[Speaker 5] (0:00 - 0:14)
And justice for all. Thank you for your patience. We were just having a little technical difficulties that have since been resolved.

So we'll just jump right in and we'll start with the town administrator's report. Dawn.

[Speaker 2] (0:14 - 4:25)
Good evening. Just wanted to just give the board a quick update. I have been on vacation for the last couple of weeks, but prior to that, I did have an opportunity to catch up with Mayor Nicholson and Dave Peterson from Kleinfelder to talk about Kings Beach.

We have been working with Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Executive Office of Environmental Affairs regarding a request to expedite permitting. We drafted a letter and we sent it off to the secretary of PEOA and we're gonna request another meeting with the secretary and again, ask them to expedite permitting associated with their recommendation to advance an outfall pipe. The mayor additionally wants to move forward and test the UV disinfection system.

This is the preferred recommendation that we've identified in the study that was prepared by Kleinfelder. This UV infection system, as I shared with the board, addresses the bacteria, but doesn't address, you know, rubber chemicals, doesn't address the pharmaceuticals and all sorts of other impairments that leach out of our drainage pipes. Certainly, we are concerned about those issues.

Additionally, last week, the town filed our report of activities under our consent decree, passed it to this report. It's up on our website. If you go to swamps.ma.gov backslash public works pages and consent decree, you can find it. This details the efficacy of the millions of dollars that we have spent on IDGE. This is a program that every community that is regulated under the MS4 Stormwater Act is typically under some compliance with consent decree to address that status of good repair. We've been diligent with this and we continue to monitor construction and post-construction water quality analysis under phase 1C.

As this report has recently been issued, I've asked Dave Peterson from Kleinfelder to put together a presentation that I'd like to schedule with the board sometime later in September or October to really publicly present some of the data, be available to ask or be available for questions and really a conversation about next steps. This is millions of dollars worth of Swampskip taxpayer funding. There's much work to do, not just throughout the section of Kings Beach, but Fisherman's Beach, Aizen's, Phillips, it's a whole town.

We've been really focused on Kings Beach because the consent order focuses us on Kings Beach. And frankly, much to my disappointment, in spite of our best efforts, we're no closer to seeing that beach brought back to a productive reuse than we were six years ago. The data just frankly continues to confound that we have a nebulous system of pipes and interconnections at point and non-point pollution sources that impair the water quality of Kings Beach.

And we need broader state and federal assistance. We intend to amplify that request and continue to press for that strategic partnership. I do think we're as close as ever to getting that type of local state and federal partnership, but it's going to require a few more careful conversations.

That said, I'm happy to answering the board's questions as best I can at this point. I'll just note that I really look forward to that next conversation.

[Speaker 6] (4:25 - 4:32)
I'm just going to keep it simple for the moment. I really think we need to digest these reports and get into it more.

[Speaker 2] (4:32 - 4:45)
Yep, it is a complicated problem that has plagued Swampskip for the last 100 years. Really pleased to report that General Andrea Gail Bennett.

[Speaker 4] (4:45 - 5:07)
Oh, hold on a second. We're still on Kings Beach. So I do agree with that, but I also want to see a, I want to have a full understanding of the finances around this and how we're spending money and where money is being spent, who's spending, what is Lynn spending, what is Swampskip spending, what the overall financial impact is going to be.

[Speaker 5] (5:10 - 5:11)
Happy to pull that through.

[Speaker 2] (5:13 - 9:14)
All right, moving on to Pine Street and Veterans Housing. I had an opportunity with, you know, former deputy commander of our Swampskip, Lynn Disability, DAB, who now has been appointed as the undersecretary of Veterans Services for the Commonwealth. General Bennett has followed up with me and has asked to meet again as she is absolutely very interested in bringing together a team of stakeholders that includes NAHAS, Veterans Services Office, Ruth Buckley, CEO of Soldier On, who's working on a project of Veterans Housing in another Massachusetts municipality.

