is the addition of language. It's exactly the same language
except for the phrase that replacements do not substantially change or alter the structure of facility. >> Um and so my guess is that this is Yeah. So somebody was using this as a way of saying, "Oh no, we didn't change it." And they put some giant new thing in a wetland,
>> you know, and so it's it's closing a loophole is really what it is. >> Yeah. or prohib from prohibits that from happening in the future. >> Yeah, explicitly. Yeah. >> Yeah, >> that's a good question. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you. And I think the rest of these are are are about making the process simpler, right?
Like you don't have to submit seven copies of everything anymore, >> right? >> Yeah. On that note, this that's one of those things, too. If we ever see like seven or eight copies of something, copying this language wouldn't be a bad idea because it's good boilerplate. >> Ah, yeah. You know, that's
Keeping that kind of the back of our heads. >> Yep. >> Great. >> Anything else? No. >> Okay. Then on forwarding a favorable recommendation of this to the city
councelor council. Councelor Garrett. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Williams. >> Yes. >> Councelor Golib, it's a yes. Thank you very much. Order number fiscal year
260053. The city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council pursuant to charter section 210 affirms the following appointments and reappointments by the mayor all terms to expire December 31st, 2028
unless otherwise posted. Board of License Commissioners Amanda Abram Abramson Conservation Commission Erica Leform Constables David Payne and Joseph Leance Council on Aging Janice Colbert
Margot Pep and Randy Handelman Elderly and Disabled Taxation Fund Committee Jim Gis Franklin County Technical School Committee Paul Duran Greenfield Local Cultural Council Marcel Laflam and Mo Schwagger
historic Historical Commission Matt Abby Historic Housing Authority Committee William Mason term to expire December 31st, 2030. Parking and Traffic Commission. Sebastian Bootwne and Jean Wall both
terms to expire December 31st, 3030. >> Real long terms on that uh trafficition there. You are >> completed in perpetuity. >> Yeah. >> Lucky us. Park Planning and Construction Committee, Carol Collins and Nancy
Hazard. Public Library Board of Trustees, Doris Cowry and Samantha Wood. Public Safety Commission, David Lenoy, Ed Jarvis, and Katherine Bryce Barter. All terms to expire December 31st, 2029.
Recreation Commission, Barbara Zakio and Heather Volanta. Retirement Board, Marian Fisk, Sustainable Greenfield Implementation Committee, Hannah Rexen and Jonah Keane. Zoning Board of Appeals, Deborah Gilkkey
and Mark Maloney. Majority vote required. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Long list. >> The person reading the motion isn't making the motion. I >> Sorry. I'm just point of process. >> I think when you read the motion, you are making the motion.
>> Is that right? Yeah. >> Oh, never mind. >> So, we're just all all enthusiastic. >> I guess because typically the person reading it >> really. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> I don't know.
>> Doing this for almost two years. >> No, I appreciate the the >> correction. Yeah. Sorry. Um, and should we make explicit uh the request for Tammy to correct 3030 to make it 2030, which is actually what it's supposed to say?
>> Oh, I didn't even I was like, this feels long, but I didn't. >> Yes, please. >> 105 years. >> Let's change that. >> A thousand in five years. >> I mean, parking lots can last a long time, but probably not that. >> I hope
>> traffic not be 105ear term. It's a thous. It's a thousand and five. >> Thousand five years. See >> can't even get that. >> We're working on it. >> Math. >> Okay.
>> Any other discussion >> item? Nope. >> Thank you. >> Thank you to all these folks as always. This is a lot and and good job to the the mayor's office appreciation for filling all of these >> positions. This is a lot of people doing a lot of things for the community. >> There was one person who's like, "Put me
wherever." And the mayor had no problem doing that, it seems. >> Well, yeah, >> which is great. >> Yeah, just appreciate those people. >> Yeah, all of them. >> That is good thing. Um, any other
comments. >> Okay. So, on forwarding a positive recommendation to the city council, councelor Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. Councelor Williams. >> Yes.
>> Councelor Golib is a yes. All right. Back. Okay. So, now we're moving into the discussion part of our agenda. Of course, we have plenty of discussion before. We just already have
that kind that discussion on those items. So, um, I'll start the conversation on chapter 2027, cannabis social equity. Um, who here, did you have a chance to read your
email before the meeting? There was an email that was sent midday today, so I don't expect you to have read it, but just to update you. >> I saw the thread and I was honestly hoping you could explain. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Because I read I was in part of it and parts of it I wasn't, you know, the
initial kind of batting. Yep. So, I asked um let me It's so hard to find emails. Hold on a sec. Does anyone know even the title of this?
Um because they're just all from Tammy. Um so, I want to look at it. I mean, I can never mind. I I know what has happened. So I reached out after seeing the
proposed language about the social equity ordinance. I reached out to director Torah to say the aim of this looks really important, really good and as written, I don't believe that it's enforceable because there would have to be a whole
bunch of supporting documents showing like planning to actually implement this. I'm not interested in passing a policy that has no plan of implementation. And he said, "You're right." And I think that in order to plan for that, we need
to have a hire a consultant whose expertise is is doing this. And he recommended someone to the mayor. And I've gone back and forth a little bit with the mayor. And there sounds like there's some confusion. Just today I reached out I had reached out to her like a week and ago. I hadn't heard back. There were elections. Makes sense.
Um and I heard back from her today saying the director says we don't need one and then Eric the director quickly responded and said actually no I haven't been clear I do think that we do need we need a consultant either way however a
plan is written I feel strongly that there would be some plan of implementation before we and a whole lot of clarification in the proposed ordinance before actually making it a law. Um, so there's some disagreement there and um and Director
Tor is retiring pretty soon. So, um, that's where it stands currently. >> So, are you suggesting we don't move move this forward? >> I'm suggesting we don't move this forward until we have more substantial plan for implementation. And what I had
agreed with with director is that he previously had agreed with he would come back in December. He was hoping that there would be a plan by then, but it doesn't sound like there will be. So I think we're waiting um we're waiting on the city to
share how this will be implemented and clarify the language before passing it. I also I remember from the email chain this other potential ordinance came up kind of out of like the the mayor mentioned like canvas social use. >> Yes. >> Like a like a pot cafe like in Amsterdam
or whatever basically right like that's >> honestly >> are we required to cuz this is >> totally different things >> but I know we have to do this eventually. We would have to do this in order to qualify for something and I'm not remembering. Do you Does anyone else remember what it's a it's a I don't want
this to be we're checking a we're passing a law to check a box to be able to get something else like that's I'm not interested in doing that >> but >> to be able to get some what? Sorry. >> But I'm not it's some qualification from the the state requires this for something,
>> right? >> I'm not remembering. But do you know if the social use is another require like even just passing an ordinance? >> No. >> So that's >> I don't know. I don't um I think they're distinct, >> right? >> They're distinct conversations and
because this is >> cannabis together. >> Yeah, they're both about cannabis, but they're distinct issues and because the one that is on that we have been requested to look at is the social equity policy. I have not wrapped my mind Yeah. the least bit around. But I
know that the um in this email from director Tori 10 hours ago, he said there's some misunderstanding. Um passing the so the cannabis social equity ordinance does not require Greenfield to allow cannabis social consumption establishments. It's
a separate zoning decision. So that would not even be under the purview of ANO. That would probably go to EDC. >> Sure. >> Totally different topics. It sounds like holding tight on this, as Patty was saying, is the best move for now. >> That's >> Yeah. I mean, my recollection of this is
that like we needed this in order to be able to enforce the the social equity aspect of the law, like making sure that we're abiding by the social equity aspect of the cannabis law. But
since we have to hold tight on it anyway, I don't know that that requires further discussion because it sounds like we're waiting for information. >> It says the initial email from October 20th. Um, Director Tuar says adopting such an
ordinance with a corresponding equity plan is one way municipalities meet the CCC's compliance regulations for municipalities. >> Right. So that's that's what I'm saying is that >> that's what we would need to do in order
to meet that requirement. >> Yeah. >> Plan would be on the city's side, right? We'd have nothing to do. We could say >> the city has to make a plan and an ordinance, but we aren't plan makers. >> No, we would not make the plan, right? >> But we I don't believe that we should
pass a law unless we have a plan. If this experience has given me one thing, it's that passing laws without implementation doesn't make much sense. >> Yeah. >> Fair. >> Is there any other any other discussion of this that anything else folks would
want to say? >> Is there is there any loss for not doing this now? Is there do we suffer anything? >> We might I don't know because it sounds like we're out of compliance. Um, we're it's one way for municipalities to meet the CCC's
compliance regulations and and like the I think social equity policy is a good thing to have if it would be implemented. I don't know. So, the city will need to do something in order to comply, but that's not on
our side is not compliance. Our side is passing laws, >> right? So the so this is in this is very freshly on the mayor's I mean it's several weeks but she's I think there's clarity being had today like I think they're talking about it today.
>> Okay. So let me ask a ridiculous question I suppose. Um can an an implementation plan move forward without an ordinance being passed? Is this a chicken and egg? >> I don't think I don't I doubt it. I
don't actually know the answer, but I'm doubting it because all of the operations, the implementation, I don't actually know. This is this is my guess that like things are implemented in the city all the time without making codifying them as laws
and that we could move pretty quickly once the plan if somehow the plan needed an ordinance to back it up, which the recycling did. Like that was something that needed an ordinance. But they were able to implement a whole bunch before we passed the ordinance. So
there are cases where some law is needed, but we could do it quickly once a good law once a good plan was in place. I think that would be a question for the mayor or it would be a question for director Tora. >> And who actually would develop an implementation plan?
>> Well, Director Tark is saying that that capacity doesn't exist. There's a difference of opinion about whether the capacity exists inhouse. Director Tor is saying that we would need to have a consultant do it. >> I see.
Okay. But we don't suffer any any kind of uh consequences from the state or anything like that if we hold on this. I mean there might be consequence for compliance but it's it's on the city's that's the city's responsibility to
it has to have an ordinance with a corresponding plan. So that's on the city. Our responsibility as legislators is to our role and responsibility as legislators is to pass sound laws, >> right?
