Good evening everybody. Welcome. >> One second. >> I'm going to leave the Zoom room. I think that's going to help. Sorry everybody. I was trying to do two things at once. Uh welcome to the city of Greenfield's opiate use and prevention commission. Um, this meeting is being recorded by the Greenfield Opiate Use
and Prevention Commission in the city of Greenfield and the chair is utilizing an artificial intelligence notetaker which I will set up right now because I didn't do that either. All righty. If any other person present is doing the same, you must notify the chairperson at this
time. Okay, perfect. Uh, going to do a roll call. Uh, we'll start with Zoom. Abby,
hi. Here. Thank you. Pedro. >> Oh, present. >> Anna >> here. >> And Sarah, uh, chair is present. Okay. The first item on our agenda is to approve the opioid use and prevention
commission meeting minutes from November 17th, 2025. Can I hear a motion? >> I got a motion to accept. >> Okay. Can I hear a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. Those in favor since we
have a folks on the Zoom. Anna, >> yes. >> Pedro, >> yes. >> Abby, >> yes. >> And I vote yes. So, we have uh approved unanimously the minutes from the November 17th, 2025 opate Use and
Prevention Commission meeting minutes. Um, the next item on our agenda is public comment. Uh, members of the public may speak for up to three minutes as recognized by the chair per chapter 49 hybrid ordinance. Members of the
public attending virtually or in person may comment by raising their hand or stating their name and address or precinct. Is there any members of the public that wish to address the commission at this time? Ken recovery from >> otherwise the folks online can
>> thank you. >> My name is Ken and I'm person recovery and I am a peer leader at the recover project and my first time to this uh meeting and I definitely interested and concerned about where all this money is
going and that it's not being transparent enough and you know stuff like that and like like to learn more. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for being here. >> Thanks. >> Hello, I'm Jeff.
Uh, I heard about this group today and I thought it would be interesting to try to get involved somehow. I have experience with I would say in the business community of getting things done on groups and committees, but I also have life
experience of recovery and also substance substance use uh disorder. And so I'm wondering if I can help contribute in some way. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other uh community members wish to
speak? one on Zoom. Okay. Uh with hearing no response, I'm going to close the uh public comment section and we're going to move on to old business. Um the first item on old business is
review of financial accounts and processes. Invited guest Nbercau, Greenfield director of municipal finance will provide clarity on opioid settlement financial reporting and processes. review the current status of settlement funds held by the city and provide updates on recent settlements.
Um, director Neber cow since his uh regrets that he will not be able to attend our meeting this month. Um, I have have asked him uh to join January's meeting just so that we can get that information. I did attempt to get that
information from the city uh so at least we would have uh expenditures you know what is what has gone out so far. Uh we we know because it's public knowledge that uh any money that has gone out of the uh out of the funds has been towards burials. Uh no other funds have been
allocated for any other reason other than burials. Um so um I can I hear a motion to table uh the review of financial accounts and processes uh until January's meeting. >> So moved. >> Okay. Have a second.
>> A second. >> Okay. And roll call vote. Uh Yams, >> yes. >> Abby, >> yes. >> Pedro, >> yes. >> Anna, >> yes. >> And Sarah, yes. Uh and and please acknowledge in the record that uh Yams
is present. Um you were not here during roll call, so I just want to acknowledge that you are here. >> Apologies. >> No, you're all right. Um and the next item up for business is um from the chair on consultation with the city clerk. Um the chair will report on
feedback from city clerk Kathy Scott regarding amending ordinances expanding the role of the commission secretary and the feasibility of forming subcommittees and rules regarding executive sessions and emergency meetings. So I'm going to start first with
the subcommittees. Um so subcommittees also have to follow open meeting law. So uh we can make recommendations to the mayor to form the two subcommittees that were identified last meeting which were
burial fund and outreach. Um I think we agreed on three members for each subcommittee. And um the clerk wanted us to be mindful that um one we have to follow open meeting laws which means that the meetings have to be posted just like
ours are uh within 48 hours so of the public can know about them. Um with members three members uh it's important to remember that two is a quorum. So any subcommittee business can only be addressed in the subcommittee meeting.
So we can stay stay out of that. So essentially we can we can um vote tonight to recommend to the mayor uh that we would like to form two subcommittees and then the mayor will say yes or no. So I think our our role
tonight is to agree on uh one how many members you know last meeting we talked about three two um about the parameters of the subcommittee what are they tked to do and uh how long do we anticipate the subcommittees to
continue um so any thoughts on that because I'm going to do one at a time I'm not going to get into the other stuff until we can talk about the subcommittees uh any comments on Bam. >> Um, yeah. I'm sorry that this is kind of
awkward, but I have a message from the mayor from just uh under an hour ago, and I wasn't sure if this is something you had talked to her directly about. So, I just wanted to communicate that she said to me, "No, on two subcommittees, one subcommittee at the
most with an end planned for." and I asked for clarification about why and I haven't heard back because it was just a little while ago. So, I can speculate that it is probably about um the just the burden on staff and on people's time, but I'm not positive why that is.
But, if we're looking for her approval, it might be in our best interest to triage for tonight. >> Okay. All right. Uh Abby, I apologize. I wasn't here last month for the conversation about the
subcommittee. Um so I was just curious about um who would make up the subcommittee. Are they like um new appointments? So it' be people other than the current committee members and
how we would go about filling those positions. Was that discussed last time? And I missed it. I didn't see anything in the notes about that. >> The subcommittees have to be commission members. >> So, it just be like the five of us,
three of us would be on one committee and three of us on another committee. I just don't understand the point. I guess like I personally don't see a point in having a subcommittee for us to just get together on another date to talk about the same stuff that we've been talking about here.
Um in the notes from last month's meeting was the burial fund which uh is of an urgent nature and that's really what start sparked the conversation about the subcommittee is that um how we are going to work together uh with that is through a subcommittee because a
subcommittee uh we meet once monthly you know our meetings are set on a schedule uh based on our ordinance and all the things. So, um, it sounds like, uh, you you are you on board with one, uh,
subcommittee, uh, and I think that's a conversation that we can have. Which one? You know, in my opinion, I think the burial fund is the more urgent matter. Uh, and and it needs needs a fairly quick turnaround time. Uh, and we still have to follow open meeting law. So, that that's and and what do folks
think about that? The mayor kind of weighed in. Uh, we can only do one. Um, so what do folks think on that? Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. If we're only going to be able to do one subcommittee, I would feel more
comfortable having that subcommittee be for burial funds. Um especially if we have a lot of emergency meetings, it might be easier if we just have the subcommittee as opposed to getting a
quorum with the current numbers that we have. >> Okay. Thanks, James. Uh anybody else? >> Yeah. Um I'm I'm I guess I'm I'm trying to see it. Um because I know
there was talks about two but I think the one subcommittee for the burial fund I think is the more pressing issue. I think that's where some of the funding has already been expended as well. So I think that takes a little more conversation. I understand why break it down into a subcommittee but we also have a small group.
>> Um we meet once a month. So I understand having a subcommittee maybe meeting in between when we meet as a big group to have these conversations and you know about the the burial fund and moving that forward a little more because I know there's been a lot of talks about it too. So I'm on board with one
subcommittee um and possibly meeting in between um the bigger meetings. >> Okay. Um welcome Michael. Um please note Michael Thorough has entered the meeting. uh and we note him as as having uh being attended. Do you have any thoughts about
this, Michael? I don't know how much of this you heard. Um want to give you an opportunity to weigh in. >> Yeah, I mean I think if um the subcommittee is going to move some things forward faster that would be helpful um just because yeah, I know we have some things come up. I know the
mayor had talked about um some of the burial funds the other day because I think they wanted to use some of them. Uh, so if we could vote on things quicker, I think it's a good idea. Um, I don't know how much we would use it for past that, but um I think it's a good
option to have. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, any more discussion about uh the creation? It sounds like we we have a uh you know most of the folks are are saying that the burial fund subcommittee
works. Um, Abby I'm just I guess I'm still not like I understand having more meetings to finalize some of the burial fund things, the logistics of it, you know, like who's going to how's it going to be paid
out, like how is the um process going to go, but I mean, we already created parameters um for like the amount of money. Um, and I'm just like like Michael was saying, like is this subcommittee going to have
a purpose? Is it going to be like an ongoing thing? you know, like I'm just not seeing the point like we can make we I mean I thought that was like kind of the point of us being here, >> you know, is so that we could make these
decisions and then we would have last we had last and again I wasn't at last month's meeting but the last we had talked about it when I was president was that we were um we were going to um do what do you call it the um
you know we call the special meeting. I don't I don't remember what it's called. >> Executive session. >> Yeah. For any decision making that happened outside of our regular meeting time. >> That still has to follow open meeting
law. And um to your point, Abby, um the subcommittee would not be tasked with creating the process. That is our job. And that's on the agenda this evening to look at documents that were created to help with that. what what the subcommittee is is formed for is for the
actual requests that come through so that that we could respond quickly. Um I've had a conversation with the funeral home uh Castansky is one of the directors and you know their viewpoint is is they have to get a response in
order to proceed with a burial. Um, so honoring their process and honoring our capacity, the quickest way to do that is to form a subcommittee of three people um so that they they could make a more rapid response than we can um knowing
that we're meeting once a month. Uh we can call executive session, but you know that gets into um is everybody able to we have to have four people to have a quorum uh with with a subcommittee. two is a quorum. So, it's a lower threshold.
Um, and it's a it's sort of like a it's as rapid as a response as we can get uh in this need, but I'm holding both both needs, the funeral home and the families who are waiting for for a decision. Um, and our process, which uh, you know, is
the subcommittee's job is not to create the process. We're going to create that as a commission and they're they're just going to review the request and make sure that they fit the parameters and then make make a recommendation to the city that we that the the commission recommends that this this request is
approved. That that is the process. >> Thank you Sarah for clarifying that. So they the subcommittee is just um doing the like process after we've already done everything. So these
are two people are going to decide or look at the applications decide >> they fit the parameters or they don't. >> Yes or no? >> Well three but a quorum would be two. So if only two showed up. >> Yes. >> You know >> that is correct.