We have a number of other officials from Soldiers On, and she's looking to really get an assessment of the need and understanding of the current demand for Veterans Housing and Swampskip in the region, get a sense of the available resources, property identification and partnership opportunities and the broader vision for the project. I'm really excited to have her enthusiasm. I think she's going to be a huge, you know, conduit for the broader state and perhaps even federal VA benefits.

So opportunity for us to do something really extraordinary for veterans is really coming together. Our Senior Center has been busy. You know, we have a new accredited student internship program happening this semester.

We have Swampskip High School seniors that are receiving credit for interning and providing senior care. These connections to our seniors are critically important and really our best practice. Pleased to report that we received another grant.

We've received a $6,600 grant from the Executive Office of Elders Affairs through GLISS. This is a Title III project that will support multi-generation art programs that bridges the gap for cognitive barriers. And there's a lot of ongoing training for Dementia.

We have a number of Dementia training programs that are scheduled throughout the fall and board members have been a part of that. We can certainly send you out an invitation. It's really important for all of us to really understand the emergence of Dementia.

It's a, we're Swampskip, out of the 34 cities and towns in Essex County, we are the grayest or the oldest. That's good news. We live, we're living longer, but we're living longer with loved ones that have Dementia.

So it's important for us to really understand how that affects our loved one's ability to just deal with life in general. Really pleased that our police department has had a community forum at the first to discuss some of the recent hate activities in town and how we are responding to those. There's more for us to do.

You know, we need to schedule an event for the fall. We need to really wrap around a broader group of stakeholders, young citizens, you know, sports teams and civic groups and all sorts of folks that can be partners in how we deal with hate. We're seeing a national surge of hate.

We're seeing more vitriol and more intolerance. We've got to figure this out. And the only way to do that is to pull people together and help them understand we're all in it together.

I'm worried that, you know, there's a lot of important conversations that are happening in small circles and we need to broaden that.

[Speaker 5] (9:14 - 9:15)
That circle.

[Speaker 2] (9:18 - 10:31)
Very busy with some HR activities. You know, we've filled five part-time positions at the library, seven positions have been filled. A couple of van drivers at the senior center.

I'm pleased to report that I've issued an additional offer for a police officer today as we finalized our recommendations after many months of background checks and screening. We had 65 applicants and on that entire pool, the individual that has been presented a conditional offer. It's a frustrating reality that is not just faced by Swampskate, but many communities.

There's a lot of challenges. We are going to think anew about how we're moving forward with hiring. The timelines just don't work.

And we really have some great ideas about how to expedite the timeline and really move forward to address some of those critical staffing issues.

[Speaker 4] (10:32 - 10:33)
Can I ask a question on that? Sure.

[Speaker 1] (10:34 - 11:21)
Help me understand the disparity of passage rates with Swampskate compared to the statewide civil service exam. The statewide average is about 70% passage rate. That could then get on a list and they just get presented to towns for acceptance, right?

Which means they've gone through the process and they're ready to be hired. How is it that we're one out of 65 and the state passage rate on civil service is 70% on average? If you don't know the answer, I don't want conjecture.

I think the question is one that we have to understand what did we do differently? That all of a sudden only one out of 65 applicants is good enough for us to hire in Swampskate, but on civil service, seven out of 10, for some reason are good enough to hire. Something is amiss with one of the two or both systems, right?

So I think, but the facts don't lie that this is the second time we've run into this problem.

[Speaker 2] (11:21 - 11:34)
This is the most exclusive and the most impressive, you know, standard that we can only get one out of 65. I've shared. Well, it's exclusive.

It's not impressive. Understood.

[Speaker 1] (11:34 - 11:43)
You know, understood. And I just want to say that I don't want you to mistake my comments as impressive. That's not impressive.

That tells me something's fundamentally wrong.

[Speaker 11] (11:43 - 11:43)
Understood.

[Speaker 1] (11:44 - 11:50)
If you're in civil service, you would have had 70% of 65 applicants that you could have picked from.