>> It's to uh to throw it back at the state for a second. Like when the state created the you know the legalization of cannabis in the state did not have equity at its heart in the beginning. >> It was mo you have to have a million. It was like a million or two in capitalization for any of these
businesses, which is not going to, >> you know, people that are disproportionately impacted by cannabis criminalization are not those people. >> Yeah. >> So like the state cannabis control commission has this as part of it, but they're more checking the box, I think, than anything else. And so like the the
original sin, I would throw at Massachusetts. >> Yes. When Governor Baker was in charge, like he really did not make the effort to make this a again a justicebased system. You know, it's a big business. You know, cannabis
is big business in the state rather than being like >> a different model. >> Yeah. >> So, I I'm not super concerned like >> I don't think I think the state put this we're hearing about this now because the state's finally getting to equity versus it being a problem that we haven't
gotten to equity yet. Yeah. >> So, I'm I'm very much not worried about us getting in trouble. Yeah. >> You know, from the state. >> Um >> Okay. Not to mention that the commission is has a lot more things on its uh agenda to figure out before they get >> there have been some scandals, right?
Like relatively Yeah, >> it's been a little messy. >> Yeah, I don't know the details, but I will Google it after this meeting because I'm curious. >> Well, I appreciate you naming that. Like, it's not like, oh, the city is doing something wrong. It's like there's
so many things to think about >> and like >> I and there's goodwill I think from everyone to do this well. It just slows down the process for us to do it well. >> And I I think your point about if we can't implement this, we're not actually
helping anybody is very well taken. And I think that's important. >> It it undermines the meaning of law to pass laws that you know you won't implement >> or have no way of implementing. So, >> okay. >> Yeah,
it's been really helpful to me as I think through all of this to come back to the values that we articulated at the beginning of the process which are equity, enforcement and expense. >> Yeah. >> So, especially like the enforcability
and the equity pieces, those are just like primary in my mind. So, it's been really helpful. Does that feel is there any other discussion that feels important to have on this topic? >> Not at this time.
>> Okay. All right. Well, so let's do this. I'm holding in mind that like not not at this time, Councelor Williams. So at committee chairs, I will um make sure that this doesn't come forward unless one of you
requests that we discuss it again. So feel free to ask the clerk say tell feel free to tell the clerk that you'd like this on our agenda again but uh and until then we won't be on our agenda again but any one of us can bring it
back if we want. Does that sound good? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Y >> great. Back to the agenda. vacancies in office. >> That's on page 30 62.
There was >> one thing I was thinking about with this and I can't remember if we talked about it previously. Um, so I apologize if I'm kicking a a >> horse that's down or something. Um, >> but the failure to attend meetings piece of this,
how are we thinking about committee meetings? Because like if we talk about >> consecutive meetings, like if a city councelor, you know, if if there's a failure to attend meetings that according to this, I mean, I don't I don't know how we handle this now actually. It's part of my question. Like
say you have a city councelor and they don't attend four or six, you know, full council meetings, but they're going to committee meetings. Does that How does that count against them? Do we know? >> But it doesn't. This is only for appointed, not elected offices,
>> right? >> Okay, there you go. Sorry, my brain is >> answer the question about counselors. The subcommittee meetings count. >> So if you miss, you know, that's part of it. But does it count in what way? >> So it's if you have 20 absences, I think
it currently is in a year, you currently have to basically be effectively publicly called out by the council president about it. You know, I think it's after 10 you get an email or something. I don't remember. It's in the rules of procedure. >> Yeah. >> I don't remember the specific detail >> sense.
You can't be nothing happens to you other than a whole public >> this person has missed X number of meetings >> which I think there was talk about potentially changing >> but I don't remember where that conversation went. >> Yeah, >> I talked to Laura about it at some point
but >> yeah. >> Yeah, we can't hold we can't hold elected officials accountable in this way. >> Does that answer your question? >> Yeah, totally. No. What the answer to my question is that this doesn't apply to the thing that I was worried about.
>> No, that language >> dumb question. >> Yeah, we added that that language is the applicability because I think you did or somebody did ask this and it was a really good question and so that language is at the top. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I did add that
>> language. >> Any other great over here? Everything's fine. >> It's it's >> we're all there. >> Yep. I had something that I wanted to add or two things. Well, one to add, I would
add this to paragraph two. Um, absences will be considered excused. Oh, this is language Patty suggested that is elsewhere somewhere. Absences will be considered excused in the case that committee members experience personal illness, personal disability, emergency, or
military service. provided these factors make attendance unreasonably difficult and that they inform the chair. So that there's a definition of >> excuse >> excused absences. >> Does that sound good? >> Sure.
>> Okay. Um I will can you I will email this language to I'm going to send an email to myself. Catherine. >> Um, I don't have the language right in front
of me. Um, email Tammy absences update. >> No. >> Um, and so then my request was I think this is ready for a public hearing. I think that with with additional with that
additional language, unless everybody has anything, I think it's ready for a hearing and a motion next. >> I agree. The only thing is this applicability piece. >> Yeah. >> Doesn't have a section as part of it. It's just kind of like at the beginning. It should probably live >> in a section. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Maybe as section oneability. >> Okay. Yeah. Can you make that? >> Yeah. >> So, would folks agree that this is ready for a hearing and a motion next time? Sure. Okay. Anything else about this one?
The only other thing is the wet signature piece. I know we talked about this and it's important to the clerk's office that people sign. Why can't they tell by email that they no longer live on town? So like in se second paragraph section one if they
cease to be a resident they must promptly notify the city of a wet signature >> so that they so that um someone can't impersonate them. >> Oh that's makes sense. Thank you. >> I appreciate you. >> Right. Okay.
Perfect. No notes. That's um okay. Does this feel ready to go to? So, hybrid meetings. Um the one change I would make to this
is that I would take out the subject to preparation at the end. Um because the part of this that that's specifically targeting is the one about um >> translation >> translation. Um does anyone see that?
Okay, that is 497E because there's no budget currently for translation. Um, I would instead of instead of having that subject to appropriation at the end, which Kathy was recommending, I would move that to a
comma at the end of E and put that make that be subject to appropriation. >> I will say that when I read this and got to the end and and saw that it was uh in in this format all subject to appro appropriation, I actually felt a little
bit relieved because I do think I mean technology costs money and like I certainly think that we should keep appropriating money for it and I think that we don't know how budgeting is going to develop over the coming years. Um so I don't know
like I kind of feel like the whole thing should be subject to appropriation because I think that that's true of basically anything that we do in the city >> or that we commit to doing. Yeah, I I think that makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I'm looking at like our list of committees. Like if there was
three committees that needed to meet for some important reason and this is the only camera that's available, they wouldn't have the ability to do that meeting with the camera and then maybe some important business couldn't happen. So, I don't know. I just
something going wrong and us not having replacement, therefore having to cancel all meetings. Yeah. because we've set such a strict kind of ordinance. >> I think >> makes me a little nervous. >> Yeah. No, I think that that's caution is warranted. You know, I don't think it's
going to be a problem. >> Yeah. >> But again, the things you don't think of often end up being the problem. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I think and I would understand that the argument on the other side is we don't want to make it subject to appropriation because we don't want to give future councils the option of not doing this, right? Like that's the whole point of the ordinance,
>> right? Um, so I'm not sure if there's a way to account for that um in other language here, but I just can't get away from the thought that like everything everything that the city needs to spend money on is subject
to appropriation and that includes the use of technology. >> I mean, so it's articulating what is implicit. >> Yeah. I I will say because we're going to get there later that I I've been I'm going to bring in another piece from
other ordinances from like our ordinance discussion. I three that have been on my to-do list, but I just haven't had the time to prioritize are the three that have to do with styrofoam, mercury thermometers, and
plastic bags. that if there's no funding, if the city is not paying health inspectors, those ordinances won't be and I don't know. I I don't think that they're being enforced to the extent that they're not being enforced
to the extent that they should be according to the law. And so I have not researched those yet, but that's a I mean they could all add subject to appropriation, which just really makes me sad, too, because they're all really important. Um, but that's that's part of
my update. So it's like, yeah, I want these all to be enforced. Um, Sure. >> And I feel like subject to appropriation kind of calls into question the whole thing, >> right? You know, part of like I'm thinking about this physical space we're in right here.
>> Yeah. you. We don't have this in there currently. Um, but we could if we specified, you know, x number of spaces, the city hall meeting room and the John Zan center and the fire station meeting
room all need to have hybrid meeting capacity. You specify that in there. And then at the end instead of just simply saying subject to appropriation, you could say subject to functioning technology or something like that to you know I'm just thinking out loud like
what's the potential issue with this is technology is not working. >> Yeah. >> So what if we explicitly said that and specified certain areas >> and so you know if in that kind of scenario I put it forward where there's four meetings in one day. Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, there's four meetings. There's three rooms. That gets that meeting
number four able to happen without going away from our desire to have the public be able to access everything. >> Yeah. >> You know, and by desire I mean our commitment to law, right? >> Yeah. >> Um >> and so I don't know that might take a little bit more thinking, you know, as
far as like the spaces themselves or the language you use, but that's just one >> Yeah. >> maybe way to make this work if that makes sense. >> Yeah. Uh, >> so unless the meetings happen in one of those three rooms, so there's two ways I'm hearing two different things. So I'm
a little confused. So unless one of the meetings happen in one of those three rooms, the meeting can't happen >> because >> because we because of ex access, you have to allow public access, >> right? >> The library the library I haven't
checked in on the library in a long time, but that there should be access. So John here John's on fire department and the library should have access but yeah you're correct >> right and so I guess what I would like to see if you know just in this keep going down this path you have there's
three or four rooms that have access there's another meeting that doesn't have access to the rooms with access to overuse the word but that meeting would still be able to happen because it's publicly posted and the public can access you know get to it >> if there was a big emer like you're
talking about someday in an emergency, everyone needs to meet all at once, >> which is really, you know, a crazy scenario over >> but I mean the the the what's implicit here is that yes, that's correct, councelor Williams, but there are three
or four places that the meetings can happen and these bodies will schedule themselves at times when they're not overlapping to the extent like so that the number of meetings matches the number of rooms.
