Good evening. The school committee business um no special session of November 19th, 2025 will now come to order. This meeting is being recorded and will be made available for viewing on the Mthuan public school website. Secretary, will you please call the role?
>> Oh, that's me tonight. Okay. Um Daglio Donovan >> here. >> Keegan >> here. [clears throat] Maxwell >> here. >> Shabbilia here. Wlette >> and Mayor Bogard and he's not up there yet. Um I was told
the mayor will be joining us eventually. >> Yeah. >> Online. So >> when he comes in, we need to just note what time >> Yes. >> comes in. May I have a motion and a second to accept the agenda as presented? >> So moved. Second.
>> Moved by members, second by member Wlette. Um You can. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> All right. Unanimous. >> Let me see what he's doing. No. >> Can we please rise for the flag salute?
>> To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Um there is no one here for public
participation. So at this time we will close public participation portion of this meeting. If you cannot make it the meeting in person for public participation you can send an email to Susan Scandi at sni
n ti mthuan.k12.mma. us before 3 pm on the day of the school committee meeting. Um, and Colleen, can we start the discussion
>> on the superintendent RFP? >> Yes, certainly. >> She's the best. >> So, I passed out um some information from some questions that you guys asked about um what route we would go. So, there's a few different routes that you
can go. Um it is not chapter 30B exempt. So, we can do request for quotes. Um, and would with that we wouldn't be posting what we're looking for, but we would have to in writing send out the
scope of work that we were looking for to a minimum of three vendors and you would have to award to the lowest monetary um responsible bidder. >> Can I just jump in with a question because I want to clarify something you just said.
>> Sure. So unlike bids we've done in the past like we did the RF our RFQ whatever we did for the bus consultant this one is going to be done where we're not going to be specific about what we want right we're going to
say this is the oversight of what we want to accomplish give us your best plan to do it >> and your price >> and your price >> and you choose by lowest >> the lowest monetary responsible bid right >> okay second one is the sealed bid which is like the transportation
where you put in your scope of work, you send them out sealed. You have to post that one for a minimum of 14 days exclusive of holidays. When you open those bids, it is awarded again lowest monetary.
Now, the one that I've seen the most, which I gave you guys some examples of at the last meeting, was what I found on my list serve is most communities are using the RFP. Again, this one needs to be posted for a minimum of 14 days, calendar days, exclusive of holidays. Then the next
part is is that you open up the technical side. So, what's the vendor going to be able to provide for you? Each of you would score all the vendors with a rubric. Once the rubrics are all combined
and a vendor is selected based on the rubric, then and only then you open up the monetary and that's that you award and then you open up the monetary um proposal and you only open up the one from the person that you've selected
and then you would award the contract. So it's it's your choice which route you want to go. Um, vice chair, I guess. Are we just we are we uh wild wild west in this? Is that what we're
>> all right? Um, so my two cents, having spent the last 10 years doing RFPs both inside and outside of state government, my recommendation would go the RFP route. The my logic there is
we get to say this is what we want accomplished. Tell us how you want to do it because the reality is no one at this table is an expert in superintendent searches but the people we're going out to are. And to remove all of the emotion
and all the other things from it. This is the goal. This is what's important to us. Tell us how you want to accomplish it. And then I also don't want to be stuck having to pay having to select the lowest bid which RFQ would
give us which then you're getting garbage. Um I did talk to Ian before the meeting. Uh he told me that we paid about $38,000 to MASC to run the last superintendent search which was about eight years ago.