[Speaker 11] (11:51 - 11:52)
Understood.

[Speaker 1] (11:52 - 12:03)
So they must all be really good and only the good test takers and the only good applicants are going through civil service, but not that. I mean, obviously that's not the case. So we've really got to quickly figure this out because something's fundamentally wrong.

[Speaker 4] (12:03 - 12:04)
I agree with Peter.

[Speaker 6] (12:05 - 12:11)
Yeah, I do too. On a quick note, I just want to make sure more than one out of 65 passed the test, just to be clear.

[Speaker 1] (12:11 - 12:31)
No, but understand the test is just one element. The civil service incorporates most of the things that we've done here to get to this stage, right? So, I mean, it's not a direct correlation.

I agree with that. But it's not just to pass the civil service to get through this. There's an assessment.

There's a whole bunch of things to do. We just got to fix it.

[Speaker 2] (12:32 - 13:29)
The chief and I have had long conversations about this. And I do trust that the chief has a game plan. He has presented me with a recommendation today that I'm reviewing and I've given him an opportunity to move forward with a couple of different strategies.

Certainly we want to work with the union and make sure that everybody has a chance to play a role, but we do need to do something different. We cannot continue to hire police officers in the same way that we have in the past. It's just, it doesn't work.

It's not working locally. It's not working nationally. We've got to think about that.

Let's see. You know, the attorney general has requested an extension to review article 20 that was approved at our annual town meeting. I've authorized it.

This is generally a pretty ministerial request. I expect that we'll hear back from them soon.

[Speaker 4] (13:30 - 13:32)
Can you just explain what that, I don't, what is that?

[Speaker 2] (13:32 - 13:37)
I've never even heard of that. The attorney general has to review all bylaws, especially zoning bylaws.

[Speaker 1] (13:38 - 14:04)
And they spend a little bit of time making sure that they're consistent with state laws. Okay. They have a 120 day approved period or else it's deemed approved.

So they very consistently come back and ask for more time. So they, because if we didn't give them the time, they would probably reject it. Okay.

Just because they need to protect themselves. So we have to say, yes, okay, and last time we did that for our last zoning one is within a week of us doing the extension that came through with an answer. So it's not, I don't think a big deal.

[Speaker 2] (14:07 - 16:29)
I have asked people on a draft one article for either a special or an annual town meeting requiring maintenance of all seawalls in Swampskip. These are public and private properties. I'll be working with the chair of the conservation commission to review the draft and provide a board with a copy of the draft.

But I certainly am concerned about the potential of future collapses, not only at Mission on the Bay, but Swampskip. I think a period of inspection of all seawalls should be in order. There's no other community in Massachusetts that requires an inspection of seawalls.

So we would be the first, but there are communities in Florida and other states that do. So we are looking at bylaws and other jurisdictions or examples. I do think we should discuss this with the conservation commission at some point in the future.

Still doing a lot of work with the senior center. Our health department is working with the senior center on climate change initiatives. We're focused on composting.

Really appreciate not only Diane's work, but the work of senior center and town staff on composting. We are meeting regularly and certainly discussing health effects of climate change and emergency preparedness. We are starting flu clinics.

We're seeing an uptick in COVID. We want folks to just be mindful if you have health issues to really get your flu shots and just be careful. Lastly, we have our Swamp Cobra Fest plans.

This Saturday, it may need to be pivoted. Weather does look a little challenging, but this will be from four to 8 p.m. Cost is $5 a person, $20 for a family. This is live music, food, and kids play area.

These are the low cost, no cost events that actually do build community, do fight hate. There are so many things that these events do that are just not about just having a party. So get down and get to know your neighbors.

Have some fun. That's my report.

[Speaker 1] (16:30 - 17:06)
Thanks, Tom. Can I ask a couple of questions? Yeah, go ahead.