and we've already paid for that technology. We could get to a moment of collapse where the technology breaks down and we can't replace it. Like >> we could even just, you know, make it simpler, you know, subject to appropriation or extreme extenduating circumstances,
>> you know, like which I know is like flexible maybe too much. you know, anybody can claim an emergency as we've seen on the federal level, you know, >> and make that any excuse they want, but >> yeah, >> I mean, it's also an interesting point that on the flip side, like it is
implicit in just about everything we do that is subject to appropriation. So, like >> if it's implicit in everything else, do we need to make it explicit here? I don't I don't actually know. It's a good question. Um, I also want to say, Patty, I'm not sure that you actually finished what you were saying before, so I want to make sure that you a chance if you
had something more to add to what you were saying. No, no, it was a question because >> yeah, >> the the the so I think when you start saying stuff like the meeting can happen if there's an if it's an emergency or something
like that. Um I don't that gets very slippery. >> Yeah. >> You know, and there'll be a lot of contention around it and you know where it's coming from. I don't even have to announce it. Right. Yeah. >> So, so I don't I don't want to dance
around that language. Um, but because I do not visualize an emergency where, you know, there might be an emergency where the council has to meet. >> Yeah. >> You know, but I don't see that was an
emergency that a would meet or community relations would meet. That's not an emergency, right? >> The agricultural commission And you're right. Exactly. Oh my god, I lost my ballet shoes. What am I going to do? You know what I'm saying? Is the point the
point being is I don't think we need I don't think we need that language. I think it's explicit that the committees meet where when when there can be a hybrid meeting. I think the frustration people
have had and I've had it as well, you know, when the when the technology doesn't work >> and you know, it's it's a problem when you have to cancel a meeting because the technology doesn't work. And I'm hoping that, you know, the plan that we put
forward at one point in terms of training people, etc. and so on, that gets implemented because I think that's going to be very important. >> Community relations is discussing that. Um, yeah, I know Ryan Whitney put forward sent out the email and I went
back and forth with him and then Laura did about adequate training and so I know that they made that a a topic of their committee. >> Right. Right. Exactly. So,
I I don't think it's I don't think it's necessary to say in here in the event of an emergency because I don't think the committees are going to have an emergency. The council may, but the committees won't >> or that they all have to meet at exactly
the same time, right? >> Like I don't Yeah, that's a >> again I think it's just really unlikely. I just was kind of thinking it through. >> No. Yeah. I mean the the funds for the technology
have already been appropriated except for for translation. I mean we've already appropriate we already have the existing technology >> which is why my preference is to put that just under translation because it hasn't been appropriated and and there is no current plan to appropriate it and
so we could strike through the piece around translation but I feel content and also I will say that I talked to Kathy finally they we've been in an ongoing conversation the last year p Kathy has not put it off by any stretch but it was mostly put off because we
were in investigating translation services. But this part under F that is all the things that need to be specified uh on um agendas has not been specified on agendas. So
the clerk's office has put created a new template for meeting agendas and we finally Kathy and I talked about it today and the language there is far simpler than this language. um but it feel it adequately reflects the language
about what what needs to be said in order for people to know how to get public comment. So this section F and we put there that Greenfield does not Kathy wanted to say Greenfield does not currently pay for translation services but we also add come I asked her to add
um our participants can bring their own translator. So Cherish should know that people are allowed to have somebody translate for them. So yeah, I don't feel strongly enough to
advocate strongly for it, but I but we've appropriated the money. >> Yes. >> Another doom scenario. >> Okay, go for it. >> Somebody's super mad at the city government for whatever reason. They come and break all the cameras. No more
meetings. >> Oh Jesus. >> Well, this is the question. This is related to >> right now. You know what I'm saying? It's like it's that would mean that you couldn't do you couldn't appropriate fun you couldn't appropriate funds to fix the cameras >> you could appropriate
>> the mayor put out a general fund. It's true. >> Well, right this is the question that I was about to ask actually. >> Yeah. >> The qu my question which kind of speaks to that is and this is like probably basic ignorance on my part. Um once funding is appropriated to purchase
equipment, then do we need to keep appropriating money for the upkeep or replacement of that equipment or does it come out of a different part of the city budget? >> Yeah, we would need to appropriate we would need to appropriate it. >> That's true for Okay. >> for anything for any pay for to pay to
pay for anything, >> right? >> Money. >> Well, that goes back to the original point of like if it's implicit in everything, do we need to make it explicit somewhere or >> not? Um, I'm really on the fence on that one. I don't know. Sorry. >> I I'm I'm imagining somebody being mad
and smashing the camera. So, I think you should keep it. It's I do I I know it's like a and I I could be talked down from this paranoid ledge. Um, if anybody feels really strongly about it, but that's kind of where my head is at on it. just I don't want a straight jacket,
you know, and if something crazy happens, I'd rather us have the ability to say, "Well, look, it says subject to appropriation and we need to meet or something >> to appropriate the funds because we can't meet >> again. I'm this is getting I'm going
down a rabbit hole here and I'm sorry, but >> well, it's No, no, I mean that's our job is to question each other and >> yeah, >> Rachel asked a good question. You made a good point and so got me thinking about it. Well, fine because I mean if if the money has been appropriated, we have new
technology in many places and if somebody smashes some cameras, then we couldn't meet to appropriate the funds, >> right? If it happened to be budget season, >> if it was in, you know, in May before we vote on the budget only because
otherwise we'd be fine. >> So, it's really an edge case, you know, because otherwise the budget's already passed. It's definitely an edge. Like I'm not so worried about that. >> I don't want to plant in anybody's head. But >> um but the premise to me still stands
that like I do think that we're it just makes me a little nervous to not give ourselves a little bit of space to get around it if needed. >> Okay. >> Even though >> I see the counter argument for sure.
>> I will not die on the hill. I mean, we're also not voting on it, so like >> we can think about it a little more. >> What do you think, Councelor Williams? >> Well, I don't think I don't visualize somebody coming in with the hammer and
smashing all the cameras. Actually, um, I can imagine it in my imagination, but I don't think it's a very likely scenario. And I'm trying I'm sitting here thinking about language that would you know cover that kind of a
situation. My slippery slope question concern is in the past there's been a history of hidden government and we're all very committed to transparency at its highest form. That's a given. All right. >> Yes.
>> All right. So then my and but when you create language, you know, we're going to come and go and other people are going to come, >> right? And when you create language, it's it's kind of has a life of its own in perpetuity until somebody else
changes it. >> So I don't want to make it easy for somebody to say it's an emergency. Um, I I'm looking for I'm trying to figure out some kind of language and I'm kind of digging back
>> into into labor contracts in terms of an emergency >> and emergencies, you know, an emergency would be, you know, when the governor said it was a snow day, people got a snow day kind of stuff, you know, but it had to be an official declaration. So I
don't know maybe you know in a situation where all the technology got smashed or or crashed or totally corrupted then the I would think the mayor would declare could call that some form of an
emergency you know I don't know the particular I don't know if emergency is the correct word but some kind of a situation with that would allow the meetings to continue even if the technology failed. That's what I'm saying.
But it has to come from someplace and I think it would have to come from the mayor. >> Yeah, I think I see >> that's an interesting question about like what I don't know what the mayor's emergency powers are now, but I do actually that is a much more likely scenario than the ones that we've raised
so far. Like a a technology crash is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Um, and I and to be clear, I'm not actually in favor of adding the language about emergencies to this. My question is like just keeping in the sentence that's there now about appropriation or
not. Um, because I agree with you, Council Williams, that the e the idea of an emergency is very very slippery and can actually bring up possibilities for people that they might not considered otherwise that we don't want them considering. Um,
but yeah, technology crash is certainly a possibility. And I don't know then if the mayor already has, I would imagine already has the power to declare some kind of state of emergency that would allow the council to meet or whatever needed to happen, you know, to happen
outside of the normal bounds of of, you know, our rules and ordinances. But I would want to make sure of that. >> So what would you say? What would we all say about two things? One, the translation translation paragraph ending
that with subject to appropriation. And instead of making the entire thing subject to appropriation, replacing that with language like in the event that all of the city's current technology does not work, the mayor can call an emergency meeting declaration
that allows necessary meetings to be held in person. Sorry, say that again. >> Yeah. >> In the event that all of the city's current technology does not work, the mayor can call or all of the city's technology does not work, the mayor can
call an emergency meeting declaration that allows necessary meetings to be held in person. >> I would, my question would be, does she already have that power, which I imagine the mayor's office does have. I think we should check on that because if we don't have to add that language, I wouldn't want to.
>> Yeah. I think this Patty and Rachel's point about the slippery slope like you know and especially the history of less transparent government. >> Yeah. >> They wanted to do some shady real estate deal in an and declare an emergency meeting so nobody can be
there. That that is that is a scary more real possibility than my crazy camera scenario. >> Yeah. you know, so and on the other hand, like dealing with an actual crisis of technology is valid. You know, that's important. >> Yeah. But
>> I'm trying to Google just to see if anyone else has done this, you know, like there's got to be other cities. >> This ordinance, this or that's also this ordinance matters because it was precedent setting. No one else in Massachusetts had something. >> Got it. Got And so us doing this well
matters because this is model language for other places. >> So yeah, figuring this out. >> So to me the question, the big question is what emergency powers sit with the mayor's office that would matter in one
of these scenarios. Well, if this language isn't done anywhere else, that means why. And if this language, nothing close to it has existed prior in Greenfield, this would not be listed under an emergency powers for the mayor, I would think. Right.
>> Well, well, it wouldn't be list, it may not be listed specifically. I mean, but it's the sort of power that wouldn't list everything that it could possibly govern, right? Like I think that I would hope that there's some kind of basic parameters and within which there's got to be a lot of squishiness because
that's how those things work. Um, >> yeah. some emergency. >> Maybe there's not a lot of space. I just Yeah, we should find out. >> So, I can send this to Tammy. I'm writing down this conversation. Sending it to Kathy, Quinn,
Laura. Thank you. Um, so I'm going to say, does does an emergency policy currently exist that would cover the following um would encompass
the following statement? And what emergency powers does the mayor have in scenarios like this? Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> Um Oops. Article article three of the
charter might say something. I'm looking at cut. >> You just keep the charter next to you your dining table. Patty, >> I'm at my desk. >> Doesn't everybody >> your desk? >> Listen, I want a copy of the budget. How
insane is that? >> Control. >> We're all here because we're nerds. Um, okay. So, I'm gonna say, "Hi, Tammy." Following up from our A and O conversation, I really appreciate this
conversation that we're like that we're talking in specifics. Um, that question about emergency hours. I believe it's Yes.