>> Thank you. >> Yep. Pedro. >> I I just some clarifying questions as you know we're opening up for conversation. How often the would the subcommittee meet and what's the volume of things they'll be voting on? Like
again, I know it's for the burial fund. So like if you know tragedy does occur and it kind of presented to the subcommittee presented to the whole to the whole commission and then it's it's brought down to the subcommittee, the subcommittee brings it up. >> No, the subcommittee is is is commission
members. So the subcommittee will be tasked with making that decision. >> Okay. Um and the the I don't think uh in my opinion that we should set up a regular schedule for the subcommittee. The subcommittee will only uh meet when there is a request and then we could
write that into um the parameters and the city support will help us with that to make sure that um our subcommittees are um legal, you know, and follow the city's parameters for that. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Um, so any other questions about um games? >> Yeah. Point of clarification, would that be the mayor's office who's reaching out to the subcommittee should we get um a request from a family?
>> It goes through the mayor's. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, so the mayor will notify um the chair of the subcommittee um or this commission and saying, "Hey, we have a request." And then um uh whoever is wants to be on the subcommittee. I think last meeting uh we had three of us that
raised our hands. I think it was myself, Michael, and Anna. Um but we're you know, open to entertaining other folks um to do that. And you know, I think the subcommittee will exist as long as the the the commission exists. Um you know,
the funding is there for that. Pedro, >> I'm sorry. Um, so just one more question on on the subcommittee. Um, because now this information won't be presented to the whole commission, but is that something like the subcommittee would present at one of our monthly meetings
to kind of go over with the rest of the commission? >> Yeah, there will be a report. Yeah, there will be a report um you know and and um so every month we'll have a section that says report out from from the subcommittee and if there's nothing to report out uh so thank you for that because that that was something that um
needed to be said. you know, how is it going to get to uh the commission? And that's how it would get to the commission is that there would be a report out every month of uh what what has been um approved. Abby,
>> I have a question about confidentiality. One of the reasons that we had talked about doing an executive uh meeting was that it wasn't open meeting and we could have information about the families
um presented to us and make a decision if it's open meeting through a subcommittee. How are we maintaining folks confidentiality? >> The subcommittee follows the same open meeting rules and confidentiality rules as this commission. So, the subcommittee
would call an executive session um to discuss. >> It just kind of feels like we're just trying to um trying to like skirt tail having four of us instead of two or having two of us
instead of four of us. you know, that's what it kind of So, it's like doing exactly the same stuff as we're doing, but instead of it being all of us, it's only going to be, you know, potentially two of us. >> Yeah. It's response time. It's the
capacity to respond um in in a quick manner and and set up a subcommittee meeting quicker than we can. We meet once a month. >> No, I understand that. But it's going to be the same process. The mayor says, "Hey, I have a request." They call the chairperson. The chairperson is going to
get a hold of the folks, which is the committee members that we have here. You know, I feel like what I mean, I'm willing to be responsive. You know, you said that you, Michael, Anna, are all willing to be responsive.
you know, so I just don't understand how that's not as quick of a process as what the subcommittee is doing if we're we're saying we're going to call an executive session because we meet once a month and it's not about being responsive in that way.
A subcommittee that doesn't meet on a regular schedule can set up a meeting pretty quickly u quicker than we can >> quicker than we can do an executive counsel is what you're saying. Well, it's not executive council >> or executive what do you call it
>> special meeting >> because there has to be four four of us as opposed to two of us. So that that's where that lies and that's the why we had the conversation. It's dark. >> All right, there we go. Uh thank you. Um Michael has his hand race.
So, I see it as um it kind of just I mean the subcommittee to me doesn't really hurt us either way. It just kind of gives us an option to go fairly quickly and setting up a meeting and having you know two of us be there or three of us be there instead of
trying to get uh four of us from the whole group. And especially again since like Sarah said our meetings are scheduled annually for the month. Um, so if something comes up, I think it's easier to get the subcommittee together than trying to get the entire group together. Um, but it's I think it's also
a thing that, you know, say because I know somebody asked me on Friday about some of the burial funds. Um, and we're having a meeting on Monday. It's something that we could still, you know, be like, okay, we don't need to send it to the subcommittee. We're going to be meeting on Monday. It's something that could possibly wait through the weekend.
But I think having that option will be helpful. Um, so that's just kind of my thoughts on it. Y >> I'm just wondering what it says in our town charter or open meeting law um
given the subcommittees and as they relate to commissions like would that be something we would be able to do if we are forming a subcommittee whose sole purpose is to go over burial funds and given the timing of requests would we
still need to have the subcommittee or Could we just like then have the whole board vote on like I'm just wondering what the legality is that as it relates to our town charter. >> The subcommittee is legal. >> That part I understand. But if the work
in the formation of the subcommittee is purely around the burial funds >> and looking over all of that, then can like do we as a board can we also just like decide, oh well then like this month or this week we're going to have
the subcommittee do it and then now this burial request we're going to all get together and like >> it has to be consider No, we have to have we have to have we have to have Well, that's not what Michael said. we have to have uh the the subcommittee that that's their sole um creation if we
vote on that is that's their sole scope of work >> is that so we can't no we can't flip if if we create a policy and we create a subcommittee then then we're beholden to that policy unless we we vote to rescend it >> okay >> so that was a really good question
>> and then uh my second question is I'm not finding anything in the notes and I don't remember um what was the other subcommittee that we were thinking >> outreach outreach >> an outreach subcommittee. >> Yeah. >> O
>> yeah. So that you know because we were thinking >> we can only have one. >> We can only have one >> and there's no possible way we can like mold the two. >> No, I think that's really muddying the waters of having a having a burial fund and a
>> um that's just my my viewpoint on that. Um, I think we have to have a pretty straightforward >> committee. >> Yeah, that I understand. I also want to just uh touch on which I don't know if I'm going out of order when it comes to our old business and our new business
because I think there's a lot on the burial fund. So, it's a little bit the agenda. It's hard for me to follow. >> Yeah, because we're just on the subcommittee part. Yeah. So, if it's later in the agenda, we'll talk about it later in the agenda. >> Yeah. If if what I am saying is later in the agenda, >> feel free to cut me off. But um when it
came to uh secretary and all of that, we don't currently have a secretary. >> Yeah, I have a I have a response from the city. That's actually that's in this this segment. So you're that's coming up next. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Um I think Abby was first and then
Pedro. Abby. Um, I think that I mean my opinion I think that it would be better to have an outreach committee than a burial fund committee. I think the amount of work that's going to go into needing outreach is going to be
more than this committee is wanting to take on and having an additional subcommittee because we are charged with getting the voice of people with lived experience to be making all these decisions, lived in living experience and those affected. So, um, I'd like us
to consider, you know, I understand the turnaround time, but I believe that, you know, the folks at this table are committed to responding. I mean, I don't think we've ever not responded and that we could respond in a very timely manner to make
these um decisions on the burial fund pretty quickly. and something like the outreach. It's very important to have that outreach in our community to continue to get the voices of those with lived and living experience. It's a big undertaking and so I would con like us
to consider having that as the one committee versus or subcommittee versus the burial >> um kind of on that same note. Um, but I I think I have like a opposite viewpoint of that only because I I feel like with the outreach, uh, and I think you kind
of said it when you were speaking, Abby, it's it's a it's a bigger task to take on. And I think if it's since we could only have one or recommendations from the mayor to have one subcommittee, I feel like the outreach piece lies on the whole commission to kind of do that, you
know. Um because that is a big undertaking to take on and I think that's an even bigger task just to place on two members of the commission on a subcommittee. >> Um I think the outreach component is is a big responsibility and it's definitely needed because we're the voice. We need to hear the voices. they need to get out
to the community as well and and engage. Um, so I think that's having more people to do that, the whole commission to do that, I think would we would we'd be better suited for that than having a subcommittee of two members trying to do all that outreach. I just feel like
that's a big task to take on in a subcommittee that's going to be of two individuals. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. And, uh, and Anna, um, I want to give you an opportunity to weigh in. I think you know we've heard from most of the members and I want to hear from Anna u what your what your thoughts
>> I kind of agree with everyone and changed my mind with the last person who spoke in this conversation but I guess that the thing to keep in mind is that the open meeting law makes it so that we can't do the natural middle ground thing which is like to have folks working on
casually perhaps outreach and then coming back and reporting to us. We can have like we can have assignments. We can say this month Pedro is going to look at like locations and then he can just so happen to run into Yams while he's doing that and they can do it together. But if they set up a Zoom
meeting or take notes or write, we don't want it to be an official subcommittee because then it it falls under the open meeting law. Um I think I started this conversation feeling that the burial fund subcommittee would definitely be my priority. But I guess I do agree with Abby that what we're talking about is
actually a pretty short meeting and hopefully a rare one and we can do it on Zoom. So I do I do think it's possible for us to be responsive enough to have four people come together the last minute for what will hopefully be a pretty brief Zoom meeting um and make
those decisions together. Um, so now I wonder if we need any subcommittees, but >> well, I also want to, you know, uh, just bring up the fact too that, um, you know, there are members on this commission that, you know, everybody here has a full-time job. Um, many of us
do things other than this commission on our personal time. Um and I am talking about myself as well because you know right now uh between this commission and the warming center um I I don't have that capacity you know and there might be other people that are that that will
eb and flow um and it and I'm just worried um that and I'm not saying the folks won't be responsive to a meeting called but the capacity is a different story you know are we going to have capacity to um meet in the evening hours
um when these requests come through because that's that's what it's going to look like. Um I I can't, you know, uh attend a meeting during my work hours um for this, you know, I have to clear boundaries. So I I just um
my my question is are folks ready to vote either yay or nay on the subcommittee? Um because we have to decide and it sounds like majority wanted burial. Um and then some some are saying no. So I'm I'm sort of taking a
pulse check here. Um you know, are we going to vote on a subcommittee? Are we going to table it? Because um you know, we we have a a request this evening that we will be discussing in in um my brain just took a fart there.