So Sean, going back to the seawalls, I appreciate the seawall bylaw. It's not such a great idea. We're going on 90 days of that temporary seawall like Mission of the Bay, and we were told that every month there would be an engineering report submitted to the town that from a civil engineer or a structural engineer saying the wall was secure.

And I don't think we've seen a single one of those reports yet. So I've just asked that you put an update on Mission of the Bay on your TA. I know you've said there's been conversations with the building inspector, but we've never, I haven't seen a structural engineer.

[Speaker 4] (17:06 - 17:06)
We've seen one.

[Speaker 1] (17:06 - 17:18)
We've seen one. I think we saw the initial one. I think we saw the initial one for the design for the design of temporary.

But we haven't seen a monthly report that they're inspecting it monthly and coming back and telling us that it's still.

[Speaker 4] (17:18 - 17:20)
And who's supposed to be inspecting it?

[Speaker 2] (17:22 - 17:32)
I met with Steve Cummings this afternoon and talked to him about inspecting the seawall and getting a status report from Mission of the Bay. They're delayed.

[Speaker 1] (17:33 - 18:12)
They have not submitted their plan, but I will get an update on the- So let me just ask this question. We kind of went through this one before they opened, right? So how do we know that they're safe to open?

How does the building inspector know they're safe to open? And your response 90 days ago, 65 days ago, 70, whatever it was, was we have a plan. They've committed to doing, or this building inspector is going to require monthly inspections and we're going to have certifications so that we know these things.

So how is that you're talking to the building inspector today and he's saying they haven't reported and you're just now coming up with a plan? Just in all seriousness. I mean, we were all concerned about it.

We own a very significant property on both sides of the seawall. So we're in a butter. We're not just municipal officials here.

[Speaker 2] (18:13 - 18:21)
So I don't- I don't know, again, I have to get an update from Steve if they've submitted those monthly reports.

[Speaker 1] (18:21 - 19:25)
I haven't seen an update on that. So I'll get an update on that. So if you can just put this as part of your EA report, just literally put mission on the base seawall, give us an update every single meeting then on this, because I don't really want to have an update every meeting, but I just want to make sure it's being done because my suspicion is if the temporary stuff isn't being monitored, they're not expediting their chapter 91 approvals, which by way of reminder, that was an approval that DEP, when the seawall went down, DEP cited mission on the bay for failure to obtain state permits when they did the original construction on mission of the bay, which if they had gotten those permits would have been a seawall assessment. And so I want to know if they're doing that. I want to find out if in three years we're sitting here wondering why we're still looking at an unsafe seawall, that temporary repair is not safe.

And we see police officers lightly and very nicely telling kids not to climb those rocks and humans, we like to climb rocks. So we do those things. It's totally understandable, but it's an attractive nuisance and it's just not a long-term plan.

And it's certainly not, if you were the property owner next door, you would certainly be uncomfortable with that plan. You want to share those?

[Speaker 4] (19:25 - 19:32)
What are the requirements for who would know if that seawall, is that a civil engineer?

[Speaker 1] (19:33 - 19:34)
Marine, yeah. Structural.

[Speaker 5] (19:34 - 19:36)
Structural engineer. That's civil.

[Speaker 1] (19:36 - 20:08)
But so whoever stamped it previously, should be the one giving us monthly reports. It's going to cost Mission on the Bay money, but I don't care. I mean, it's their responsibility.

That permanent fix is going to take a while because DDP will take time on a Chapter 91 license, takes a long time to do. And if they had done it originally, we wouldn't be here. So I'm just not very sympathetic.

The burden should be theirs. And it seems like the burden is ours at the moment.

[Speaker 5] (20:09 - 20:15)
That doesn't feel like the right place for it. But thank you. I agree.

[Speaker 11] (20:15 - 20:22)
I'm in the property.

[Speaker 2] (20:24 - 20:28)
They're going to fix that one. Right now. We do it.

[Speaker 3] (20:29 - 20:56)
I mean, we do it. They run a business. They have to make, I'm sure they want to make profit.