>> So, there was a um the ACLU apparently was pushing for a bill to pass the mass legislation. >> Yes, they were. >> And so, I just found the text of it and in it, it says except in an emergency in addition to any notice otherwise required by law and etc, etc. So, they do have in the proposed language from
the ACLU that's was in the House and the Senate, they do mention emergencies. >> There probably is a definition of emergency somewhere in the charter. I'm gonna see if I can find >> maybe. Yeah. >> Okay. So, do you mind if I read this? Except an emergency. Anybody else now?
>> Yeah. >> In addition to any other notice required by law, public body should post this notice every meeting. Okay. This is about posting. In emergency, public body shall post as reasonably possible. So, that's just the posting. Sorry. Let me see if there's
any other instances. I think that I think that sending this to Tammy is sufficient for right now given that there's a bunch of other things for us to discuss. Um if she comes back with nothing. I mean I bet
the clerk's this is something that the clerk's office can help us with. I hope Tammy um is that >> I can't I don't see anything right off the bat in the chatter. So, yeah, I think Tammy's office is probably the
wisest thing to do. >> All right. So, I just am emailing her this. Does that sound like a good next step? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Um I'm realizing I left my bag in the car with my water and I'm getting thirsty, so I'm going to call
just a two minute break for us to drink water. >> I actually need to get more water. So, that's great. Guess I should drink water. >> Yeah, water's pretty important. >> Be one of the cool kids, John. >> Yeah, my son has started drinking water. Very impressive. Yeah, right. I got to
got to copy him. Agreed. >> I'm tired. >> Same. It's that time of year, you know, and that campaign was a lot, you know, so I'd say it's enough to enough to knock it out of you.
>> Yeah, it's true. It's true. I mean, it's a it's it's been a week >> and it's it feels like it was two days ago, you know. It just >> I know. No, it does. It >> just physical and mental exhaustion.
>> Amen to that. >> Yeah. I'm looking forward to Thanksgiving. >> Kind of what I'ming >> We have a fiveday school week next week and this week was four because Veterans Day, >> but man, all the teachers keep talking about like, "Oh, we got a full week.
Watch out." you know, it's like, and then of course it's Thanksgiving, which is lovely. But so we're about to get into the uh holiday sprint, you know, but I'm enjoying being right here in this moment. Like after this meeting is done, it will be a little more like it's
like, okay, another breath, you know? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But you're learning a lot about psychology. >> Sure am. Yeah. Oh yeah, I had something about this next one. I can't remember what it was.
>> Oh, when I go get water with me. All right, everyone ready to start talking again? >> Yep. >> Rules of procedure
thoughts about this. I'm glad that I like the consent agenda. Um I did have a question about it's on page 72 and then number six. So it reads number six is any item may
be removed from the consent agenda upon the request of any city council prior to the motion to approve and the request removed. Does not require a second and then also chant should be considered individually and placed in the regular agenda. So, I guess I there's two parts of that I'm unclear about. Um, it
doesn't require a second. If an individual member just says, "I don't want this in the consent agenda." Does that then lead to a vote to take it off the consent agenda or does it just automatically happen? And then this >> it automatically happens. >> It just automatically happens. Okay.
Because >> we need to make sure that's clear. >> Yeah. cuz I I remember it being described as such like that basically when I was talking to Laura about this at one point she mentioned that's how it works in like her meetings you know for the board that she's on and so yeah making that clear and then the second
piece um prior to the motion to approve so you know where >> yeah sorry >> where just I want to follow prior to oh that second yeah okay go ahead >> and then where it says prior to the motion to approve does that mean when
we're looking at our our list of items. Um, so where is it? On page 71, the consent agenda be item number nine. Does that mean somebody needs to like when you know presidents reads out and
says, "Okay, now we're moving on to the consent agenda. Can I get a motion?" As soon as she says somebody says the word motion, it's no longer debatable. Does that mean somebody once she says those words cannot take something off the consent agenda, it's done? Like you're kind of you're
stuck with it. >> Okay. I'm just making a note. It's 7:36. So I'm making a note in this meeting because I think that s counselor Brown should hear these questions and probably address them better than >> Sure. No. And again, I'm all for it.
Like I want the consent agenda. I just want to make sure that >> once we get to that item, it doesn't trap us. Yeah. >> I think the idea and the kind of way that this was presented to me was like, okay, if somebody doesn't want it on the consent agenda, >> no harm, no foul. We have a full city
council discussion. >> Stuff can't just be shoved through. >> Yeah. you know, um, and so that was just really, you know, and any item may be removed consent agenda, the request prior to the motion to approve and the fact that you can't discuss the
consent agenda, maybe that could just be changed except for removing an item from the consent agenda. Is that poss, you know, maybe that would be a solution with us? Um, >> I think those are great questions and I and yeah, as much as we can clarify this
so that it is as easy as possible for people to take things off of the consent agenda. >> Yeah, >> I think is is I totally agree with you, Councelor Garrett. I think it's really important because I will say like going to a conference of of elected local officials from across the country this past summer like I heard a lot of
mentions of the consent agendas and how people found them very problematic because um they are being used in places in very different place you know places with very different political environments than Greenfield um hopefully that will stay true but being used to kind of shove things down
people's throat and and you know if there was a minority on any sort of political view on the council like consent agendas were being used to sort of bowl over >> you know their concerns and we definitely don't want that to happen. Um on the flip side consent agendas are
great when they can save you time and just make it easy to get through the agenda you know more efficiently etc. So, I'm I'm also totally in favor of this and and councelor Brown and I have talked about this um a fair amount, but yeah, I think adding that clarity will be really important.
>> Yeah. >> And although Councelor Williams, do you have your hand up? >> See, no. No, I didn't. >> Um the I I would even be comfortable if somebody sent saw the agenda for the full council and saw something on a consent agenda and didn't want it there.
even just sending an email and say like, "Hey, can we put this back on the regular agenda?" >> Yeah. >> Like I I want it to be, you know, as Council Gordon was saying, as easy as possible. >> Yeah. >> And frankly, I think that would be less confrontational than being like, "Hi, I'm the person that wants the meeting to go longer, you know, in the full public
meeting because that's that's a it's a hard thing to say, right?" Like, you know, it's a you know, the pressure of wanting to just get done >> is big. We're all we're all human and we all want to go home, you know, and so like making it so when you're, you know, had a snack and you're in the afternoon
and can say like, "Hey, let's really we need to talk about this." Yeah. >> Would probably be better than having to be on the spot, you know. >> Well, I think both are important. I think that on this they I mean, but yeah, but any counselor can take it off at any point
>> prior to or during the meeting. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Prior to if we can get that in there, I think that would be great. >> Yeah. >> Okay. any other things that you'd want councelor Brown to be able to answer
for us? >> Okay. So, I'm going to right now take a moment to email her. Um, I want to say hi. Can you please listen to the A and
meeting um about 1 hour into the meeting top agenda and write a response to the ANO
members with an update? No. in response to the clerk to then send to the ANO members with an update with updated language language to section
six addressing our Okay. Does that sound good for me to send that to councelor Brown? That discussion next. Um, anything else on this?
You mean on the rules of procedure stuff in general? >> Yeah. >> Um I'm just looking back over all of the sections. I guess I did wonder a little bit about
in section B going going backwards under rule two meetings the special meetings thing. >> Wait, can where can you say that? Where is it? >> Sorry, it's on page 68. >> Oh yes. >> Um I I think that the intention here is
adding um email as a way to communicate that people want to call a special meeting, which I think is great. Let's use email and not have to like show up in person. Um, but the the secure electronic communication that allows receipt
confirmation, I wasn't entirely sure what the receipt confirmation piece meant. And maybe this is just like I'm overthinking it, but does that just mean like allows for people to hit reply and say, "Yes, I got your email."
>> Sorry. Or is it like >> you know how some email services like you can you can there's a setting so that you can set it so that you know when someone opened your email the same way there is on text messages and like I just want to be clear on whether like that's the requirement that would
need to be met here or if it's just like someone if you know if the email could say like please confirm you got this and people will say yes and then we'll consider that receipt confirmation. Can you put that question? So Tammy is hearing the question. Could you also put
the question there because this is the clerk's office putting this forward. >> Yeah. >> Receipt confirmation. >> It's a good point. >> I was wondering about I was just
wondering about the agenda. We have never we never used we never use unfinished business old new business old or new business. And I'm just wondering like if that's still in accordance with open meeting law or >> it might be. I don't know.
>> I mean like No, but like if it we never use it. It seems like if we used it, it would be out of accordance with open meeting law because it wouldn't be something that had been on the agenda. >> So why do we have it on the agenda? I I have wondered what those refer to. Like
I think I think I maybe have seen at least one of them used like once or twice, but I can't figure I can't think like what the criteria is. At the very least, we should define >> right >> members of the council like what would go in those sections if there were to be things.
>> Yeah. Could it >> we use new business for EDC's like public hearings for EDC meetings? Like if there's going to be a new zoning change, this always ends up under new business. Doesn't really. >> I thought it did. >> Yeah. No, there are things I feel like that go under
>> that are just sort of like heads up. We're going to talk about this next. >> Yeah. Notice to the public under new business of like a zoning change discussion. >> First readings. >> Yeah. First reading. >> So, first readings going to not new business. >> I think that's right.
>> Yeah. I'm not entirely sure. I want to say, would you be willing to share a definition of unfinished, new, and old business?
And when they're used, they're wondering if it's still in accordance and if we can actually use them as they are still on the agenda.