Executive session. Thank you very much. Um and uh we can't really predict, right, like how often the requests are going to come through. Uh, and and in what manner? Um, and I think Pedro had his hand raised. No, Abby had her hand raised first and then Pedro then. So,
Abby, >> are we allowed to open up more seats on the subcommittee or is it just the people that are here? Like we we are not allowed to have more. >> No, our our city charter you cannot
appoint um members of the public to an official subcommittee of a public body. So, it has to only be the folks in this or on this on this um commission. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, that would that would be a good
suggestion if we could invite more people on, but we we cannot. Um Pedro. >> Yeah. Um I guess because I you kind of stated that we're looking to pass a vote, right? Um, so my I I guess I I I
guess I want more clarity with the outreach component. You know, if if we have to choose to move forward today with one subcommittee >> like, you know, I think we the the burial fund subcommittee was
explained fairly well. We have documents that we looked over um and we had a conversation about it today and last month, but I just feel like I don't have enough information to say yay or nay on an outreach subcommittee yet either. Um because I'm not quite sure like what that's going to entail with some of that
outreach. You know, um Anna brought up some good points about um when she just spoke about the outreach and what we can and can't do, especially running into people like we have to, you know, practice open meeting laws. So, what would that entail with an outreach subcommittee? like what would their the
responsibility be of the subcommittee that the whole commission wouldn't be able to take on? I think that the outreach is more of I think you said it earlier, right? Is is more of of the whole commission perview
just because the scope of outreach is connecting with the community to um one, you know, educate them on the commission or meetings when we hold them, but also hear their voice about the funds that are that are belong to us, right? And to the people with lived and living
experience. That's the scope of outreach is going out into our community in spaces where um we'll find people, right? You know, peer recovery center is one. I mean, that's a that's a no-brainer, right? Because we all know that folks go through there. Uh but we had conversations about like community
meals, you know, doing tableabling at community meals, uh where some folks are, you know, I also offered if folks wanted to um you know, table at the warming center from 7 to 7, you know, during the 7 to 11 shift, I'm totally cool with that as well. Uh but that's that's what the outreach is tasked with
is um you know creating those conditions so that we can interact with the community about what what it is that we're doing. Um >> a follow-up question to that >> like has there been any any movement on like a community survey
>> um to gauge that from the general public because you mentioned even like you know I >> I'm fortunate enough to kind of do similar work in different communities. Yeah, >> I know Hampshire County is working on a community survey now that they're wrapping up. Springfield is just like they're they're on their pilot phase
right now, finalized questions um and they're going to run it through a pilot phase before they kind of send it out to the general public. And it's questions regarding like opioid abatement funds and how the community wants to see this spent. And they're they're trying to be strategic in who they're having these conversations with or who they're
targeting questions to. people with lived in living experience, people in recovery, families affected by it, people actively using um you know, and so there's different people they're trying to gauge like different um opinions on it as well. So I don't know if that was ever discussed to have like
a community survey here in Greenfield and what that >> we've already had one. Um so we had one um during Mayor Wed Gartner before this commission was even a dream. Um and uh you know just uh to say it out loud because you're a new commissioner member. You know there uh there was no
movement um after our community members gave their voices and they heard crickets. So there's a lot of trauma um that we um have to be mindful about that. Um, you know, I think it's, uh, in our purview to look at, you know, and,
uh, this commission received, I think, six different communities surveys thanks to Megan, uh, Bhutat who's been attending all of our meetings. She's wonderful. Um and you know to so so we can see what other committees have done and and look at ours uh when we do that
attempt again to do the community needs assessment that you know we're in alignment with the questions that are being asked and then we're being intentional with our outreach efforts uh to let them know like you know we we haven't got there as a commission to say okay so we're going to do this survey
then what right like we have to still have to come up with that process like once that's done how do we filter information and how do we start disseminating the funds, like how do we get the funds out? So, we're not quite there with the commission. Um, so that's why no funds have gone out um other than
the burial because we're not there yet. Um, and I think Yam's had her hand raised first and then Anna. >> Yeah. Not uh I kind of feel like we're on new business. I kind of feel like we're on 6A where we're talking about
the creation of a subcommittee as opposed to being on old business and being at 5C discussion of bureau fund and looking over the draft templates. So I guess um
my opinion on voting for either subcommittee be it the burial fund or outreach or no subcommittee. I would feel more comfortable knowing the parameters of like what we're even doing
like our our burial fund application. I feel like a little bit we're kind of putting the the cart before the horse um with this discussion and I would feel more comfortable
tableabling uh the creation of either subcommittee until we have more of an outline of like what we actually are going to be doing when it comes to >> and you're right we we did slide into that conversation when We should have I
should have I should have paused it because um I was just sharing with the commission um the information that I received about the sub. Thank you for that. Uh when we get to new business, we'll revisit that that u motion, Yam. So, thank you for that. >> Uh so, we're just going to move forward
um because this is just uh my reporting to the commission about the conversations that I had. And then they're like Yam said, they're later on the agenda. Uh so, thank you for that. Um let's see. So the next update I have
um is the uh the feasibility of form of of um having a secret having a secretary with expanded uh duties that include financial or
um also having a secretary or a treasurer. So this is this is just information. We're not going to be discussing this yet. I'm just sharing with you uh what Kathy Scott, our city clerk, shared with me. So, in order to do that, we can do that. Uh but the
process is is that, you know, we vote on it. We make a recommendation that we'd like to either expand the secretary's duties or add a treasurer um to our commission. That recommendation once we vote on it that we want to do that goes
to the mayor. Um, and the mayor um creates a document. I don't know what it's called, but we have to change our ordinance. Uh, that's the only way to do that. So, the mayor uh will present that to city council. Uh, actually it goes to ANL first appointments and ordinances.
They either give a thumbs up or a thumbs down. If they give a thumbs up and then it goes to city council and then, you know, the city council vote. So you know if we are going to do that it would be helpful to have one of us present so that we can maybe public comment discuss why uh you know we we are suggesting
this uh but that's the process u any questions about the process um and I see Michael had his hand raised no okay um Abby thanks I actually raised my hand to
respond to Pedro you had asked about like the survey and we've done actually a lot of more than just the survey to get the voice of folks with lived experience but um as Sarah had said like we recently just had um were a part of a
listening session in here at recover project with rise they came and you know wanted to hear from the community we had quite a bit of uh voices of those with lived experience and we I think Sarah had sent out um
the minutes from that uh a while ago. So I just wanted to make sure that you knew as a new committee member that a lot of things have been happening to but with getting the voice but nothing has happened with moving the process forward
because we're still really forming our um you know our plan. And then I wanted to, you know, agree with what Yams was saying earlier that like I kind of do feel like, you know, I don't know what
uh subcommittee for um you know, either of these is going to be either because we don't have a process. So like this kind of like feeling like it's putting the cart before the horse. Um, and then to your thing, Sarah, um,
I don't what I don't understand. So, the treasurer, do we have to have a treasurer? Is that what she's saying? Or we don't have to. She's suggesting one. >> No. Um last meeting we had a conversation about um
a treasurer, you know, because the conversation came up of our how much money is in our account, all the things and having somebody um that could keep track of that. >> Um so that was a conversation from last meeting. So, uh, we have the option of
either recommending to the mayor that we'd like to expand the secretary's role to include financial review, which just means that they they will get the financial documents from the city and they will uh present it to the commission. Um, so that that's kind of
like what we're tasked with either or um and and that's just the process of how we get there. >> And I believe Michael had his hand raised. So I think um when it comes to the secretary of the treasurer, we do have in our ordinance that you know we were
going to get um assistance through the town when it came to technical uh technical things with the committee. Um so I think honestly the treasurer part of keeping track of the money is going to kind of be an internal thing anyways through accounting in the town.
Um so I'm not quite sure if we would really need a treasurer. I mean, it would be good to get reports on how much money we've spent and things like that, but I think I think we can ask for those anyways and they can and they can supply those to the whole commission. Um, so I'm not sure if we would really need and kind of the same thing with the
secretary, like if we need technical support, we did write into the ordinance that, you know, we can request support from the city and that they would support us in certain ways when it came to, you know, supplying, you know, even just documents that we need or copies of things. Um, so I know we talked about
it, but now in thinking about it, I think there might be things that are already written in there that that the city is going to be kind of obl um obliged to help us with anyways. So, I mean, I'm okay with not having to rewrite the ordinance just to have a
secretary and treasurer if we can. I mean, I'd like to make sure that those those are things that they can do, but I don't see why they wouldn't be. Um, those are just my thoughts on that. Thank you. Ys, >> doesn't the ordinance already include a
secretary? It would would it just be updating the ordinance to reflect a treasurer? >> It it No, it it would either be expanding the secretary's definition of what the secretary is doing or adding a a treasurer. >> Okay. Um, so it sounds like folks have,
you know, kind of processed this from last meeting and and uh, you know, so we're I'm just sharing uh what the city said because like we're not going to uh vote on it in this in old business. Um, let's see. And I think
that is it for my updates. Um, and then so, uh, section C, uh, it is old business because we're discussing the burial fund. Um, and you should have received in your email um, draft burial fund application and criteria, draft
templates for approval or rejection letter to applicants and a draft fast response for funeral homes. Um, I took the three communities. I only found three in the whole country. Two of them are in Massachusetts, as you saw, and
one was in Connecticut. Um, so I I I kind of compiled all of those and created a a document. Um, and do the folks on Zoom have access to the documents or do do you need me to share my screen?
Okay. All right. Cool. So, um, the first one is the burial form application. Let me just get to that. the pay. >> No, those are just other communities. One, this is should be
after uh it starts with Greenfield opiate abatement burial fund application. It's after the uh review and scoring rubric. Um >> probably my only time I make a comment is at the beginning.
>> Yes. During public comment. Yes. Having said that, is that stuff available to the public? What you've been documented? >> Yep. Yes, it is. You can go to the city uh city calendar under today tonight's meeting, click our meeting link, and it's all there. >> Thank you. >> And you want to click the one that says show the full agenda.