My concern with the RFP and having to use the the the bid that we select kind of blind is that it could be a million dollars and we won't know. And I had this conversation with Colleen
coming up the stairs into the building today that I think it's worth putting a cap in there. So, let's say offers um packages not to exceed, I don't know, $75,000. That way, even if we find one that we
absolutely love and it's $70,000, we know that we've budgeted for it or the next group has budgeted for it or will budget for it or we have to hit free cash. But that's that's my two cents because RFP I think is going to give us the best
ability to leverage the knowledge of the people that actually know things. Thank you. >> So I would be in favor of that if it were a max of 50,000 because if it's goes over 50,000 we have to go
to city council and so I would prefer to stay away from city council. Um, and the the one vendor that already came to us was able to keep it under 50,000. So, I don't see why not. >> I honestly am not seeing a problem with
approaching the city council because I don't want to lowball the the final process. Um, obviously there has to be a maximum cap. So, on the proposal that was sent to us, obviously the $10,000,
that's ridiculous. That's such a low ball offer. The high range was $100,000. Now, I don't know if that's uh relevant to today's dollars, it could be even worse because if we're talking postcoid,
everything escalated um by 40%. So I don't know if we can within whatever we advertise you know put a range but I would be agreeable to that we would do a hybrid approach if we
financially put forward a contribution and then obviously above that would have to be cleared by the city council. I want the city council involved because I am not going to be in favor of proposal that we uh game the system of lowballing
and getting somebody just to do a cost savings. This is going to be a major impact to our school district going over the next uh six years possibly. We're going to have to do major reforms as part of that. So I want to entice with a solid foundation as many candidates as
possible across this uh region, hopefully across the the nation if need be. So that would be my two cents on that. But I don't know if we can set, you know, but obviously we would need to get approval beyond a certain amount with the city council, but we still have
the time before January to do that with the existing city council and with the cooperation of the mayor. So that would be my contribution on that. I can double check with part with the purchasing department. I was told that they've seen um they have put in
previous RFPs not to exceed a cap, not a range, but a cap. Can >> we just do a quick point of clarification? Even if we said 50 and they do a Q&A session during the RFP process, if it comes back during Q&A that we are kind of off off the mark,
it's easy enough for Ian and Colleen to issue an amendment and raise that cap to 100. So it it doesn't lock us, but it gives us a starting point, which I think is probably a good place to start considering it was 38 eight years ago.
50 might be an okay number now. >> Member Maxwell, >> um I was just going to say that I would go with the RFP as well. And I think that um I think that maybe we should stick to the 75,000 cap and if we have to go up to 100 we should. But I think
that 50 with you just saying even 38 38,000 8 years ago um it seems like 50 might be kind of low. Um and I don't want to scare people away with saying we're going to cap this at 50,000 and then they're not even going to want to
put in a um proposal. So I don't know what that number is. I don't know what that looks like. I think that um I would be going with the RFP as well. >> I had a quick question, Madam Chair, uh through the chair to Colleen.
This is my interpretation, right? Is we let's say whoever we finalize and it's a set amount and we go through the process and the new school committee is not satisfied with the round of candidates, right? we can do a fresh round again and
they will buy the cost of that outside of advertising. Is that correct? Like we will not have to go back out based on what I'm reading. Is that accurate? >> If that's what you're putting in your scope like >> that's what I wanted. So, if I'm doing,
let's say, $75,000 and we have um let's say in spring we're not happy with what's been submitted to us and we say we might do an interim, we might do something, but we want to go out again, right? That company will
swallow the cost of going through an additional round and so long as we're paying I think for the incidental cost of advertising. Is that accurate? as long as that's what you pick. >> That's exactly what I again I want to make sure we're open, transparent, we're
not lowballing, we're doing a huge search, and if we're not satisfied with the the candidates, then if we have to go again, then we as a new school committee would have to make that final determination. But I don't want to say, okay, we're we're stuck with, you know,
I don't want to use the audit. I don't want to use that because there's there's good ways of doing things and not but I think if we do a solid solid foundation right now, right, it will pay dividends going in with the new school committee and going into the springtime. We've done too much work, leg work. I
appreciate member Donovan working on this. I appreciate you calling uh and other people working on this process. I want to get it right tonight forward. Thank you. Um, I think we need to check with the mayor as to what his maximum is because
ultimately, um, if he doesn't go to the city council to get the money, it's we can't go to them to get it. So, it has to be through him. And so, we need to see what the mayor's maximum is. And I think we go with whatever he says because that's how much money we're
going to get. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. I I think that's wise. I I'm wondering if we could come up with an amendment saying that. I don't know if that's feasible. I will say looking at other
RFPs um within the last five years in some communities, the um it wasn't as expensive as I thought it would be. >> So, while we don't want to lowball, we don't want to give away the store. And
um so could we come up with some sort of amendment on going to the mayor like or we we'll just have to >> Okay. But so we can make that request to the mayor like where are you standing on that?