>> I mean, I'm not too concerned about it either way because obviously if we're if we don't have anything in those sections, it takes a second and a half to say old business, new business. It's not like it's taking a lot of our time, but >> if we don't need them, let's get rid of
them. And if we do, >> if we could be using them, then people should have a clear understanding of what we could be using them for. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. The other thing that I was not clear about was three uh so 5658A
and then section three >> during the time of the meeting city council. So 5658 A and then section three.
During the time of the meeting, the city council shall at 90minute intervals be scheduled to take a fivem minute recess. The recess shall be held after the question has been addressed and voted on. >> Does this mean that we should be voting to take a recess or is anyone
understanding that? >> No, it's not well worded. I'm I'm 98% sure that the reference is like if you are in the middle of discussing a motion or a question that requires a vote. Even if you hit the 90-minute mark, you should wait until
that specific conversation has done and the vote has been taken before you recess. Like you don't have to stop in the middle of >> debating a motion to take the is what I believe this refers to. But the language is not super clear. You are right. >> Okay. >> You're looking at page 72 still.
>> Yeah. at the top of page 72. So is this this seems like a question that is it's just some of these questions are easy to put in email and some of them are really hard to put in email. So >> that one I think I think it's after the question that it's currently >> the current question. >> Yeah. And if we add the word the current
question I think that would be more clear but I can see the confusion. >> Okay let's can let's let's ask Tammy to add the word current before a question just so people know what that means. Yeah. Another question at hand or something.
>> Yeah, the question at hand. That's the current the current question at hand. That's good. >> Okay. I have a I have a question. >> Yeah. >> On um I'm going to go back a little bit here in terms of on page 71
under agenda. Uh public comment is number seven. Um and although I haven't witnessed, uh lately
uh a situation where there's a whole lot of time that people have been sitting waiting to speak what they have to say. In the past, people have been known to have to sit there for three hours, >> right, >> while discussion was going on. and I out
of respect for people's time uh and to allow real accessibility so people don't get exhausted or leave out of frustration. Um I I think public comment should be as early on the agenda as possible
>> and I'm wondering if it after the pledge of allegiance could it possibly come there because people are coming to speak on a particular question. Um whether or not the council is addressing it that night is a different piece, but very often it
is. And then that could perhaps give some light to some of the latter discussion that the council is taking on that day. I'm just out of respect for people's time, I'm wondering if the
public comment could be up earlier in the agenda. Does that make sense? I think it's a great question. >> I'd be in favor of it. I think that the counterargument is that if city staff are
uh attending I think it's whose time are we prioritizing? I think someone could argue well if city staff are coming to speak on an issue making them wait either cost money although many of them are salaried the mad I think so maybe it
doesn't actually cost more time but more money if somebody's going to wait for somebody and I think someone could argue that we shouldn't make the city staff wait but I would be supportive >> just one thought I mean we have the
ability to spend the rules right so We could change the agenda order during the meeting if there's like a giant line of public and we have the poor superintendent of schools who has like >> I want to tell you about the band concert. >> We could switch the order for just that meeting
>> and so they can like say their piece and then get out and then giant line of the public gets to go >> Yeah. >> nice and early as well cuz I >> I don't I I think there's less harm to do. I think there's a lot of good to
be done by putting it earlier too, you know. Uh >> and we can prevent harm to the city staff if you know in our judgment we look and we see like >> we really be spending a lot of like the city's lawyer for example, the city's lawyers in attendance. It would make a lot of sense if we made this switch to
have them speak because we're paying them by the hour. Yeah. And I think the public would appreciate that, >> especially if they saw us both like, "Hey folks, we know you're all here and because we respect you, we don't want to spend, you know, >> $600 an hour or whatever it is, >> you know." >> Yeah.
>> Um just actually I have no idea how much the lawyer makes, but it's my >> it's it's more than I do. >> Yeah. >> It's funny. >> So, >> okay. Okay. Would we all like to ask to amend this
>> to put public comment public hearings after pledge of allegiance >> unless there's some other like real substantive reason that someone has that it shouldn't happen that way like but yeah >> I think your point councelor Garrett that the rules can be waved
and we'd rather have to wave the rules for city staff once in a while than >> make everybody Everybody wait always >> right. >> Yeah. >> What was the other thing? There's something else I needed to write down. >> Awesome.
>> My brain doesn't hold. >> Mine doesn't apparently either. >> Will the receipt define receipt confirmation? >> That's there. There's something else about the consent stuff in there. >> I wrote to councelor Brown about
casanta. Yeah, apologies. I think it's okay. >> Oh, the the current current question at hand. >> Thank you. That's on Sunday.
Anyway, Just the current question, >> yes, >> has been addressed and voted on. >> Okay. All right. Anything else about rules of procedure? Okay. We're moving to public assemblies.
Councelor Williams. >> Dear Lord, I did not realize you were going to get all of my hen scratching on this when there's actually just two uh pieces on here
uh that I wanted to change. Two little things. Little things. Um on 217 3
C >> the line that says that first amendment activities would take precedence over non-first amendment activities. Now, this is where I talk t
talk to you about the teddy bear picnic. >> Well, she's gone off a rocker. Oh, well. So, >> yeah, I'm just curious. >> Okay. So, I if there suppose that there is a a family that's
doing a birthday party at the common for some reason that they're got the kids there, there's a picnic, they got the teddy bears out, etc. and some, you know, someone comes along, you know, some crazed anarchist like myself or whatever screaming about
something, do the do the kids have to leave? I mean, basically the ordinance says that a first amendment situation takes priority over non-first amendment situation. And to me, it seems a little bizarre,
>> but this is about licenses, right? Like this is about >> no need a license for for having a demonstration on the common. You can have just have one >> first amendment rights. >> But isn't this whole section about
license commission? >> I think it's not clear >> public assemblies >> nor may such restrictions favor non-first amendment activities over first amendment activities. Mhm. >> Yeah. I would say that that's actually
that to me that's a bigger fault of this whole section is what you just said, councelor Golib. Like it's not clear. >> Yeah. I think >> what this section actually refers to like is this the license commission having a say and
>> in what way? >> No time manner. So this is very much a lawyer wrote this. This is like >> this is not very clear. No time, place or manner restriction. These are so like you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, right? That's the famous the you know that famous restriction on
freedom of speech. So that's that's a time, place or manage restriction. You can be punished for falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater regard. And so that anything where you're using speech and speech doesn't have to be words. Like the family doing the teddy bear
picnic, they're saying happy birthday. That is freedom of expression of the first amendment, too. So that's also like a nonfirst amendment activity. Like there's they're saying it's a happy birthday. They're claiming space in public to make a statement even if it's
like not a political statement in any fashion. And so, you know, that in that particular like somebody a non-first amendment activity would be like walking down the sidewalk in the common.
And so therefore, you can't say, "Oh, the people walking down the sidewalk deserve to walk down the sidewalk on the common, which is a public gathering space for the anarchist, you know, convention or whatever." Um, does that make sense? Like this is very much like
I bet you I could take a guess on who wrote this. Um actually I remember when we did the beginning of the year thing the minutes on this this was Isaac Mass and there was a whole bunch of back and forth on this. >> This is Yeah, >> this is absolutely I remember seeing like in those minutes when we were
looking at it there was a lot of contention and he ended up coming back like four times with this stuff. >> It got really Yeah. very constitutional lawy which yeah so
>> yeah there's a lot of this that I still that doesn't feel clear to me but that that part still doesn't feel that clear to me >> and I think what what I need feel like I need to know is if you go up to 217-3
reasonable time place and manner um >> I don't even know what that means >> on page 76 Yeah. >> Yeah. I just don't know what to let me finish my sentence. >> It says the license commission shall recognize and implement the city policy
on first amendment assemblies. Um >> Oh, I see. In two established in 217-2. Um, I mean like it's a weird thing because like the the license commission
doesn't h like is not an implementing. It's not like they're going to go out if there's a assembly that violates this policy and be like we're the licensing commission. You guys can't be here. Like >> right >> there's a weird implementation question here. >> Yeah.
So, as somebody who has done the work to do demonstrations in town, uh, basically the only the only thing that the license commission did, I mean,
basically you book time. So, if you're going to have a demonstration on the common, you book the you basically say, "We're going to do it on this date from this time to this time." and then they're making sure it doesn't clash with something else that's already booked or whatever. Uh so
that's in essence what they do. And then >> right >> basically you have access to the electricity of city hall to set up a microphone. You can use the stairs at city hall, but you have to also get I mean the common is one thing. The
walkway where the uh the um the farmer's market takes place is another because that's a that's a that's a considered uh a passageway and that's what they concerned about passageway. So people do
have the right to to walk up and down. You cannot block sidewalks. you need special permission to block that street passageway, but it's it's uh it's not like it costs money or anything like that. It's just you block you >> you book it basically. You book it
>> um that you know for the common etc. So I mean energy park is a different story because if you use electricity there it costs money for some reason. I'm not sure why, but there was there was some discussion
about that. Um, so the language in here is is vague and that's not a bad thing, I think, because we want people to have access. We want people to demon I personally think
people should be on the common especially these days demonstrating around immigrants rights and you know pending wars with whoever etc and so on and the fact that democracy is you know going down the drain quickly in this country so people
should be out there etc. and the language was written. I think C I don't think I don't think Isaac Mass wrote this because I think he would want he gave people a very hard time when he was in the licensing commission. He tried to control some of
the stuff that was going on and people basically told him where to go and but he and he had therefore no but he had no case to bring to bring against the demonstrators. Uh because you have the first amendment rights to gather. you know, you can gather and demonstrate. And so it's
written pretty vaguely, I thought. But the the only thing that came about in my head was, like I said, the teddy bear picnic. And if you think a teddy bear picnic is first amendment rights, okay, then that's not an issue.
And then the language around there was a lot of stuff around not demonstrating at people's houses. Mhm. >> I went back and forth on that in my own brain >> because personally as a labor person, I have demonstrated in front of people's house.