>> Okay. >> Because then you'll see it. That great question. Um so, uh I What are folks thought about the application? Um you know, I'd like for us to look at it, uh tweak it. Um, and I also took the things that we
agreed upon as a commission, like the $5,000 um per applicant. Um, it's pretty standard. Um, the thing that I I would like uh feedback on is uh the non-traditional cultural practices
because we had a long several meetings of conversation around that. Um, and I came up with like a a guide of of how we can move through that because it's a really hard conversation to have, you know, when somebody says, uh, you know, I'm they number one, they lost their
loved one, but number two is we we don't follow traditional uh and and we should have a a parameter um for that and we have to stay within the this is you know and in this
document if we approve it goes to to the to the mayor, we recommend that that she that this is the application that we would like the city to use and then they they have their legal team look at the you know to make sure that everything is absolutely legal, but we can look at the content and agree that we're okay with
the content or we want to add something in. Um so I'm all ears for what you folks thought about this uh bar fund application. Anna, >> yeah, I think this is fabulous. It's
really as simple as I think it can be. I didn't Nothing stood out to me as something I would get rid of to make it even more accessible. It asked the key questions that we need. The one thing I was curious about was the ID of the applicant as um proof of ID as one of
the required documentations. Um I'm sure that could make sense. I just wasn't sure why. Um, but in general, I like that not only is is it very clear about what it's looking for, it's short, it's sweet. Um, I guess maybe the one other
note I had is in the non-traditional cultural practices section, it asks for a description of the practice/service, my instinct is that people will want to give us a ton of information or not be sure what to ask for. So, the examples are great, but I would just say a brief
brief description. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. So brief description. Okay. Put brief desript. That that that's excellent. And you know, we can take out the proof of ID. I mean, I think it's more important to to provide proof of residency
um for the parameters of of the fund. And I see I see Michael has his hand raised. >> So So I think just at least with the proof of ID part, um the burial permits do come through my office. So, I think it'll be easy for me at least to have
access, >> okay, >> to some of the applicants knowing that, you know, this is the person that applied. This is the death certificate, burial permit that came through my office. So, I think at least in my department's um capacity, we can help with the the proof of ID. Uh, and I
think, uh, the rest of the application looks great. I'm with like Anna, it's brief enough, but it gives us the information we need. Um, and I think in a time of crisis like that, it's not something drawn out that someone's gonna have to spend hours on filling out. Um,
so I I appreciate that part. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh, and Pedro, you had your hand raised. >> Hi. Hey, just one question. Um, with the proof of residency, um, only because, you know, there's a big homeless population as well. Um, so what are you basing like their proof of residency as
like known address on file? Yeah, say they've been >> Can Can someone uh remind me from last month? Well, because I remember we talked about this and um that's hard, you know, because if if they're if they're transit and unsheltered um you
know, I think the only proof is the family members, you know, or um the you know, if there there's always a police report um when there's there's a a medical event that happens, you know, and uh we could seek, you know, um
guidance from, you know, GPD like, you know, uh and and We some of us in this room know committee members because we've been in this committee for a long time and and we get we've gotten to know like who is who is um here um and and
not having a a valid address and I think Michael do you have some insight into that? >> Yeah. So I mean we could certainly look at police reports um usually will either label as transient or last known address. Um, I did see on the application, you know, there is a check
box for like was a Greenfield resident. Um, so even if it is homeless and you don't have a house, if you did live there or, you know, so I think at some at some of that we we kind of have to take people at our at their word. >> Um, I think that's just going to be part
of this process no matter what when it comes to the burial fund. Um, that we we kind of just have to trust people. >> Yeah, I'm in agreement with you there, Michael. Um, you know, we we're just going to have to trust people. Um, is there any further uh conversation about
just the burial fund application? Anna. >> Um, just ever so slightly off topic. Um, for our guests, I noticed that I had not hit publish on the full agenda with attachments on the city calendar. So, it's up there now. If you go to
greenfield-m.gov and click on calendar at the top and this will be true every week. Um, and you go to this meeting, uh, you can see the simple calendar which has our agenda and a Zoom link, but then as Sarah said, there's a a highlighted bar that says, "Click here to view the full agenda with
attachments." >> Thank you. Thank you, Anna. Pedro, >> can can I just make one suggest? >> Sure. >> Can we have a couple extra printed copies of the agenda for future meetings just in case we do have individuals from the general public? I can join, you know. >> Thank you.
>> I know he's trying to look at it his phone and that's hard to do. So, >> thank you for that. Abby, >> I think that this looks great and I wanted to say thank you for doing this. Um, I just wanted to I and I again, you
know, not being maybe talked about last month, but we had a concern about like the proof of substance use um being a factor. And on here it says, you know, you need the the death certificate or
toxicology. And I thought those things were going to take like longer time than what we needed to be able to pay the funeral homes. >> And and I think Michael brought that up is Michael can actually through his uh
role as the board of health director can actually access that information quicker. Um you know, so again like with to Pedro's point, if a family member says that their loved one overdosed, we're going to believe them. Um yeah, that's a good point that that this is
like standard stuff, but we also know and we can agree that um we could seek input if if they passed in Greenfield, right, or Franklin County, uh Michael Thorough is going to have access to that. And and Michael, I'd like you to
>> Can I just say that that's that's the thing like the way that this application reads to me is that we're asking the families to attach these things and they're they're not going to have that, >> right?
>> They can they can click off one one and maybe I can add to the required documentation must must provide at least one of these and proof of Greenville residency will probably be the number one that we're going to get. Um but you know if you if you have a suggestion for changed language Abby absolutely um
because that's what we're doing. We're kind of editing. Um so if you you can think of you know required documentation. Um >> well maybe just let them know that that documentation can be gone like we can provide assistance in getting that
documentation. >> Okay. I will I will >> you know what I mean? Like if they don't know that Michael has it. >> Yeah. you know, they're in they're grieving and the funeral home is saying we can't have this funeral until you pay us and you know there's a lot going on
for that person and so you know they might not know like how to even get that quick enough. >> Thank you. That's an excellent point Abby. Thank you. Um so I wrote um you know that we can we could provide assistance um with with required
documentation if needed um if that works. Um and and Michael, did you have anything to weigh in on about this particular section? >> Yeah. So, I I think we could add, you know, um either, you know, the word optional or like you said, one of one of three of the documents.
>> Um I'm certainly going to, you know, investigate as much as I can, talk to the police, maybe, you know, even if I have to talk to the ambulance that responded, uh look at the burial certificates. Obviously, the toxicology results will probably be the longest
that would take to get. Um, but there certainly are multiple channels that I can look at to at least make uh, you know, a semi-educated decision on what happened. >> Um, so I think that will be very helpful. But I do agree with Abby that maybe we just tweak the wording a little
bit to make it seem like this is not like set in stone that if you don't have this document, then we're going to deny you. >> Yep. Okay. So, I'm going to change it, you know, uh to please provide, you know, at least one of of these three uh options because I I crossed off the proof of ID. Um and then I'm going to
add another bullet point. Um you know, uh we we can provide assistance um if need be. Um and then c can I uh can I put your your email on here, Michael? >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay. Because because then that that's a direct link, you know, so it's not extra
work for the families. um because that's what I'm hearing and I agree. Um low as low barrier as possible. Um so I'm going to add that to the sheet. Um and then I'm just going to summarize uh where we're at so far. Um the the commission
sounds like they're on board with this document with uh some tweaks to uh the section of the description of the practice and service for nontraditional uh burial to include brief description. Um and the section five uh required
documentation. It will say uh you know instead of card uh please provide at least one of of three of these. Um and uh we and then add we can provide assistance uh through our local board of health. Please email you know Michael thorough at um
grreyfieldmass.gov and I will have your right email address in there. Uh is there any other edits to this before I ask for the motion to vote? Would they also be able to contact you as chair and then you could
>> Yes. Yeah. You know, I I will add my email there. Either the chair or the board of health or whoever they're comfortable with because that's a good point. I mean, Michael, we know that you're a pretty easygoing guy, you know, but our our people and our families may not know you, right? So, giving them two options. Hey, the chair of the
commission, uh, you know, my my my face has been out there for 10 years now as a person of recovery. So, um, but yeah, I I love that. Um, so I'm going to add myself there. Add Sarah. Um, can I hear a motion to approve the uh Greenfield
opiate abatement burial fund application with the edits uh that were just identified? >> Motion to approve the Greenfield uh burial fund application with the edits that were just applied. I >> have a second. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Thank you. Going to do a roll call
vote. Abby. >> Uh, yes. >> Anna, >> sorry. >> It's okay. Anna, >> yes. >> Pedro, >> yes. >> AMS, >> yep. >> And Michael, >> yes. >> And I vote yes. We have a unanimous approval of the Greenfield opiate
abatement burial fund application. And then now we're there. We're we're uh moving next to the document entitled uh internal use only application review and scoring rubric which is how whether it's the subcommittee or this commission
about how are we going to be making those decisions. Um we'll have a guiding document um that you know just for for public so in case folks are listening and don't have access to this this documents um uh starts with eligibility gate uh pass or
fail uh and the the the terms on there the residency has been confirmed. Uh the cause of death is linked to substance use. um financial documentation provided. Um that just means if there's uh if somebody has already paid um the
funeral home and we're just simply reimbursing them. That's that's where that lives. That doesn't have to stay there. But I'm just saying this for the public record. Uh no double dipping, meaning if they received uh uh support from another agency like FEMA or MOA or
um there's an indigeny fund through Medicaid also for folks. Um and then part two is the non-traditional expense um and guidance for reviewers uh allowable costs directly related to the disposition of the body which includes
natural burial acclamation I think which is water burial um or essential cultural rights meaning ceremonial clothing visual supplies shrouding not allowable expenses related to guests uh travel hotels excessive catering um permanent
property improvements and there's a scoring key that says approved uh needs info or denied. Um you know and we'll have that score out so so that they'll understand like you know we approved this but not this and why. Um part three
is reasonable cost checklist. Um you know say they have a vendor um we can check out the vendor and make sure that they're legit. Uh we can ask them to provide that that uh information. The vendor to provide that not the family the vendor. um cost comparison. Um I'm
not hung up on that either, but you know that's up for discussion. Any duplicate items and then the final determination uh either it's fully approved, partially approved, or denied and what the reason is. Um and then we give things that have been traditionally approved. Um and what
I don't see on here is I thought I had an appeal. Uh but that's from Oh, so what do we what are some thoughts about the the review and scoring rubric? It's my first attempt doing something like that. So, I definitely want some uh
feedback and what do we all think about this? >> Anna, >> um just regarding the scoring key, and I really like this. I think that it's simple enough approved. We don't have enough information to approve or deny or
it's denied. Um, do we have uh h basically like what is a failing score I guess is my question. Like um should we really just be doing it by line item? Like they've requested a couple of things. I see that one of them is a B,
so we're going to reach out for more information. Um the other two are C's and there's one A, so A is granted kind of thing. >> Um well, no, this does it by line item each one. So, you know, they may have three that's a go and one that's a no,
>> right? That's what I mean. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, that's that's what that expense item is, the scoring key is is so they, you know, they can see that A has definitely been approved, right? And then B, hey, we just need more information from you. It's not a no, but we just need more. >> Um, rather than a flat no,
>> you know, if if I didn't want to set it up so all have to be yes, so that there's there's bits and pieces that maybe we can approve and ones that we absolutely cannot. So it's not so it's not like we can give you a little money for for these things but we cannot prove that one. So I think that's that was the
I was trying to find a common ground um for that. Um >> that makes sense. Um and then on the um just the past fail eligibility the no double dipping. I know that's something that the city is really concerned with that um no shade to the state but that
state agencies might get wind that these funds are available and assume that this should be the default um for assisting people when people are entitled to for example FEMA. Um so I'm I'm glad to see that that's on there. >> Yeah, Pedro. >> Yeah, I I think it's it's great um
putting this together. My my whole thing was on the like the no double dipping. I just feel like like you could use a different term for that instead of double dipping. I feel like the the the application itself is very well laid out, but like the no
double dipping like >> Yeah. What kind of language? No, I'm right with you because I I wasn't So what's some terminology? >> No double no double billing. Um >> well then they say we know we're not billing. >> Yeah, I know. I know. and not you're
putting me on the spot so it's hard to just think of it right on the spot. The double dipping pieces >> and what are because that's a great that's a great thought. What are some some other suggestions about what we can name that because yeah it does sound kind of like um and I was trying to find the the language and it just wasn't
coming and I was like what um >> overlapping >> that's a good one. >> How about no overlapping compensation? Okay. um overlapping um compensation.