So they're not going to close their business. I get it. But we are concerned with the citizens that we have going into that restaurant and our abutting property.

I want to make sure every person that goes in there is safe. And so I just, I think that it's a safety concern inside and outside.

[Speaker 11] (21:00 - 21:06)
Great. Any more questions from the board?

[Speaker 3] (21:09 - 22:35)
I just, on the Swampscot police discussion, when we were talking about hiring, I just want to, what? Do I want to apply? No.

No, only because I have a job that I like, so I'm going to keep it. But I understand that you're trying to make a point about the way we hired previously, but I don't want to wait 20 years of hiring this way before we decide that the way we're hiring is broken, which is what we did with civil service. So we need to be proactive, not reactive about this.

And we need to be, we need to be able to pivot faster. If something isn't working, we should not be waiting two cycles of hiring to fix it. We should be looking at it and saying, every time we make a hire, what could we have done better to get more qualified candidates, best candidates we possibly can.

It should be, even if we hire 10 police officers tomorrow, we should be asking ourselves, what could we do better to get the best folks into town on our police force? So I just, I don't want to be having this conversation over and over and over again. I want to have some proactive steps that we're taking and then a reflection on those steps if they worked, if they didn't work, every single time.

[Speaker 2] (22:36 - 25:48)
Beta, I think you're absolutely right. Typically, anytime we have a vacancy, we do a vacancy review. We think about the organization.

We think about, you know, what could we do? We've consolidated numerous positions and changed job descriptions. And I agree with the same thing about hiring.

Unfortunately, when we do a bulk test and we have individuals pay $140 to take a test and they're to be evaluated in a pool of candidates for just a very few number of positions that are life-changing, every one of those individuals enters into that testing cycle with the expectation that they're going to be evaluated on their merits, on their best ability to compete with that pool of candidates. And I think the challenge with that is that we have to go through that entire pool before we actually stop and say, we want to think anew about how we meet an exigency of a hiring situation that has changed dramatically over the last couple of years with policing. It really is a model that for, you know, years and years we used in civil service.

We essentially have a municipal service system that is fraught with all sorts of complexities and delays and, you know, important rigor, like hiring a police officer is among the most complicated and important responsibilities that we have in government. And we have to really be diligent about it, but it is taking way too long. And so we've ended the process on Saturday and on Monday, we sat down, the chief and I sat down and we actually put together a plan to really change the way we hire so that we can be much more efficient.

So we have the fundamentals of that, it's been shared with the union and we're going to have a few meetings and we're going to really try to align, you know, the broader responsibilities that we share and really make this work. I have every confidence that we can do better. And I think, you know, we just need to get back to that teamwork that has helped us accomplish a lot over the last few years.

I do think, you know, it's really helpful that we're not tied to a civil service system right now because that system, you know, is a state law and there are guidelines. We can actually change every aspect of this, but we have to work with our union and try to build consensus on that. That's what we're going to try to do.

But in the absence of that, we still have to fill these positions. So we're going to have to, we're just going to have to get this done. Can you share that plan with us?

I can share some details. We're working out the draft right now. But once we finalize that today, once I get that discussion through with the union, I will share that with you.

Within a week or two, is that reasonable? It's my hope, but I have to have a few conversations and I just don't think it's going to be helpful to get that out into a broad network.

[Speaker 1] (25:49 - 26:12)
But I think that I'm going to just chime in. You tell me if this is not, I'm going to dig a little deeper. I think that Doug might say before it's baked and done, is there a chance for us in an executive session because it would be having to do with negotiations, I think is what Doug is probably really going to, not to have you give it to us once it's baked and done.

I think, Doug, you correct me if I'm wrong.

[Speaker 6] (26:12 - 26:51)
Well, I was expecting that Sean was going to come back with something I was going to love, but- Nevermind. But no, but yes, of course. But the main thing is not necessarily that I'm, in any way, shape or form, prepared to kind of analyze all the nuances of every step of this process.