>> But it said, I mean, I basically negated the blah blah language and basically said no demonstration shall be permitted that are targeted at an individual's residence. I think it's reasonable >> for for Greenfield. I think it's reasonable. If we were in Welssley, I'd
say no. >> Yeah, >> we have the absolute right to do this. So, it's a different it's a different kind of situation. So, but other than that, I went over the language several times. Like I say, I've I've gone through the
process several times and have ne have not had trouble. >> Yeah, >> that's what I wanted to say about this. And I'm sorry if you got all my hence scratching notes. You should not have gotten all of that. >> You don't. That's fine. >> Okay. I guess so. my question in response to
that because I completely agree with you councelor Williams. Um so then my my question is like why maybe I'm misunderstanding why would we cross out the first amendment piece here and not restricting things in favor of
non-first amendment activities over first amendment activities because that seems like if we left that language in it protects the thing that you are saying we should be protecting which I agree with. So what because what I what I thought of
and I jokingly call it the teddy bear picnic but I actually thought of to me that was not in my head I didn't consider that first amendment >> right >> I consider I consider that recreational activity >> versus a demonstration and I didn't want
the kids to be kicked out of the park. I mean, that's kind of >> that's fair. Yeah. >> What I thought of in my head, but if uh if if council Garrett is saying happy birthday is an expression that you have the right to do, then then it's a non-discussion. Then we don't need to
deal with that language to to negate it at all. I would withdraw that proposal. >> Yeah, I wouldn't support I wouldn't support the strikethrough of this language. And I because I again I don't to me this isn't a question of like coming up and kicking people
out. It's a question of like I do think the way that I read this is the licensing commission making its guidelines or rules or whatever we can call them about assemblies and how they will be enforced, you know, >> implemented.
And so I think that this protects it just is intended to protect first amendment activities which I think we want to protect because they are really important no matter what your political viewpoint. So, >> I would want to keep this language about not restricting in favor of non-first
amendment activities and and at the end of the day like the real life scenario if there's the teddy bear party and then like something comes through that's actually like the police are going to be dealing with that in the moment or you know some like some combination of people and it's
going to that's a different scenario than I think is governed by this >> okay >> ordinance. >> Okay. I don't know why I got stuck on it. I was Yeah, I really want to protect the kids. >> I think you're ready. >> It's very well intended and and it makes
sense. And >> and so I my second my other my question um just to make sure that I'm reading this right and I know you're saying like this was just your your notes, but the the parts that are out that are highlighted in pink, is there any
particular meaning with of the highlights? No, this is just this was just my something I was think I read through it, highlighted some stuff, went back again to look at it and just had it highlighted for my own reason. >> Great. The only the only changes are on
the very on page 81. Those are the there's two things that I noted and I'm saying >> that we should forget the first one. And in the second one, I still would like to delete all the hoo-ha around not demonstrating in front of people's
houses. Just say you can't do it. Period. End of. We don't need a lecture on civility. Totally agree. >> Yeah. Okay. Great. That's it. Thank you. >> I I really appreciate
having you that you thought through this. I I'm just like thinking out loud cuz this this ordinance really matters just like for all the reasons you just said like I think it's a really important ordinance. And so I initially went to uh
local progress which is an association of local municipal officials to see if they had any language. I asked the ACLU if they had any language. Both said no. And so I I trust your judgment on having having put on protest like to think this
through. Um so I feel like this is like multiple stages. There are still several pieces of this that my gut is like it doesn't feel clear enough to me. I understand your argument. I'm hearing your argument for like we might not want
to make everything crystal clear. Um I feel like the way I have a bunch of questions written and the way that I would process like I have little time but this this one matters to me a lot. I think I would honestly like to now just
go read through and perhaps just call you and talk to you about this one a bit. I I will think more introvertedly about this like you know writing. Um, I promised Pat I promised Kathy that I wouldn't like put on my editor hat with most things, but this might be one of
the things that I do want to put my editor hat on. I want this I want to imagine myself putting on a protest and making sure that this is clear enough. So, um, instead of naming all of my questions right now, what I could commit
to is in the next like be in the next week or two, like sitting down with my own brain and then talking to you about it. Um, I think that that's probably the most efficient. >> That's fine. No, I think it's fine. I I
totally agree. I think this is really important. >> Yeah. And I think the more eyes and brains on it, the better. >> Okay, great. Great. Okay, so I will commit to doing that. >> Okay, great. >> Is there anything else that you two want
us to be thinking about as we think this? >> Yeah. On page 80, Patty, you highlighted the um lease protection section and that again the worst case scenario thing with
the size or nature requires diversion. So many a great number of police officers police unable to properly police line of movement. The idea of a too big of of protest being seen as too big to property police when it's entirely peaceful is a concern that I
have, especially in authoritarian state. Not that we live in one yet, but >> yeah, >> if we are if we creep into one, I don't want, oh, look at all these angry people. There's just too many, you know, to be the reason the protest can't happen. Um, and I don't know what a
better solution for that is because obviously there is public safety issues and I imagine Patty that's why you highlighted it. Uh, but that's that's the one that like reading through this I found myself thinking about more. It's just like that is definitely worth looking at, you know.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Well, in that section it's I actually don't even quite understand what I mean I think I understand what that section is trying to say but it's like a sentence fragment. >> Yeah. Yeah, it doesn't make sense. It's not a full That's That was my note. That one just doesn't make sense. It's not a
full sentence. >> I read it over like 12 times and it's just like it's not me. >> It sounds almost the police are able to be around the protest, I think, is what it's trying to say in a way that keeps the protest safe, you know, and not turn into a riot or an
unlawful expression of speech. But it is confusing. Well, and like would deny reasonable police protection to the city like I think there would be there might be a question of like the city denying reasonable police protection to a assembly
>> but like assemblies don't provide police protection to the city like it's just weird wording it's bad wording >> so when I read this what I believe it says is that if the demonstration is so huge that the in you know that the vast
majority of police are in attendance at the demonstration and not therefore policing around town elsewhere. Um, which is kind of strange to think about because people do have phones. Um, that there would be some kind of there, you
know, that would create a problem with the demonstration happening or something like that. The the interesting thing is we just had you know several no two no kings huge demonstr I guess one of them was 3,000 people or something like that
and marching down Main Street etc and so on and the police they weren't expecting that number but they handled it quite well according to everybody I I personally was not present at that but I
my understanding is it was handled quite well. But futuristically, you're right. This may require I don't I mean, you can't put a number on. You can't say x amount of people because that, you know, then what what's too many cops? What's not enough cops? What
does it mean? You know, it's very vague. >> Too many protesters, right? >> Well, I mean, exactly. It's very very vague. >> Yeah. And so and so because there's no way to really enforce it >> because it's so vague. Fine.
>> You know, that's how I'm kind of seeing this on some level. It's because the thing about it is when you get very specific, you can't say a number of protesters. You can't say a number of cops. I mean, really, either way, you can't say a number.
>> Yep. Yep. >> It's big. And frankly speaking, you know, if things keep rolling on the way they do, you know, three people is going to be too many. You know what I'm saying? >> Right. >> And then so then we'll have to have
5,000 then people. You know, that's how you react to that. But >> yeah, >> thank you. I do want to say thank you for your reframing of the the language question about police protection of the city because you're totally right and now I see >> Yeah. >> what you mean and that is accurate. It's
still a weird sentence fragment that we that needs rewarding, but that piece of news makes total sense to me. Now, >> the bank is being robbed. I'm sure a phone call will get made and you know, somebody will be >> trans down to the bank to see, hey, what happened? You know, that kind of thing.
>> They could call the Deerfield cops. You know, it's just >> right. or the state police, you know, if there's if all our police are and just to your point, Patty, I was at the No Kings and the second one, I didn't go to the first one, but the police were great. They were chatting with folks.
They were very, you know, >> just kind of walking around the play, you know, like they >> they did, you know, a good job directing the people and kind of keeping it clear where it was safe and where it wasn't. At one point, they opened up part of Main Street, you know, to people walking because there were so many people
walking and it was very smooth. So they did a great job, you know. So it was really impressive, you know, but >> on everybody's part, protesters, >> when we did when we did the uh immigrant rights demonstration downtown, officer Zoey was like in the front row cheering
away the speeches, which I thought was pretty interesting. Never been never been in a de had a rally like that where I had a a police officer standing in the front row cheering. said, "Okay,
>> fantastic. >> This is fascinating. >> Yep. >> She's a great addition to the force." That's all I got to say. >> Yes. >> So, um, this is probably clear, but just to make the implicit explicit here, I
think my question about this section is like when it is of the size of nature blah blah blah, then what? Like that's the piece that's missing is the then what? Given that it doesn't say anything currently, is it even needed? Is the section even?
>> Right. That's a good question. >> It doesn't say anything. It doesn't say what happens. So why add something that happened? We just do we cancel the demonstration? It's not stated. >> It's not stated. So why state anything, >> right?
>> It seems like something to be >> That's fascinating. Yeah. There's absolutely nothing. Anything any any any other things, Councelor Gordon, that you want us to debate introduce?
>> Okay. All right. I will I will attempt Patty to to work and everyone I will attempt to work on this quick enough to put it before the um fiveday rule.
>> I want this to go forward for December. >> So yeah. Um okay, good discuss discussion on that one. Okay, so then now moving to
the rest of the ordinances. I'm curious to hear folks updates. Um, I'm opening up my the ordinance spreadsheet. I would
actually like a quick update and I'm aware of the time and I'm also aware that it's it's been a while and I would appreciate a quick update on each of the things. I and even if
that's like I can't do it, it's too much or I'm working on it. Not much to say right now, but I actually am working on it or whatever. Um I'd be grateful to quickly go through the list um
to update the list. Are you all willing to do that? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. So, I am in the ordinance um spreadsheet and alcohol. So, I'll just call each one as we go. Alcoholic be alcoholic beverages. Counselor Williams.