Got to make sure this is this all winds up in there. Yes. >> Yeah. Under criteria for no double dipping formerly no double dipping currently no overlapping compensation. Um, how
would we know like what are the checks and balances that we would be doing and would we as a commission be doing those checks and balances or is that something that the city clerk's office does because I also notice that like part of
the reason not to like go back into what we were previously talking about but part of the reason we were talking about secretary treasurer stuff is because uh the current city capacity as it relates to like financial support. Um, yeah. So,
what's the process by which we would even know? Thanks. Question. >> Yeah. And that's a good question because I don't think a state agency is not going to tell us. They're not because that's also confidential information, you know. So, I think that it just saying that out, you know, as a
parameter um so that so that we know. We're not going to know. We're not going to know. But to have it there um and to um you know this will also go to the if we approve it this this and the application will be sent to the funeral home so they know hey how how are we
making our decisions and then you know they can have a conversation with the family about that and saying hey because you're right we don't have any way mechanism of knowing but if it's put out there to folks like hey you may not know this but this is you know if you're
getting support from another agency like FEMA moa or uh you know the indigency fund for Medicaid. um that's considered, you know, overlapping compensation, you know, and then like ha having that and uh and we'll have to have conversations with the funeral homes and to make sure
that they they you know, uh understand that. I had a wonderful conversation with with with Britney from Castansky's um and you know, I I think they're going to really just be happy about that we have a process and that we're showing them and saying, "Hey, this is because they can filter
out stuff too, you know." Um you have another question. follow. >> Yep. >> Um yeah. Yeah. What is the possibility of us being able to like if we have parameters? I also maybe I should just
like be familiar with what FEMA and MOUA MOA what their parameters are as it relates to um burial funds. But if there's things that we're not covering as a commission, like I
personally don't mind if these other agencies would cover those expenses that we are not going to cover. Like if somebody wants that their loved one to like if they want to like do it big like I don't like who am I to be like no
>> you know like if that's just my personal opinion that's just my opinion like if there are clear parameters that we are saying we will cover this but we will not cover that like I'm seeing obviously under here like we're not going to cover excessive spending for like food
especially alcohol and stuff like that we're not going to cover like substance related things obviously. Um, but if there's other agencies that would help out with something that we wouldn't cover, I don't personally have a problem
with that. And I'm curious how other people feel on that. I >> I think it's the the other way around. This is this is when you apply for FEMA funding, it's usually uh, you know, due to disaster or a loss uh due to a
disaster. Um, and they have rules. FEMA has rules. So does MOBA uh has rules that that if you're getting funding from somewhere else, you cannot apply for FEMA as well. Like that that's their regulation. So I was trying to find the balance between because I agree with
you, right? Like I >> Yes. And we're we have state >> Thank you. And I want to go out to Michael and then then Abby. So I think for the wording um we could probably do something like no reception
of benefit from two sources. Uh whether state state federal tribal nonprofit um I think I think if we talk to legal too when they review the document they can probably uh tighten up the wording on that. I also think they can also help
with the checks and balances on it um by kind of adding some wording in the document that you know this is this is all you know like a truthful document. You're signing this saying that you are not receiving these things and that if somebody finds out that you did then
obviously the town can come back at you because you signed this document stating that you were not receiving two types of benefits. Um so I think that's something legal can probably help with. So hopefully they can kind of tighten up the wording on that that will uh make it sound a little better and make it more
of a legal like a legality document saying that you you know you're you're signing this saying that you're not dipping from you know the federal and then from us. Um and if you are that there'll be consequences. Uh so hopefully that can help with that. Uh and then again and I'm hoping that can
also you know curb people from doing it and will kind of be a checking it balance on itself. Um, so that's just my thoughts on that. >> Yeah. And and legal definitely will be looking at these once we've approved them. Um, you know, because they the city will be uh dispensing these, you
know, well, you know, when somebody calls in, they're like, "Oh, there's an application for that. Here you go." Or maybe they're going to the funeral home first, which most likely. So the funeral home will have these things, too. So they could say, "Hey, uh, let's have a conversation about um circumstances." And it's hard, you know, it's super hard. Uh, but yeah, I agree. I mean, uh,
definitely have, uh, um, the legal put the right wording in there because we want to make sure that we're, you know, that we have, um, that solidity to what we're trying to do here. Um, and I believe it was Abby and then Pedro. I'm having a hard time with this part
because I agree with Yams. Like, you know, even we were talking about the $5,000 limit and we approved a couple of folks that were above that limit because we didn't have this in in place yet. The cost for funeral might be 7 $8,000.
And so, where is that family going to get that other $3,000, right? Like that's kind of like, you know, so maybe they did get support from another nonprofit or another organization that paid, you know, three
or4,000 and then by combining them, you know, they're not going to have that hardship. I mean, it doesn't sound like a lot maybe to some people, but two even $1,000 can really throw a family like
out of whack where they can't meet their living expenses, you know, for that for not just this month, but next month you're like it it compounds, you know. So, I I heard like that FEMA has rules and and MOA has
rules, but I don't feel comfortable with our not allowing double dipping. It just doesn't feel good to know that like this money is not state money. It's not
federal money. this is uh lawsuit money from from um pharmaceutical companies, you know, and this money. So, it's not like double dipping in that sense where it's like you're taking from this federal fund and now you're getting paid
out of this federal and it's all the same money. This is separate money that I think could be uh added to to make them whole or to pay the whole expense. There there's also the other side of
that coin. Um because I I I'm hearing you and that's why it specifically says another state agency or FEMA or NOVA and not a nonprofit, right? Somebody wants to get nonprofit money, go for it. Um but the other side of the coin is, and I
totally agree with you, you know, it it I have, you know, I have loved ones that uh we had to bury. um it's hard, you know, it's hard to to to have to fork out that money unexpectedly. But there's also um putting that in
writing sort of um discourages folks who uh maybe already have it fully paid for by a state agency or FEMA or MOA and are are now requesting from the commission that we also give them $5,000 for a burial
that's already been paid for. So, you know, I I like to entertain like how we mitigate that in a in an open way. like what questions can we ask so that it doesn't come across, right? Is what you just said. Um that if if you have a
nonprofit that is supporting you and you're going to apply for burial funds, like I think that's reasonable, but if they have a whole state agency or federal federal entity that paid for the whole thing, um you know, I think FEMA goes up to 4,000 uh for burial. Uh and
I'm not sure of MOVA. Uh but yeah, I agree. So, is there a way that we can put uh different language in that section that honors what Abby just brought forward? >> Can we just say, are you receiving funds from blank and then how much, you know,
what's the total cost? We'll just ask, you know, what's what's the cost of the funeral? $7,900. And are you receiving funds from any other place? And how much? and then like just ask and then you know
go through I mean what I'm hearing too is like we might not even have a way of checking this so we are going to kind of lean on people's you know being honest with us and hope that they are >> so I like I like that that we can just
ask them we can take out four it sounds like that that we're in agreement that four should go away in in its language but instead we can just simply ask Are you receiving other funds from other places and how much and do you do you have um any documentation that you can
provide so that we know uh oh Michael lost his bandwidth. Um so we know how much you know and they're receiving from somebody else because guarantee they've gotten a letter of approval if they've got money from a nonprofit or other they're going to have that in writing.