That's your job. It's more like at the end product of it, you kind of putting yourself out there to say, with this process I'm laying out here, I expect that in the next three months, six months, nine months, this is what the hiring will be. That's what we need, the end product, right?

You need to figure out the details, how to get there. At least as far as I'm concerned, I'm not necessarily going to be very helpful in those.

[Speaker 4] (26:51 - 28:18)
Yeah. So I have a comment because I have been vocal about this. I was also part of the oral board in the first hiring process.

So I had to really learn about the process. And I thought the process that was devised was a good process. And the only thing that I really walked away thinking was that the commitment to time was the Achilles heel.

And so what I've done is, I have put together my personal recommendation on the timeline, just as a recommendation, because I think that this can be done in 41 days. And first off, we have to forecast out what is it going to cost? Because there are costs associated with the background checks, paying overtime, so that somebody is not going on vacation and I'm waiting for a background check, and then just making a commitment to no delays.

And maybe I have oversimplified it. I don't think so. I've looked at it for two weeks.

I read the manual that was agreed upon as far as hiring. And I think once there's a clear plan on how we're going to be advertising and really trying to pass that wide net, and that's why we left civil service. Once that net has been cast, then this is my recommendation.

So you can each have one copy. And it's basically, I go from day one, all the way down to day 41.

[Speaker 5] (28:19 - 28:30)
There you go, Sean. It's done. Yeah.

Thank you. It's 41 days. Jesus.

You did it in three weeks. What have you been doing? It's going to be six weeks.

[Speaker 6] (28:35 - 28:37)
Thank you, and thank you.

[Speaker 5] (28:43 - 29:11)
Anything else? Or comments? We will welcome public comments from members of the public, either in the room or on Teams.

If you're in the room, please stand up next to Mary Ellen. Just because of the wonky microphone situation here. State your name, address, and you'll have three minutes to speak.

Negative.

[Speaker 10] (29:13 - 29:24)
Hey, guys. Andrea Moore, 15 Sheridan Road.

[Speaker 8] (29:26 - 33:32)
So I am from many times here to speak about King's Beach. So one thing I just wanted to begin with stating is the first time I came in front of you guys, we had 643 members, and now we have 1,100 in just a few weeks. So certainly this community really cares about this issue.

I actually ask people before they join, why do you want to be part of this? And we have folks from Nahant, Saugus, people who grew up here, people who are new here. People really, really care about this issue and want to keep our foot on the gas pad.

So I just wanted to present some recommendations this evening. I know there's an important report coming out, and I'm looking forward to reading that and adjusting it and helping in whatever way I can. And I also wanted to recognize all the positives that have happened this year, and this outlines a couple of those.

But as we all know, the beach season is over now, and testing will stop. And that is, in my opinion, a big deficit in this community because people don't stop using the beach pretty much ever. And surfers come, and kids go in the water, and people are not going to stop using the beach.

And this was the worst safety record on record across the region. So as you probably know by now, 91% of days at Kings Beach this summer were unsafe in terms of the bacteria content in the water, which is a fancy way of saying there's feces in the water. So I wanted to point that out.

And I also wanted to point out that it's not, Kings Beach is the core of this issue, right? I don't want to dilute this with other beaches. Other beaches are affected by the heavy rains, but I really would implore you to stick to this issue because it is 130 years old.

It is not going to go away without a significant amount of effort and pressure and focus, really focus on that issue. So I also wanted to point out that thanks to the bacteria at Kings Beach, most likely Nahant, north of the bathhouse, was closed 55% of this year. The beach was, they never stopped collecting money, which I think is its own issue.

There wasn't accurate like, you know, warnings for folks. And so, you know, there's definitely, our problem is now spreading to areas like Nahant. So I created, or I took the graphic here, which shows the bacterial content at Kings Beach at Stacey's Brook specifically.