>> Yeah. Um, I had no changes on that. However, on something related, uh there there was a I read the ordinance
that talked about no no consuming alcohol in outside spaces. Uh there's a when it talks about the ordinance that talks about chairs outside of restaurants, it says there's
no alcohol drinking in outside spaces. So, I got rid of that because half of us are out in front of the people's pints slugging down bruswis throughout the summer for God's sakes. It's ridiculous, ridiculous ordinance to have. Then I found out that it had already been taken care of that it was gotten rid of last
June. Now, this is what came from licensing. So, why isn't it in the ordinances that we're looking at? So now my fear is what the hell you know how badly not updated
are the ordinances that we are trying to correct right now. Oh Lord, are we doing work that's already been done? So yeah, I got this information. I submitted that and was told that oh that was taken care
of already. The licensing people, I guess Tammy showed it to the licensing person. and I forget her name. And I was told that was taken care of last June or a number of Junes ago or something like that. >> It was during lockdown when they changed the rules so that people could have
outdoor seating. >> Okay, fine. >> Yeah. >> So, >> but no, I think it's a really important point. That's it is it raises a unnerving question about what >> rules have changed that we now need to bring the ordinance up to be in
alignment. Yeah, >> I was told I was told that the ordinance changed. >> Yeah, >> my concern I was told the ordinance had been changed. >> So my concern is >> I hear your concern.
>> What we're looking at what we're when we go in to the ordinances and we're making our suggestions etc. Are we looking at the correct language? Can you or >> I actually >> Okay. >> So, um, this is Lauren and I have talked to Kathy about this with some of the
some of the changes they've made in even the two years that, you know, I've been here that aren't in the e-code. And I guess the problem is there's a company that we hire to basically update like our e-code website, but they do it in
batches. So, it's like you there's a tab on the e-code website for new laws and most things that are changed hang out there because Kathy or Tammy or you know somebody in the clerk's office put them there but they sit in this new laws like section until this company gets to it
and they're wicked behind. I don't know. It's not like a regular schedule. It's not like I can say like every September 1st they do a batch update. It seems to be like they intermittently will update our e-code and otherwise it just hangs in the new laws tab on the e-code
website. So when Quinn pulled these, my guess is what happened is some of these things cuz some of them have been there for a while, you know, in the e-code like charter changes the state legislature has approved and now they're still sitting in the e-code thing. And so yeah, no, it's it's troubling. And
you know, if you're the average citizen and you don't know about this, like that's even worse. You know, it's like it's hard enough for us what we, you know, know to go ask Tammy or Kathy or Quinn or whatever, you know, and figure this out or have somebody call us out on it. But, you know, you're, you know, but that's that is my understanding at least
with the e-code. I can't speak to the spreadsheet that Quinn put together where they pulled it from. I'm assuming it's the e-code. Um, and you know, so they probably ran into that issue. Is there anything under new laws? It's not. This is not under new laws. >> So that I have not answered your question.
>> Okay. So >> that's that was super helpful, John, because I didn't know that and I've always wondered about that new law section because I forget to check it >> and also what the heck and we need to >> figure out how to get our ecode updated on a regular basis. >> Yes.
>> So can you write a note to Tammy because I'm recalling this email now. Like I read it really quickly and I didn't like I I read this email from Tammy to you about this and she said, "Oh, look at this. Can you and Tammy who's
listening to this please do this like right away because we are we are looking at them a lot of them now and this is >> we're volunteers and yeah I hear I I know the concern. Can I share it? And
can you please confirm within the week that all of the ordinances that we're currently looking at are the actual ordinances that exist? And two, can you please contact the company because all of these new we're like we're putting forward a
lot of new language so that by like January somehow we're on in the queue to have all of these go into the ecode. We should be going to this new council with everything updated, >> right? if at all possible. >> Right. Yeah. And I wish I could speak
more to their schedule, but totally, you know, I that's what I remember. >> Yeah. Thank you for being my secretary. Appreciate it. >> Okay. So, back to the spreadsheet. Those are completed.
Yeah. The >> alcoholic beverages, right? >> Yeah. >> Maybe. >> Yep. Okay. >> Tammy, >> did you just say that the issue is that they're not completed and we don't know what's up to what's been updated and what's not.
>> Well, I think >> you look at them. >> I I I I completed what is there. >> Yeah. >> Was was then told it wasn't necessary. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, the question is, is it necessary?
>> Right. So, can Tammy please confirm that it's updated? Can she also please email all of the please hear me uh all of the coun all of the ANO members all of us to confirm that no updates to alcoholic beverages that the rate that councelor
Williams proposed amendments to alcoholic beverages have indeed been passed and where do they live so that they're accessible to us and the public. >> Thank you very much. It will say that when I click on the
fi on the links to go to the current ordinance, it's a file not found. >> File not found. >> It's not linked properly in the spreadsheet. >> Not linked properly. Yeah. >> Okay. >> What does the e-code say? Like if we look at that,
>> I don't I don't I'd rather >> you don't want to go down. >> I don't want to go down. No, >> we'll be here a very long time if we do want to go into each of these. I just want to update. Um animals, Gordon and Garrett, >> have not touched it.
>> Well, we were waiting on some of the um animal stuff, the dog stuff that was going through uh planning board, >> right, >> and EDC. And I am honestly not sure if all of that has now been done or if there's something still outstanding. So,
I can check on that. Um, but as a blanket statement, I can say that everything that has my name next to it, friends, I am behind. I'm not proud of that. I apologize. And, um, I can commit to getting it done or bringing at least a very substantive, you know, update in
December, but my update on everything with my name on it is that it's not done. >> Okay. Can when you say for December, do you mean bringing it forward before the five-day rule so that it can be on December's agenda?
>> I will make my very best efforts to do that. Yes. Um, >> it does depend a little bit on city people getting back to me, but >> um, building construction. Williams,
councelor Williams, it says in progress, building permits. >> Oh. Um, and that was about the there was electrical, I think. And I talked to I spoke with um
oh the building department on that. I've sent a email to Mark Snow uh to see if there was it was uh electrical standards chapter 254
electrical standards. Is that what you're talking about? um give the update on that and then I'll go back to the one I was referencing. >> Okay. So, I sent him an email to ask asked if he felt that ordinance needed
updating. I haven't gotten back to him. Uh >> or he hasn't gotten back to you? >> No, he hasn't gotten back to me. I have nudged him a little. I will nudge him again. >> Okay. uh because he was he was asking people in his department
>> uh if if that could be done if that's necessary if that needed to be updated. And then there was another one on uh fire fire boxes. I don't have the I gave the
paper which which number is this? >> Oh, I gave the paperwork into the city so I don't know which one it is. I'm sorry. Okay. >> But it had to do with lock boxes. >> In the in the event
there's a there's a ruling that says if you have six apartments, you have to have a lock box outside so the fire department can get access into the building in the in the event of a fire, etc. >> Okay. I sent a an email to the fire
chief to see if that was adequate language. He says that language is adequate. So, there's no change to that one. >> And are you is anyone able to find out which one that is? So, we can just click it as >> Christ. I'm so sorry.
>> Okay. >> You did a lot of work. Do you or can you go into the >> reading? >> I don't know which one that is. >> I made electrical standards from the >> That was the one she was just mentioning.
>> Key lock boxes, but no, >> that's under me somehow. I don't >> electrical. It's chapter 254, electrical standards. >> Okay. So, that's just you. But that's
the one you're also waiting for Mark Snow with. Yeah, that was just a part of that same ordinance. >> Oh, I'm so t I'm so sorry. >> It's okay. >> I don't I don't have the I don't have
the um the letter from the chief of of the fire chief regarding >> the law. >> I'm sorry. I I just merged. No, no, >> you don't need to apologize for anything. It I'm just tracking. It
sounds like that ordinance has multiple parts and one you checked with. >> No, no, I merged them in my head. They're not they're two different things. >> Okay. >> I did hear back from the fire chief. Okay. >> Say who said the
>> the present language is adequate. I I'm still on. That's the lock boxes. >> Electrical standards. >> I just don't know. There's no ordinance called lock boxes. So, I'm just trying to >> electrical standards is what I'm waiting to hear back from Mark Snow on.
>> Okay. And do you know the name of the ordinance with the lock boxes? >> No, I forget. >> Okay. >> But let me see. I must have written down. Hang on. Well, while you look. >> Oh,
>> while you look, we can continue on. Um, >> building construction. No, two 224 building construction. >> He lock boxes. Okay, >> that's the >> That's the lockbox one. I have them here.
>> Great. and the building permits. Chapter article one of chapter 224. >> I don't have that. >> It's okay. Your name is by that one. >> Okay. I don't have that.
>> Can you look into that one? >> Okay. I will look into that one. >> Thank you. Um, okay. Garrett, development review and drainage. >> I looked at anything that I put in progress next to I've read through and
make comments on. Um, the ones that I have are not yellow. I haven't looked at yet. >> So, the ones you made comments on, are those ready to bring forward? >> Um, I mean, so a developmental review, what did I do? Oh. Uh, instead of having
10 copies of the impact statement, I changed it to electronically. And that's really the only change I made. Um, I have not reached out to any departments about any of these. So, the one thought I had about it was that it would be good to talk to somebody, you
know, on the planning board or like director Tuar about them. Um, and so that hasn't happened. >> Okay. >> But yeah, no, anything with the yellow I've made changes. We can certainly discuss it. I think like that change is a good one. instead of having 10 paper copies.
At the very least, I think that change is something we could stand on. But >> y >> um in the drainage one, that one I added in if there it mentioned damage, I changed the pronouns from his or her to there.
And I also added in a sentence saying any damage caused of public wage shall be repaired by the city in charge of the property owner responsible in the event of discharge of restricted water which I thought was a a valid change. >> Okay. Could it's hard for me to hear the
changes. So does it sounds like in your It sounds like you've made the changes that feel necessary to you. It could be good to check with the department heads. >> Yeah. >> Are you could you do that and have that in by the fiveday rule? I think now that we're no longer in the middle of an
election, that's very possible. >> And you had to prioritize what you had to prioritize. >> Exactly. It was also letters of recommendation and the first quarter at the same time. >> Yep. >> So here college season I am. >> Yep. >> And they all got done. >> I didn't have to write the
recommendations. I just wanted to make sure that they were. >> Yeah. This was definitely the thing I ch I'm like, well, I can't do everything. I'm not doing this. >> And I got choosing. >> Yeah. I got some comments. >> Support your discernment. Um, so can you do that? >> Yeah. Yeah. I I think that would be very
very doable. >> Great. The thing that I have been putting off is uh talking with the public health department and I can commit to doing that in the next month. I just don't my question is how to what extent are these
being enforced and >> what do we do about that? Um and >> yeah, so that's that's my thinking. Um the Okay. Excavations 259. >> That's me. No change.