Um, and I think it's fair-minded to kind of ask that question, but thank you for that because that was a good workaround. Yam's Oh, sorry. Pedro, then Yams, you're right. >> Yeah. So, um, and it's on on Yam's point and Aby's point, too, because I I definitely agree. I feel, uh, funeral expenses are pretty high. Um, and for
certain individuals, they $5,000 is just a starting point for some, you know, >> um, and, you know, some people want something big, you know, and I totally agree with that as well. Um and about the language piece because I know um we you know just talking about like the no double dipping but even changing the
language because again if you can get funding from somewhere else like that should be okay you know I don't want to like say oh no you're already receiving funding from this organization or this agency or this state um or we can't give you anymore you know u but like can we
put it something in writing you know because again this money isn't federal funds from a lawsuit. So, great point there, Abby. Um, where we can say something, you know, um, there'll be no overlapping compensation for duplicate expenses. >> That way, you know, again, it's we're
we're going to provide the funding, but we're not going to provide this funding >> for something that you already sought out funding that's going to cover this portion of it. >> You know, we'll give you this other $5,000 to cover everything else that it's not covered through that expense that you already got. you know, because I just don't want to say no
>> because we know the the the price for funerals and for, >> you know, um and they're costly and for individuals that don't have the means to provide that, you know, most individuals >> Yeah. >> Yeah. don't don't have that connection anymore, you know. So,
>> um so I I love that, Pedro. I do. Um and Yam, did you have something else to add to you had your hand raised? I didn't want to forget about you. Yeah, that was I was basically going to ask the same thing if we can put in writing specifically also that um they're
receiving of like if we're going to say have you received funds from any other state organi or organization or nonprofit? Um if so, how much? If there could also be something that like very
clearly states that that is not going to be something that >> disqualifier >> will disqualify them and then I feel like people would be more apt to be open and honest and and give out that if they know that like >> Yeah. I don't know. It just feel like
this is already a difficult enough thing. >> Yes. And thank you, Abby, for pointing out that this is like this is how we got this money. Like, not to be really blunt, but like people lost their lives. A lot of people lost their
lives and sometimes their livelihood for a portion of their lives. Like that's why we have this money because it created a great disruption across our entire nation. So to then have this money that
we are going to use for when people are losing their lives still and then create more barriers. It feels strange. I don't know. I want to be like taking down barriers and not like
putting up barriers especially when we're talking about a community of people like a lot of us have lived or living exper lived or living experience and have worked with people with lived or living experience and we understand the stigma and I don't want people to feel like we're an unapproachable board
or commission because we're creating more barriers and then then it feels even more inaccessible and all of this stuff like if we're here to uplift the voice of the people and people who are still living through this and the family members who are still affected like I
don't know I say we really go big because we're already doing it if they're already looking at our ordinance across the country and being like wow this is really progressive like let's really show them how progressive tiny old Greenfield Massachusetts can be and that's just my two-piece thank you
>> Yep I'm I'm 1% uh behind what you just said ys um And that's why we're discussing this because this is, you know, some of it is um form, you know, and not not exactly, you know, h how my heart goes either. Um but I appreciate
that. So it sounds like for this section, um we're we're going to ask them the question, you know, are you receiving other funds from other places? Um you know, how much? And you know, uh, whether you answer yes or no is not a
disqualifier from receiving funds. Um, we we are just asking that there's no overlapping of duplicate expenses. Um, so that folks know like what they're walking into. Hey, this is this is okay. This is not okay. Um, so that's what I heard. And I see Abby has her hand
raised. >> Um, I think that we just voted on the application, didn't we? And so what we're talking about is the internal document. So I think that we need to go back and amend our vote for the
application to include this language and these these like this breakdown that we're now talking about in this document. Is that right? >> I'm just trying to see what else. Um >> yes, it's a separate vote. So, um, what
I'm hearing is that, um, uh, Abby is recommending that we suspend the rules, uh, and move back to the, uh, Greyfield opiate abatement barrel fund application to add in, um, the new language that we, uh, had talked about about, uh, the
criteria and number four. Um, can I hear a motion to suspend the rules? >> Can we actually wait? I don't I think maybe it'd be beneficial to finish the review of the documents, but like kind of keep that in mind that we are going to have to go back and change the
application because there might be more things as we move forward. So, I don't want to do it too early. >> Okay. Uh good point. Thank you. Um any other uh commentary on the rest of the rubric as it's written?
I I think I I'd like to um remove the cost comparison. I don't think that we're gonna really uh we don't have the bandwidth for that. Um so I I'd like to um take that out if folks agree uh that
it's not in our purview to have a cost comparison. Um Abby um we had talked about like they were going to have invoices or receipts. So is that how
I don't see that on the internal use? Like, isn't that how we're going to know how much the things cost because they got a invoice from the funeral home or receipt for, you know, whatever the thing was.
Um, I believe, let's see, it's on there. I think uh financial documentation provided, invoices, quotes, or receipts. It's on section the criteria number three. number three. >> Gotcha. I see it. Okay. Thank you.
>> No, you're welcome. >> Right. So, we don't need the cost comparison because they have receipts, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I think we Any other suggestions for the uh rubric? Okay. Um, so I'm going to make I'm going
to ask for a motion um to approve the application review and scoring rubric with the following edits. Um under number four criteria we're going to uh simply add uh are you receiving other funds from other places? If so, how
much? Um uh please note yes is is not a disqualification from funds. Uh but we do ask that you keep in mind there will be no overlapping uh for duplicate ex expenses. Um and uh we are taking out under part
three reasonable cost checklist. Uh the second one which is cost comparison. Uh can I hear a motion to um approve that as stated? >> A motion to approve it as stated. >> Thanks Abby. I have a second. >> My second.
>> Okay. We'll do a roll call vote. Um Anna, >> yes. Yams, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> And Pedro, >> yes. >> And Sarah is a yes. So, we unanimously approved the application review with
scoring rubric uh with the edits um unanimously. Um, and then we're back to the um motion to suspend the rules um to go back to uh the Greenfield opiate
abatement burial fund application so that we may add uh the edits to the rubric. Can I hear a motion? >> So moved. >> Hear a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Uh roll call vote. I'll start with Pedro. >> Yes.
>> AMS. Yes. >> Abby. >> Yes. >> And Anna, >> yes. >> And Sarah votes. Yes. Unanimous uh to suspend the rules. >> Oh, Michael. Sorry, Michael. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Miss approved to suspend the
rules. Uh so we're back on the barrel fund application. Um and we are adding Can someone uh walk me through what we're adding uh to the burial fund application? I believe that we're adding the
um statement about the receiving extra funds. Um and I'm just trying to figure out where should we put this in the application. >> So, sorry, >> Abby. Um, I think we just like the funding
request, um, section three where you have it broken out with traditional, non-traditional. >> Yep. >> Um, I think we can just add a line in there about, you know, are you receiving
other funding, you know, other the language like the language in our review that we had just talked about or was like you know, and and have the little part at the bottom that says, you know, doesn't disqualify you from
um receiving a a benefit. >> Okay, perfect. How much and I'm just writing this uh >> and while we're at the this section, I think that there could be multiple providers.
So we only have one section for provider like you have like the funeral home at the top but there could be other expenses related that it's not build through the funeral home directly that are build elsewhere
and then the I mean a non-traditional you could have multiple service providers or vendors so maybe just some more space and indicating you know adding Wonderful suggestion, Abby. Add more
space for vendors. Okay. Um any other additions to the uh burial fund application? Okay. So, um with that being said, um I would like somebody to make a motion to approve the Greenfield opiate abatement
bar application uh with the following edits. Um under funding request type uh we're we're going to add uh the the statement uh are you receiving other funds from other places? Uh if so, how much? Uh please note that a yes response
is not a disqualifier from receiving funds and we just ask you to not overlap for duplicate expenses. Um, Abby, >> sorry, Sarah. I just also I'm sorry. I I was just checking to see
if we have a spot where it tells them to that they need to provide a receipt and I don't see that in section three. >> Payment payment method, etc. >> Oh, I got it. It's in five. Section
five. Okay. Thank you. >> No, you're welcome. And thank you for, you know, I I I need everybody's eyes, you know, on this and comb through it. So, um any other um edits? >> Okay. Um so, I I um I'm looking someone to make a motion to approve the
Greenfield opatement burial fund application with the following edits. Uh under section 3, funding request type. Are you receiving other funds from other places? If so, how much? Uh please note that a yes response is not a disqualifier uh from rece receiving
abatement funds. We just ask that you do not overlap uh duplicate expense requests. Um and I'm sure the lawyers will come up with a you know a nicer way of saying that. Uh category B uh we're going to add more space for more vendors. Um and you know uh we've
already addressed other edits in the previous motion. So, um, can I have a motion to approve the, uh, the application with the new edits? >> Motion to approve application with new edits. >> I have a second. >> I second. >> Roll call. Abby,
>> h, yes. >> Um, Michael, >> yes. >> Anna, >> yes. >> Pedro, >> yes. >> Yams, >> yep. >> Sarah's a yes. We have a unanimous approval of the Greenfield opment burial fund application with its edits.
Moving right along. Moving right along. We're doing a really good really good work here today. Um so the next one is a notice of approval that would be sent to the family. Um and
for the public it it this is what it says. You know on behalf of C Greenfield, please accept our deepest condolences condolences for the loss of your loved one. We hope this assistance provides some relief to you and your family during this difficult time. We have reviewed your application and are writing to inform you that your request
for a burial assistance has been approved in the amount of X uh payment details. It says that the the I'm going to edit that right now. Uh the grant is funded through the opioid abatement settlement fund is restricted for use toward the funeral burial expenses listed in your application. Um, if you
selected direct vendor payment, a check in the amount above will be issued directly to the name of the funeral home or provider uh within X business days. Um, I will let the city put the X in there because I don't know the turnaround time for the financial. Uh, we will notify the provider that payment
is on the way. Um, if you select a reimbursement, a check is being processed in your name. It will be mailed to the address on file. Uh, please retain retain this letter for your records. Um, and then it says, "No on nontraditional services. Uh, your request for a specific service has been
approved as an allowable expense under a cultural and non-traditional barrier guidelines. If you have any further questions or if the funeral home requires verification of this pledge before the check arrives, they may contact our office at they would call the city uh for that for
you know when that uh so the the the turnaround time is unknown um at this time. So, um I I'm comfortable if we approve this um that the city will amend that to whatever is a reasonable turnaround time for them. Uh cuz I I don't know and I don't think they know.