Um my concern is as I've said for the last how many meetings we are running out of runway. So many superintendent searches are closing now and offers being made. Um, so whatever we can do to move this along
>> and you I think we're all in I hope we're all in agreement on that. We can't drag our feet. >> So moving forward, we're all agreeing on the RFP. Am I correct? >> Yep. >> Okay. We also need to check in with the mayor to see if he'd be willing
to bring forth any additional funds we may need to the city council. Yes. >> Sorry. I don't know why I raised my hand. It just happened. Um >> I feel like the teacher in the classroom. Yes. >> Um I guess I I agree with that. I 100%
on board with the RFP. I think in the interest of time, we put out a first to get the clock ticking because this thing has to be posted for a minimum of 14 days. >> Put it out at 50. Get the the questions back during the Q&A period.
>> Then we're going to need some kind of special meeting to review those questions and talk about them as a committee. And then we can decide with the mayor's input. And Ian, you know, do we need to go up to 75? Do we need to go up to 100? is the world upside down.
We got to get to 150. Like talking about a a a fiscal cap for this is is kind of futile because we can change it at any point in time by filing an amendment. And we don't we don't know yet. And we
can word our RFP in a way to say, you know, keep in mind that our our cap is 50, but if we're wrong, tell us. And that way these people will come back and be like listen to do this right because all these companies have reputations they need to protect and we can tell
them to tell us if if we need to get to 64 because that's the magic number and we won't know that until the Q&A period and I think if we can get ourselves to that Q&A period it it really changes the conversation for the table. And to member Wlette's point you're spot on. If
you get garbage this is a retained search so we're paying this company to get us a person. So whether they give us somebody or not, money's gone, we don't get a refund if they come back and can't do it. Um, but the caveat to that is, and you're right, we will have to repay
for advertising, which I think we need to be aware of when we sign a contract with the company as to how that money is going to be spent on advertising because not that we want to limit them in any stretch, but if they do have to go out for a second or third round, that could
be a hefty hit. So, it's a it's a I mean, it's a fine line, you know. Also, we need to be aware because no one has said travel yet. We're Oh, you did a couple of days ago, which is why I thought of it. We're going Someone's going to have to go out to this current person's
location. They have to go out and inspect and do all these other things. And then we have to fly that person out here. So, then we got to put them up and then we got to feed them. Then we got to I mean, you're you're hosting an exchange student essentially at that point. So, it's just
>> I and we have to consider you wouldn't send out one person for site visits. You'd have to send out a good a good representation of the screening committee. >> Uh so it could get really very expensive. >> Yeah. Then the question becomes who is
the screening committee? Does >> does the school committee next go around pick that or does the consultant pick that and present it to the school committee? My understanding, and correct me, is the consultant would make recommendations. And remember, we're the final decision makers. So, do we belong in those initial groups? I don't want to
be part of that at all. I think that would be unethical. >> Agreed. >> I think it would be truly unethical. So, we would because we make the final decision >> after other people have sorted through everything, done the screening, and then give us
what they because we've entrusted them. So, but I don't think that's the discussion for tonight, Mr. Shabilia. I think we need to address this stuff right now so we could get started. >> Right. So, I mean, I guess where I stand is I'm in favor of the getting the RFP out the door and if that means putting
50 on it to get the clock started so we can at least get the questions in. >> Yeah. >> I I I I don't know if we vote on it tonight, but I'd give the head nod to that. >> Head. Okay. Do we do a head nod? >> Yeah. I mean, obviously I'm on board
with establishing a reasonable floor, and I think $50,000 would be that reasonable floor. >> I I I honestly looking at this range, I think it's going to be at least that. >> Oh, at least. Yes. But we don't we don't know yet, you know. >> Well, it might be lucky. But then, you know,
>> but I you know, obviously I I can't speak for the mayor. I can't speak for the city council, but to have the possibility of their involvement of funding a real uh you know top-notch consultant for the next superintendent
to allocate uh maybe an additional 25,000 maybe or so. I think that's definitely worth the investment and we have the resources to do it. So, >> okay. So, what what do I what Okay.
>> All right. So, we've agreed on the RFP. Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. >> So, I mean, I I mentioned um I mentioned I had a preference for for a um because I thought the scope of the
services and the submission guidelines and the metrics and us doing the assessment afterwards and quantifying everything plus having uh the insurance components, the identification of B I mentioned that to Ms. McCathy. I think
that will solidify to have A but also have the safeguards of B with the insurance requirements, the identification. Um, other than that, I like the RFP, we're doing a establishing a floor. Um,
so that would be my two cents on that. Thank you. >> I agree. >> Donovan. >> Yeah. I would >> um I would like to add I we could I I think we need to include two concepts
from the other sample and that is about training the board that is selected on legal and ethical interview practices that is not noted because this could we could step in it if we don't follow the proper protocols. Um, that would be
number six from the other one. And um, wait a minute, there's another one in there. I sent it in my suggestions. Um, oh my goodness, I don't see it. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. But I want to make sure that that is clear. It was in one and not the other. But I think the training of the process to everyone involved, the board needs to do that because it could get mucky. The
confidentiality piece, the kind of questions you can't ask. Um, okay. Did that make sense? >> So, when we say a, we're talking about the one with the numbered >> Yeah. Is that what I whatever? >> That's great. Okay. >> Okay. >> Oh, okay.