>> No change. And you feel that's that's the no change. Got it. Okay. Great. Um the farming one. Councelor Williams, you were going to look into the state's requirement on the posting of remember we talked we had talked about this was
mine. Um and then you offered to research. We had talked about that there's the current ordinance requires us to post that we are a right to farming municipality and it's not being posted and we were
and then councelor Gordon asked if there was the state had a requirement around posting about that and you said that you would do some research on that >> and I didn't. >> Okay. Are you willing still? >> I will. Okay. >> I will. >> Thank you very much. Um, so to be clear,
so because I'm getting really stupid now as the clock ticks away, >> I'm researching is it a state requirement that we post it? Is that what we're asking? >> What state requirements exist pertaining to the posting of right to farming
in a municipality? >> Okay. Okay. Um, firearms are under you as well. >> Yes, as as written. Fine. >> Fine. Okay, we can pause it. This is really good to push that button. Okay.
Um, junk dealers and collectors. >> Oh, yeah. I actually I had to print it out of the eco because it was the wrong link and I have a paper copy of it with notes all over it on my desk at home. >> Okay.
>> I don't know. I think the weird I'm trying to remember. I did that at work on a prep period. The only weird thing about it is the police chief if they think you're having a tag sale can is it effectively gives them permission to come into your house. >> Okay. All right. So,
>> okay. So, I haven't >> to make sure you're not selling stolen goods. >> And so, I talked to the chief of police about this one about I didn't talk to him about this one. I talked to him about the tax sale one. Yeah. >> And he was like, "There's too many ordinance pertaining to the same thing. I don't want to be policing tax sales."
>> Yeah. >> Um, basically the tax sale one exists so that people aren't like setting up a new business in front of their house permanently. >> And it seems like the is Pond Brokers also under you? Are you >> uh did I have pers?
>> I had pawn bers and I paused it. Could you are you could would you be willing to send me like a Google doc with your thoughts on it or is it just >> No. On the junk dealers. >> Sure. Um I'm going to email myself that
because I'm gonna >> if you could do that sooner than like that. >> So I'm gonna find your notes on junk dealers. And this may seem irrelevant, but this was one of my not I don't like I don't like the tag sale ordinance. I
don't like that the cops that people might not know that they can't have a tag sale and then the cops can randomly show up at their house. And now that you're saying that the drug dealers one is dealing with the tag sale, the cops can just show up by your house. Um these need to be >> Yeah, I'll I'll find and if I can't find
it, I'll look at it again. >> Okay. Are is that something that you could prioritize just so then I can think these things through together? >> Yes, especially if you hassle me via text. >> Okay. >> If you don't hear back from me about it, I did I sent both an email to my work
and my regular email. So, >> I'll look at it as soon as I look at those emails hopefully. But >> okay. Um, so littering, are you still with us? councelor Gordon
cuz I have one on yours. >> Yes, I am still with you. >> So, I will say that for chapter 346, I had a meeting with um Officer Danger, Zoe and >> her name is Officer Danger.
>> Yeah, >> that's fantastic. >> She's wonderful. Yeah, Officer Danger. um and and counselor Brown um about a whole bunch of ordinances that have to do with policing. And this was the one
that um the homeless cuz Officer Danger is on the um unhoused committee. So, this is the one that they still have a lot of about. So, you don't have to do any work on this one right now. >> Oh, great. Those were the people that I was going to reach out to about it.
Yeah, they're very aware of it and they're talking about it and there's likely other ordinances that are needed to mitigate the true problems that this one may be intended to mitigate like
noise or like a noise ordinance may make this have less purpose type of thing. So, it's kind of a complex more systemic thing that we'll likely will need to be looking at, but they want to take the first counselor Brown requested to still
take the first go at at this. So, you don't need to do any work on it right now. >> Um, that is great. Thank you so much for passing along that information. I'm going to make a note of that in the spreadsheet. Should I pause it? >> Yeah. No, don't pause it. I'm I have my
definitions of the things here is paused means we're not talking about it for until the future when somebody else wants to talk about it in the in the future. Completed means we've passed something. In progress means it's in progress, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's your responsibility given
that's just as I've been updating those things that's what I've been meaning them to mean. >> Does that work for you? This is not >> I just want to make sure that it's clear like sort of whose court the ball is in. But I think I can do that in the notes section.
>> We can put Brown. Look that brown. >> Yeah, let's do that. That makes sense. >> Yeah. Um so city is is paused for right for right now. >> Yeah.
>> Um sewers. >> I did not touch the sewers. I remember I was in a Marlo. >> Don't touch. >> I did not touch the ceilings. I actually want to reach out to Marlo because there was something he had talked to me about regarding um with ADUs and
indemnification of the city and some of the city's current practices. And I would love to actually speak to him and then also then go to the current director who his name is escaping me because there was something about the sewers that he wanted to talk to me about that I'm Yeah. Other than it being
about liability on the city's part, that's all I can remember specifically. >> Okay. >> So, >> all right. So, you'll plan to reach out to him. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. Um, storage shanks underground. >> Is this still? >> Yeah, it's you. >> Anything that is says not started, I
have not started. Okay. >> If it's got yellow next to it, I've looked at it. >> Okay. This the sidewalk stuff and you've looked at it. Is that ready to >> Yes. >> I will say I paused the piece about obstruction of sidewalks, right?
>> I paused that after my conversation about >> Yeah, there was a I made some comments on this a while ago. I think this is the first thing I looked at. I haven't reviewed it since. Um through yeah I found some language. Okay I
looked this in May then the obstruction of sidewalks piece is what I looked at. I looked at Northampton's ordinance the part of the >> they have something better. >> Yeah I I >> if he has something better then then let's do something >> in the comments if you look on page uh
10. >> Page 10. >> Yep. Page 10. Is it are you here? You made comments on the document. >> This is chapter 385. Yeah, you're So, yeah, I just copy and paste the language from Northampton. >> Oh, that's great. >> Because I thought it was better than
ours. Um, and then the other one I got I thought we should remove the part about no bicycles on the sidewalks in the downtown because the next section is about them having to yield a ride away.
Okay. So, are you ready to put this forward? >> No, because I'm looking at another comment I made that said, "Find a model ordinance, replace this with." So, there's a bunch of stuff I'm confident about, but it's another one I I would want to look at again, I think, with the
same same level of we're ready, you know, to get it going as the other stuff, just with some checking with folks. >> Okay. >> So, >> great. Um, yeah, I'll do my homework and um >> try to get it. When's the actually what would be helpful to know when is the
fiveday rule going to hit for us? What's our due date here? So, the 2nd of December is a Tuesday. So, one, two, three, four, five. So, the 25th of November. Um, >> so right before Thanksgiving.
And then okay, there's a pro there is a project to be had with this and I don't think that it's so councelor Williams you're the only one with with time. I'm just naming this in case or are you frozen? >> Oh, there you are. Um, I'm here.
>> So, there's a there's a project pending that I have not had time to follow up on and I'm not looking at one of you two because I know you have zero time. So, I'm naming it. I reached out to the mayor about the vacant and foreclosing property ordinance to see there had been
interest in updating this to have a a penalty or some type of taxation for vacant properties and she asked me to reach out to Director King about it and I just not have not had the ability to follow up on
this. This feels like a new project and currently the project that I'm really committed to is the gender a new gender protection ordinance. It's a I'm I'm saying it's on the table as something that if you want a project, it's a project that could be had.
>> Dang. Right. >> So, I could just say that I I can just follow up with the mayor then and say committee members do not have the capacity to take this on. Um, but if they want to bring forward language, we would love to hear it.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Um, let me just see if there's I'm not asking you, Councelor Gordon, about any of your other things because you asked me not to. Um, oh, vendors. >> Yeah,
>> I I have one more. >> Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. My Maybe that's my brain now. I'm doing my like jumping back and forth thing. So, um, was yours a street sidewalk piece?
>> Uh, it was under, yeah, sidewalk outdoor seating. >> Yeah. >> Article nine, uh, under private maintenance of structures. There's this ridicul. So hope I don't know if it's real but
because it's under the same thing as the outside drinking but there was a there's language that says that structures so like umbrellas cannot have advertising on them >> which I think is ludicrous because
that's how restaurants get their umbrellas is that there there's a a beer company or some kind of food company and you see umbrellas outside of restaurants and they're always there's always some kind of advertising on them.
>> Okay. So, do you want to amend that? Do you do you want without us going into um without us discussing it and could do you put can you write in your amendment >> here? Not right now. But
>> well, I gave this This is one of the I gave everything I did to Tammy. For some reason, the only thing that came out from Tammy was this one that had already been done. >> Okay. So, can you put a request to
Tammy? And Tammy is listening. Can you please send to the committee everything that councelor Williams sent to you? >> Yes, >> please. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> I pity Tammy for dealing with >> I know this is this is not fun.
Thank you. Um All right. Okay. I'm wondering if the vendors I wonder if vendors has something to do. Right. I'm gonna There's vendors there. Chief Dodge was like there's a lot of ordinances that
have the same bond brokers, vendors, >> junk dealers. >> Junk dealers and tax sales. Okay. >> Folks on sing a song. Okay. Valid. Um. All right. Okay. All right. Anything else that we didn't
I think that's the whole list. All right. >> Amen. >> Allelujah. So be it. May it be so or not. Okay. Um, >> it was helpful to go through though. Thank you. >> Yeah,
>> you're welcome. >> Written the word adjourn on the list of votes. >> Have you? >> I have. Just in case that's might be what you're thinking. >> Okay. So, can I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Yes, I would like to motion to adjurnn.
>> My motion. >> Is that Is that a second? >> I was doing weird hand gestures at the beginning. I I I interpret that dance as a second. Is this accurate? >> Okay. >> Well, wait. We have to actually vote on
it. We do have to vote on it. >> The motion to adjourn. Councelor Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Golib, yes. This meeting is now complete at 8:48
p.m. Good job.