It depends on, you know, what's happening and the day of the week and um there's a lot of moving parts in the city. So, what are folks thought on this um notice of approval? Anna, >> um, for reimbursement for the city to
send somebody a check directly, um, we need a W9 form for them. So, I'm wondering if that's something we should ask people to fill out when they submit the application if they're asking for reimbursement or wait and communicate with them after it's been approved. It's
a super easy form. You just sign in, it has your address. Yeah, I'm thinking that we can wait until after it it's approved. Just, you know, keeping in mind um where the family's at and how hard it is anyway. Um that's just my
suggestion. Um and I think Pedro >> is is that something that we can add to the approval letter? Like if they're looking to seek out reimbursements, you need to fill out W9 form. >> Um and you can find it at >> d W9 form. Yeah, I'm adding that right
right now cuz that's that's an excellent s suggestion. >> Yeah, in fact, I think the IRS has a short URL like short enough that we could type it out. It's just like IRS.gov/w9 or something and say like so yes, um if you selected reimbursement, uh there's
just one more step and it's to fill out a form found here. >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> Or we can come up with a process where we just uh we send the approval letter to them. We put the W9, blank W9 in there. Uh that's also a low barrier, too. So, we're not relying on them to
kind of um in their grief state navigate. And I, you know, I it's easy to click a link or you know, but just thinking about the what state they're in um and Michael and then Abby. >> So, I I think just from dealing with
with buying and dealing with vendors in general, um I think just adding the W9 as subtle as we can into the paperwork would be the best bet. uh it could hold things up and and I really don't want to hold up any I don't want to make the process take any longer than it has to.
So it's I I understand it's another layer that you would have to fill out at the time. But I think if we kind of try to add it in as subtle as possible with a link that gives them, you know, clear concise directions on just what they need to do real quick. Uh I think that will definitely make the payment happen
a lot quicker. Um because I think it would be worse if something comes up and we have a whole debacle of trying to get a W9 out and then we're struggling to get the money to them. >> Yeah. Yeah. Agreed. I agreed. Thank you, Michael and uh Abby.
>> Um for that exact reason, I think it has to be with the application. like we can't we like they are like it's hard enough to fill it out the application. Having one more piece of paper to sign at that time is less I think um
cumbersome than oh I got approved but now I have to do this other thing to actually get the the money. I think that that's more so just like we can even if if they are if this is I don't know if we plan on having electronic application
or if this is going to be a paper application but either way we either just have include the link to the W9 or have a paper form right with the application. If you check this box for, you know, um vendor um uh reimbursement,
then please fill out sign, you know, the W9. >> Okay. So, you'd like us to go go with the application itself. >> All right. Yeah, because I was just thinking about collecting, you know, uh data that's protected. Uh but I see your point. I agree. I mean, if if it's there
and they're they're clicking off the boxes that require it, then yeah, that that cuts that step out. Um, any I think you're next and then Michael. >> Yeah, I agree that it should go on the application which then would we have to go back? Would we have to
>> It would be an attachment. No, we're approving this document by itself. So, yeah, how we decide how they get it is is totally fine. >> Because we just voted on the application, do we have to revote on the application to add this piece
>> to add the W9? Um well we we we do um that you know or we could just um my my idea was just to um >> keep it in like approval of >> just Yeah. Yeah. But no but just
>> they get the application and then they have access to we can print out print out the W9. Yeah. So they can they can they can do that it independently from the application. I mean it you know so that's that's my idea. >> Yeah. I I'm in agreement. I'm in agreement with Abby and and and Michael
and whoever else maybe had mentioned that, but I think it should be with the application and not at the end, not a surprise of like because also we we don't know if then that would hold it up. We don't want to tell people, hey, you're approved now. It's held up and I
hope we don't, but let's say we do get more applications in that time and then now we're over the $50,000 limit. It's just like we don't want to do that. >> Yeah. Gotcha. Michael, >> uh, just to clarify some stuff, I think, um, from Aby's part, uh, the application, I believe, uh, we could
probably do like an online fillable form that could be printed out, but I'm not aware of the town and I don't think Anna is either of any electronic signatures that we can accept. We we don't work with electronic signature company or anybody that does any of that. So, I
think no matter what, the signatures are going to have to be live. So, in some form, I think you might be able to fill out the application online, but I think the paperwork and the final product is going to have to kind of be paper and dropped off somewhere. >> Yeah. Yeah, agreed. Um,
and I think Did you have your hand raised, Anna? No. Um, so it it sounds like um the notice of approval um seems like everybody, you know, is is cool with the
way it's written and um I agree, you know, we can add to our process that, you know, when when we hand somebody application, the W9 will go with it, you know, and saying, you know, uh if you're thinking of a non-traditional cultural burial, he you only need to fill this
out for that reason, you you know, um because I think that that will also reduce the downtime and the because I'm in agreement with all of you, you know, we we don't want to create more stress for the families. We don't want delays. Um you know, unfortunately that you
know, we know that ME reports are delayed statewide and nationally. I mean, they just can't keep up with the amount of folks that are that are dying. Um and we don't want families to wait either. Um, so, um, can I hear a motion to approve the notice of approval?
>> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Okay. I have a second. >> Second. >> Okay. Um, Abby, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Okay. Yams, >> yes. >> Pedro,
>> yes. >> Anna, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. Sarah. Yes. Uh we uh unanimous approval of the uh city of Greenfield Mass open use and prevention commission notice of approval for the abatement burial fund application.
All right. Next up, we're almost done with these documents. Um is the uh status of burial fund application uh a rejection notice. And for the public, it says, "Dear applicant, thank you for submitting an application to the Greenfield Opiate Abatement Burial Fund.
We are truly sorry for your loss and appreciate you reaching out to us. After after careful review of your application, we're unable to approve your request at this time for the following reasons. Uh residency requirements. Um I'm sure we're going to have conversations about cause of death
verification. Um ineligible expenses, other um you know, maybe they do have a duplicate that's you know, for the full cost of the burial, those kind of things. Uh can this be fixed? Uh if you believe this decision was made an error or you have additional documentation uh
such as a corner's letter or proof address that was not included in your in original application, you may submit a request for rec reconsideration within 14 days of this letter. Uh please contact and um that will be um the mayor's office
uh that they contact to discuss alternative resources or other general assistance programs that may be available to help you uh with sympathy. Uh so what are some folks thoughts about this? I already know that the cause of death verification is challenging. Um as discussed before, Michael Thorough has
access to vital records uh that could give us insight into that. Um and if there's some confusion about that, then um you know, I have personally called an ME about a family member that, you know, we were seeking information and they
they can give an unofficial. They're not going to say this is the official ME report. are they going to say this is the unofficial uh and and we can go with that. Um so you know it says very clearly that the documentation provided did not confirm the passing was related to substance use uh which is a requirement
for these specific um opiate abatement funds. Um any edits or thoughts about this document? >> Anna >> um how do they submit a request for reconsideration? Is that a separate form or or can they just contact the person
that they're that sent this letter? >> Yeah, they can just contact the person that sent the letter. Um it's just, you know, maybe you can you can submit an appeal. Maybe that's a better language instead of having that like um request for reconsideration. Just you may submit
an appeal, which is just handwritten, you know, their their own words, you know, and then supplying any documentation that that they didn't have. >> Yeah. If you if it could say you may appeal by contacting >> you may appeal >> um and that's the same person you can also talk to about alternative resources
etc. by contacting. Okay. Um, Michael, >> uh, I would say yeah, you can initiate an appeal by attack, uh, contacting this person and then I would I would say that we could even add, um, and then your appeal can be heard in executive session
in front of the board and then we could obviously look over the new documentation or hear directly from the person and decide again. Oh, I like that session by the commission. Commission. Okay, that was that was
excellent. Then Abby, >> can we update to say 14 business days? I know that's small, but I feel like there's a lot of >> Yes. >> If they're getting documentation from other offices, they're often not open on the weekend. So, we should be following
the like the timeline that they're put under. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. 14 business days. Excellent. Uh Abby, I think the introductory line like thank you for submitting your application
blah blah blah. I think that we need to give the same due respect that we gave in the approval where it says that, you know, accept our deepest consol condolences for the loss of your loved one and and say their name, you know,
like it just seems we're truly sorry for your loss just is so much less than what we did for the approval. Um, >> great. >> And then I think one of the reasons has to be that there's no more
funds available for this year. >> Oh, okay. >> Right. Because if we only have 50,000 and like maybe it's December. >> Yeah. Yeah. That that needs to be clearly stated. Yeah. Thank you, Abby. And is it a calendar year or a fiscal year?