>> Yeah. So, I'm I'm I'm on board with that. I agree with what member Wlette said. I like the one with the numbered, but there are also a few sections from the other one. >> I'm sorry. >> That I think should be copied over. >> I liked Okay. >> Um I think
>> I went backwards. The only thing that I don't remember seeing um is that we need I feel like we need um a bilingual or Spanish speaking person on the from the
consulting firm to be able to do the community outreach because I feel like we need to make sure that everybody's represented. So, >> um, and again, looking at A and B, and I
really don't want to open up Pandora's box, and I know we're not going to be happy if we don't have a diversified uh, search group to to field questions. Um, but then it would said, I think B was talking about subject to final
school committee approval. So I don't know if that's what something we still want to do ultimately if have the whatever the the component of that search group we know want to make sure it's diversified are we approving that
group uh as a committee uh as a whole like up or down vote because then you then you get into the politics of I don't like that person I don't like this person we're going to amend this >> you know so how do we handle that >> so this is what I'm talking about is
having a Spanish-speaking person from the company that we hire. >> Okay? >> Not the group, not the not the search group. So, we're still talking about just the the pieces of the who we want to the firm that we're going to use to do the search. There needs to be
somebody on that team that is able to communicate with our Spanish speaking population. >> I I totally agree with that. So, if that could be, you know, uh what do you say? Uh bilingual consultants uh preferred. Is that the would be the proper link? I would have
no problem with that. >> Well, I would also keep in mind that while I agree with that, we want to make sure that we're not limiting it because there is a massive Haitian creole population in the city. I think just identifying the fact that there is going to be a need for multilingual,
>> which let let them figure out how to do it. Let them tell us the best way. I've said it a thousand times. Bethun is not special. Like, you know what I mean? these guys have done this all before. Let's let them come back and tell us this is what we should do. This is a does best case scenario make up of a
board. You know, these are our our options that we have internally to to reach everybody in the community. And like I think member Dunov has said it in the past like they'll be at football games, they'll be at hockey games, they'll be at, you know, the Santa parade and they'll be interacting with the community and trying to meet people
and figure out and ask questions and that's part of their their sticktick. So, as long as they're able to communicate, I I would I would like to think that a company who's built a reputation on this has done it once or twice.
Here's to hoping. >> Um, >> and I'm sorry, I have writed my wrong, I believe. Sorry about that. um to speak to what you said about the selection committee. I know that it can become
>> a little political >> choosing, right? >> So there is um a bullet determine the number um select and assemble a screening committee on the >> other proposal. Um and it does mention that the final
selection how the process is done is done um with the school committee making a final with approving the whole process. And I think that's something we need to think very carefully and purposely about. So it's
not who someone likes, you know, but we have a good representation. Are we pulling names out of a bag if more than five people apply for one position? So perhaps we want to include that bullet just to prevent wasted time down the road. Do you see that one, Ken? Do you
>> I mean that might be a a good thing to put in. >> That's again that's again Pandora's box. I want to depoliticize the process. >> This might help just having that in there. >> That's what I'm saying. Yeah. Like subject to approval, but it's like >> it says subject to approval. the
consultant will uh have the recommendations and usually like in Congress you do up or down. You don't amend it. You say this is our list. These are the people we want and we have confidence it's going to be a diversified group taking into account
the demographics of our community. Right. And I would be voting that up or down subject to final approval of the school committee. I'm not going to meddle with it or amend it. You can't. No, I don't want that. Yeah. So, >> are we all good with that?