>> Calendar year. I think we put was it >> Oh, it was fiscal. Sorry. Thank you. It was fiscal. So that's July. >> July Jul is the last year. >> So um for for the for this fiscal year
and I will put um June 30th just so they have a framework of when the because you know most folks who don't deal with financial don't know when the fiscal year ends. So, uh, awesome. Uh, any other edits? Uh, I move to um accept the uh accept
this document with the edits that we have just made. Can >> I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. Yams. Yes. >> Pedro. >> Yes. >> Michael,
>> yes. >> Abby, >> yes. >> And Anna, >> yes. >> Sarah, yes. We have an unanimous approval of the uh bureau of fun um rejection notice. I don't like that
language, but it is what it's um all right. Last one. Last one. and and for the the public uh the last document is a vendor pledge which is a fasttrack form uh uh for funeral homes uh you know so it's
addressed to the funeral home attention funeral director from the city of Greenfield oid abatement fund uh confirmation of payment pledge for the deedient's name uh this letter serves as formal guarantee that the city of Greenfield it says town uh has approved
a burial grant for the family of deedants's name uh pledge amount status approved approved or processing expected mail time. Uh we understand that time is sensitive. The signed document guarantees that the funds have been encumbered from our opioid settlement account and will be remitted to your
business. You may proceed with services based on this pledge. Um so this is something that the city the mayor's office will send you know you know once we have looked at something uh approved it in a formal way. Um and this can go
out like the very next day. uh the city will have this if we approve it and go out the very next day. Um after my conversation with Britney, um I think this is helpful for for them, right? So they know that the funding has been uh released encumbered um released um and
that the city the city takes it from there about how quickly they can get it to the funeral home. But you know, the funeral home will take the the city's word, you know, that hey, the funds are coming. Uh so that's sort of why I created that to to ease the anxiety from
the funeral home end of it. Um you know who uh has to have payment. Um so any any edits I mean besides the the town of Greenfield. Anna, >> I think this is wicked smart um way to sort of way to notice the bureaucratic
hiccups and and problem solve around them. And I just have to say I I guess I I'm not sure I would feel comfortable voting on it tonight without running it by the city's treasurer. And it's just because it it could be construed as a
contract essentially to make a payment. And um and that's about as far as I know. Then I just get in territory where I get uncomfortable. So >> yeah. No, that's that's fairminded. >> We should have something like this. >> Thank you for that lens. Um I I I'm going to agree with you. you know, I'd
rather have the city, the the um financial department, the treasurer or whoever um that that needs to do that. So, I'm I I would like to um somebody wants to make a motion to table this uh this just this one uh for next month until we can get some clarification from
the city uh legal department and the financial department to make sure that we're not in trouble. >> I make a motion to table this till we get more information from the city treasurer. >> Thank you. I have a second. I'll second.
>> Okay. U and uh roll call. Uh Yams. >> Yep. >> Abby, >> yes. >> Pedro, >> yes. >> Anna, >> yes. >> Sarah, yes. So, I unan we unanimously approve to table the vendor pledge until
uh next month so we can get some um legal opinions and uh opinions from the financial department on this pledge. Um, good job everybody. That was a lot. Um, so let's see where we're at now. So we
looks like we are on new business. So on new business is the creation of subcommittees. Um, so I I think I what I heard is that we're not ready to vote on that this month. the creation of subcommittees based on our conversation in beginning
of the meeting. Michael, >> I'd like to make a motion to table it. Uh I think we need a little more information on which subcommittee we would think is best. Uh I think we need more discussion on that. I'd like to just kind of probe
on why we can only have one subcommittee, myself as well. Um and then I think yeah, I think we just I think we need a little more discussion on that. Okay. So, uh, there's a motion on the floor. Can I hear a second? >> Second.
>> Okay. Roll call. Yes. >> Uh, yeah. >> Abby. >> Yes. >> Pedro. Yes. >> Anna, >> yes. >> Michael,
>> yes. >> And I vote yes. So, we have unanimous to table this to uh next month until we have further clarification. Uh and there needs to be more discussion as well. Pedro, >> I guess I had a quick question on this though, like how are we getting more
information? We meeting next month to open it up for conversation. >> Yep. Uh and I will reach back out to the city for for further clarification. um on you know maybe the mayor will join us next month and we can have a conversation
>> and if so like if we're reconvene next month to have this conversation can we just have like clarity on the role of >> the like the outreach subcommittee and what their duties would be >> um in comparison to the um burial fund >> subcommittee
>> and it gives people time to digest too more you know based on our conversation this evening to to really just um think about it and we and strategize and then we can reconvene next month and um you know because I definitely will circle back to the mayor and get some um you
know understanding I understand the the city's maxed out uh with with a lot of these meetings and stuff so we want to be respectful of that as well. Um, so the the next item B is a discussion on public communications. The chair will
report on consultation with Greenfield Communications Director Jonathan Weber regarding the creation and management of a commission Facebook page. So I have bad news. Um, the city is not allowing any other
official city pages at this time. But what he did offer was that anything that we wanted to post on the city Facebook page in terms of education and letting people know um all the things that we talked about last month that we could do
that through the city's page. Um I did fight really hard with him, not really fight, but I had a robust conversation about why uh you know and that it it would simply just be an educational page. there would not be any dialogue because again, you know, we we'd run the
risk of open meeting violations inadvertently just by having natural organic conversations with the community. Um, so that that's where that stands right now. And I see that Michael has his hands. >> Um, so I ran into the same problem with
my my department. Uh, we also run a grant and we were trying to run a grant run page. Um and and clearly uh the the keeping track of comments and everything else is a lot. I I definitely understand um you know where they're coming from.
They don't want to keep monitoring more pages. Uh and then or leaving it to other people to have to monitor. Uh I did read the email though and I think this will kind of help with maybe the outreach part is that we could do kind of an unofficial page. And I think a great thing for the unofficial page, at
least from my point of view, might be a great way to just throw up some polls. Um, I know that when I go online and I see polls and stuff and even on Instagram or whatever else and I know that, you know, nobody really knows it's me voting things like I vote in a lot
more polls as I'm more of, you know, an unofficial person just clicking a button and giving my opinion. Um, so I think that might be a great way to kind of do some of the outreach also. Um, just from a little unofficial page perspective that maybe we can just put things up but
not make it officially a town page or the opioid commission page, just anformational reaching out to the public kind of page. Um, I think that would be a great idea. >> Okay. Um, I I think that's a great idea, too. Um, and I'm going to recommend
that, um, you know, that we table the conversation about that because I definitely want to check with the clerk on that that one piece, right? Like I I think it's a great idea to have an unofficial page. Uh, Jonathan actually suggested that. Um, and I was worried
about like, you know, uh, how are we going to we can't name ourselves. The Greenfield Opiate Use and Prevention Commission page has to say something else. Um, so you know, uh, we can we can also think about that for next month of like if we do have an unofficial page. Um, what should we name it? Um, and and
so that people will know, um, hey, this is an unofficial page of the commission. Uh, we're going to have, you know, informative stuff. And I love your poll idea because that that's a way to access the community as well is to have, you know, something like that um where folks
can um chime in anonymously, you know, if if they want to. So, how do folks feel about tableabling this conversation until next month until we have a definitive? Can I hear a motion for that? >> I'll make a motion to table it.
>> Okay. Can I have a second? >> Second. Yams, >> yep. >> Pedro, >> yes. >> Abby, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. >> Anna, >> yes.
>> Sarah, yes. We have an unanimous approval to table um the discussion about the an unofficial uh commission Facebook page until next month. Um and then that leads us to our next um
segment. Um, the opioid use and prevention commission votes to enter into executive session for reason number seven. Uh, to comply with and or act under the authority of any general or special law or federal grant in requirements pertaining to Mass General
law chapter 38 section 21A7 to review and discuss federal health insurance portability and accountability act of n 1996 protected health information pertaining to burial fund. um application 2026_2
uh for the purpose of deciding whether the estate of the deedent is eligible for and should receive funding from the Greenfield opiate settlement burial fund. Um before we vote, I just want to um alert the public to about what's
going to happen. Um, so when we vote to go into an executive session, we're going to ask you folks to leave the room and we're going to close the doors uh for the folks on uh Zoom. Um the committee members uh we're we're going to be turning off recording and we're
turning off our microphones and cameras. For the members on Zoom, you will be put in a breakout room in accordance with um the uh regulations regarding executive session. Uh, and we consulted the clerk, both Anna and I, to make sure that we
are in compliance. Um, so, um, can I hear a motion? Um, Anna, >> um, if if you could just state what will happen after Yes. executive session. >> Thank you. >> Um, thank you. That's an important
piece. So, when we're we're done discussing, um, we will return to open session. uh we will you know let you back in uh and we will record the vote uh without the protected information so that the the public can hear us vote on
this request. Um so um Anna, would you would you make the motion please? >> Yes, I will. Um uh I move that the opioid use and prevention commission uh votes to enter into executive session for reason number
seven to comply with or act under the authority of any general or special law or federal grant and aid requirements pertaining to Mass General Law 30A section 21A7 to review and discuss federal health insurance portability and
accountability act HIPPA of 1996 protected health information pertaining to burial fund application 2026_2 for the purpose of deciding whether the estate of the deedent is eligible for and should receive funding from the Greenfield opioid settlement burial
fund. >> Can I have a second please? >> I'll sec second. >> Okay. Um Abby, >> yes. >> Yams, >> yes. >> Pedro,
>> yes. >> Anna, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. Okay, we have a unanimous consent to enter into executive session at 6:59 p.m. And I just have to announce that we're now in open session. Um, >> so we we uh have entered uh open
session. We're reopening open session at 7:12 p.m. >> Michael and Abby. Uh >> oh. Okay, we'll hold off then. There they are. That's not Abby. Did you end the breakout room? >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> Abby and Michael. >> Okay. We had a community member that was Did she log out? >> Okay. Um, so we are reconvening uh uh the regular open session of the OP use and prevention commission at 7:14 p.m. Um,
can somebody um, let's see, make a motion to approve the uh, burial fund application 2026_2 uh, for the purpose of funding from the Greenfield Opiate Settlement Burial Fund
uh, for the purpose of burials. >> I'll make a motion to approve that. Can >> I have a second? I second. >> Okay. Gams, >> yes. >> Abby, >> yes.
>> Anna, >> yes. >> And I vote yes. So, we have a unanimous approval of the application wh sorry, Michael. >> Yes. >> Okay. We have unanimous approval uh for application 2026_2
uh to receive funding from the Greenfield Opiate Settlement Varial Fund in regards to burial. Um, so then the the uh the next scheduled meeting of the Opiate Use and Prevention Commission will be on January 19th, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. at the John Community
Center and on Zoom. Uh, may I hear a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh, Pedro, >> yes. >> Anna, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes.
>> And, uh, Abby, >> yes. Sarah votes yes. Uh unanimous uh approval to adjourn. >> Thank you everyone for all your hard work. >> Thank you. >> Thank you both Michael and Abby.
>> Have a good night guys.