>> So, something I've seen in the past when doing similar projects is a blind committee, meaning that the auditors, not the auditors, the um consultant would come in and say, "We've we've established a committee. They've gone
out, they've done an interview process. They've picked, you know, two parents from each school plus two staff from each school and someone from brand, you know, they've they've compiled and they'll come up and say, "This is the committee we've selected. We've got two parents, this many people, that many
people, this many people, and they've interviewed everybody. They've vetted them." And then to member Wlette's point, it's it's either a yes or no. So you don't even see names. That removes all the political from it alto together. The only problem I have is again if we
have that process and then it comes back to us through no fault of our own is that we don't have a diversified group and they make that selection and it comes back on us then that's a problem. So I don't know. >> Well, but that could be part of the
presentation. you know, we have, you know, this many males, this many females, this many white, this many African-American, this many Hispanic, this many um Asian, this, you know, and you could they can present all that data. I think what that we were talking
about, too, is you're going to have certain teachers on that. Obviously, you're going to have staff, you're going to have parents. >> Um, >> yeah. So, I think that's you need >> you're going to need some you need you need at least one well community. to
focus on this, but I think we're all of like like minds right now. >> Yeah. >> Which is Let's Let's take a moment, shall we? >> No, let's get out here early. Let's not take any moments. Come on now. >> We're all in agreement about that. >> No, but I I see. Yeah. >> I mean, I don't really honestly both
ways. I think >> But do you agree that including that bullet >> that definitely has to be documented? >> Perfect. Perfect. So, does it make sense for me to work with the purchase purchasing department, put together the RFP and send it out to
you all to review before we post? >> What do you envision for a timeline? >> Well, next week's Thanksgiving, so I would envision maybe the week after by the week after Thanksgiving. >> I just have a question. So, I took some notes on um some other RFPs that I've um
kind of dove into um and I didn't notice in either one of these. I I did I I heard the conversation earlier about removing school committee members. One of my um bullets was conduct a needs assessment through interview surveys, focus groups with school committee
members, staffs, and families. Um, but another one was advise on a search structure, open versus confidential and internal versus external and legal compliance. And I didn't see that in any of the scoping of services in either of
these. Can we add that? >> Well, I and I'm sorry, I just don't understand some of that. >> Um, >> confidential like the first like what are we keeping confidential? Um
>> I we have to be Yeah, but I don't I just the nuance between you said >> I just >> I I liked the wording of advise on search structure where it's like open versus confidential or internal versus external or
there are just certain bullet points that go along with the search structure and maybe they could present that to us. >> Would that be part of the training? That would be part of the scope of services. >> Yeah. But that but that could in I'm
just I'm sorry. I think I'm just missing something. >> Yes, please. >> I think what she's saying is we should have a requirement in the RFP when they submit their proposals that for them to explain how they keep things confidential, how they
um in how they conduct interviews, how they how they review all of the data and how they're going to present it to us. So I mean >> it is but so it's not really super clear in either one of them. So I I I don't >> I have no problem with that. I just go ahead Ken.
>> This is a point of information in the police management audit right they had in their disclaimer of every interview every survey we kept confidential. No one within that department knew about
the contents of the surveys and stuff like that. So if we have something that the consultant within their presentation tells us >> that when we set up that search committee and if it's a blind one >> and you know we just said we're we're happy with it. This is your set up a
diversified uh search committee. Right. Okay. Right. and we do that and we depoliticize the process that they give us a a guarantee that they will, you know, whatever they do with that is confidential. Um, so I don't know if
that language could be looked at. It was a pretty ironclad language within the police management study they asserted because it was a major issue with the police department obviously. So I don't know that's something to explore.
>> Did I Did I capture that? All right. >> Well, I just I think the concern is for confidentiality and for not only internally but externally. >> Mthoan the Roma mill runs a muk. >> Well, that's that's why the training so important.
>> No, I agree with that too. that I mean that was the thing like the a was I was focused on but I think what you said the training we definitely need and also that search committee and depoliticize the process and that we do either up or
down approval or it's a blind uh search uh committee >> and maybe the the new committee will discuss that I don't know >> and I can't help but wonder hearing this discussion it's almost and this is a silly comment but like do people have do people sign NDA days now when part of
these discussions I that's a good point right I mean I don't know is this what we're coming to >> I think it's just human nature that people will volunteer that they're on a search committee right >> personally I rather just have the search committee this is the names and it's an
up or down vote so if I say I don't like a person in that search committee doesn't matter I want the totality of that search committee and I know the people on and I know it's diversified end of story But other people might want to do talk about a blind search committee like member Shabilia said. I'm
game either way. Um but I think we set up the foundation and just go through the process. And it's good to iring out these things now as we're going through because I don't want to have anything coming back to said well you politicize this and then you weren't open about this and you weren't transparent. I
don't want to hear that garbage. I really don't. regardless of where we were on a committee. Uh we had no open meaning law violations. We had um good discussions and we negotiated two major
contracts and we did a host of things as a committee and we finalized two uh budgets. Okay? So I don't want to hear anybody come back to us says, "Well, this you politicized the process." I said, "Well, give me the evidence. Give me the receipts." and we're doing
it tonight. We're working as a group on this. So I think this is very healthy. Thank you. >> So what are we doing with >> So >> So one more question. Will the will the project come with a timeline? >> Yeah.
>> For them? I mean like with key milestones and deadlines and like well we have all of that. >> Yeah, >> that's in the >> So I I just want to add keep in mind because I I do a lot of retain search at work for high level positions. While
you're going to set milestones and deadlines when you're searching for candidates, they're all going to be malleable >> because you may not find somebody and then someone may pop out of the woodwork. You know what I mean? that just happens to see the link or the ad in Superintendent Weekly or whatever it
is. So, I just I want to advise that when we write this to be careful with how long I mean, we do need to have a gate where we say, "Okay, present your candidates at this point, but like you don't want that gate to slam shut. You want you want to leave it unlocked because otherwise you're you're
you're rebuilding the wheel again afterwards." Well, some may some RFPs like will say the proposal, you know, this must be available so we can execute it to hire someone on such and such a date. Would that be something we'd wanted to include
in this? >> I would make it a goal. >> I think we should, >> but the problem is there's no guarantee you find someone for such and such a date. These people, superintendents aren't out there just in a pile somewhere for us to go pick one. was delayed.
>> Yeah. >> Like we still can't do the financial audit because >> nobody >> no one's bidding on it. >> Okay. So, I guess the question is what can we do right now so we can give Colleen all the information she needs to
move forward? >> And >> so she's got it right. >> I think she's I mean I could we could recap. is I I like a >> I like the suggestions of member Dunovan with with B that she recommended. I know member Maxwell had concerns about
confidentiality and uh what was the other components that we're going to do a floor of 50,000 and then we have the opportunity to reach out >> uh >> yeah the stuff from B the in terms of the insurance the the issues that member
Dunovan raised and then the issues member Maxwell raised and then the issues member Shibili and I raised about having a floor and then having the possibility of approaching in the city. I don't know if there's anything beyond that. >> I think How do you feel?
>> I think I have everything. Yeah. >> I'll put it together. >> I'll run it by purchasing because I am not a purchasing agent and then send it out for final review before we post it. >> Does that make sense? >> Yep. And and to assure everyone,
Colleen can do that as long as any his you know the worry about open meeting law, which I hope you saw that email I sent. We can do certain things via email. As long as we're not deliberating and any of your responses go right to
her, not to another member. So responding to those would be very helpful, especially as we get closer to doing something. Right? Is everyone comfortable with that? Because I know I was a little creeped out at first, but it's all okay. And uh at Tony McCarro
actually told me that other school departments working on these on similar concerns like trying to hire superintendent are doing that. >> So that made me feel better. >> I do think something worth note, I know that an RFP requires 14-day posting. If
we're not going to do this until after Thanksgiving, which means it's not going to get posted till probably second, best case scenario, second week in December, 14 days is going to land you Christmas week, give or take a few days because the calendar in my head.
I would I would just out the gate either extend it or wait to post in January second because if you post it and have it due that week, everybody is on vacation. like we I mean we all know that. So I mean it it's I
don't think a week is going to change much in our world. So I mean except for the the body that's sitting here. Um >> I think we get flexibility anyways on that, right? Because obviously we're going through the process. If we need to go if we're not getting any like fish,
we're not getting any fish. You still have to be out there in the boat. So >> we can extend the deadline. >> Yeah. >> But >> I would rather get it posted as soon as possible. >> Even if we Even if we say it's due January 6th, right? So we like that the
Tuesday after whatever that is. I'm not doing the math well. >> Yeah. I would just think you would want the responses for the new committee for the first meeting in January. >> Right. To start >> welcome to the table. Here's a giant stack of >> correct review. Yeah,
>> we're happy to have you. Here you go. I think we did and I think we did it in record time. >> Okay. >> Can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved by member civilia, second by
member Maxwell. All in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. >> Good night, Miss Owen. >> There you go. Um meeting is adjourned at >> Oh, I just said >> 6:53