And you can see here where the safe level is, and it never literally meets that. And oftentimes 12 days out of the last cycle were pure raw sewage. So we're talking about, you know, kids walking through raw sewage in our town.

And I think that's honestly embarrassing and it's unsafe, right? So in my opinion, and in the opinion of many people in our group, there are a couple of things that I would really implore you to continue the work that you've already begun. One is to prioritize lining the pipes, right?

We've gotten a bit off track. Please, please, please focus back on that. I would like, I would love to see additional testing and if from April through November on the beaches, I would love to see a physical warning at Stacey's Brook on the beach because people walk through it all the time.

I'd ask people if they are aware of it. They don't know. Please warn visitors at other entrances at beaches that are testing positive or have gone, or if there's been a heavy main event, there is no warning at these beaches.

That's not okay. We have to let people know with kids that you can't go in the water, that it's not safe. And just really continue to be clear about the messaging in the town.

I know I've gone over, I really appreciate the additional time. The last thing I would just suggest is to please have more regular steering committee meetings. It's a really big problem.

And I know that there's a lot of stakeholders in it. So please, please, please, please keep your foot on the gas on this. Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (33:33 - 33:37)
Thank you. Anyone else?

[Speaker 10] (33:42 - 34:38)
So I just want to be really quick. Oh, Liz Smith, precinct three. I just wanted to say, I really appreciate the attention that you guys are focusing in on this.

It's been a long, hard road over the last year. Sometimes feeling like there's just a few people beating a really hard drum. But to be able to go online today and see that 9-1-1 report available online for anybody who wants to look at it, that's huge.

Like that is huge progress. And I think it was the August 2nd meeting, Kings Beach was mentioned four or five times by various members of this group. And I just want to say, I really appreciate it.

I really appreciate the focus. I really appreciate the attention it's getting. It's getting a lot of attention.

I've been at the farmer's market for the last two weeks and people support this. And people are just really happy that everybody is starting to pay attention. So, thanks.

[Speaker 5] (34:38 - 35:08)
And thank you for your excellence. Thank you. We have a hand raised on Teams.

We have Hannah. Hannah, please state your name and your address and precinct if you have known. Hannah, you can unmute yourself.

[Speaker 11] (35:17 - 35:18)
There you go.

[Speaker 5] (35:23 - 35:24)
Had you for a second.

[Speaker 7] (35:48 - 36:02)
Okay, sorry. It's me. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Awesome. I have never used Teams before.

So, this is exciting and new and I'm old. All right. Is this only about beach stuff or is this open comment?

[Speaker 5] (36:02 - 36:10)
This is public comment. You can, you have three minutes to comment about anything not on the agenda. Please state your name, your address and your voting precinct.

[Speaker 7] (36:10 - 41:08)
Okay, my name is Hannah Sharpless. I live at 25 Walker Road. I can't remember what precinct I'm in, but I swear I'm in one.

And I spent about three hours today pulling weeds at the micro forest. I am a die on the hill micro forest fan. And I just want to express some of my feelings about the micro forest.

I realize it is a small potatoes in the scheme of the challenges that we are facing environmentally in Swanscot, but I wrote my ideas down because that will work better for everybody. All right. I'm writing what I hope will be a succinct and sincere letter to express my undying support for the micro forest at the corner of Walker and Paradise.

I am aware that the forest in its current state looks to put it kindly unintentional, but we are growing a forest and it has been less than three years. Last summer, we experienced unprecedented drought and yet hundreds of the bare root seedlings survived and are now thriving. This year was a pendulum swing that brought deluge conditions and the native trees thrived.

So too did the weeds, though they still served a valuable purpose for venting erosion during punishing storms. And people began to question the project to see it as an eyesore and something that does not properly invite people into the historic Olmstead district of which we are understandably proud. The answer to this challenge is not to bulldoze this vibrant experiment that is in perfect harmony with the town's climate action plan.

It would be the grossest irony when our schools are calling half days due to extraordinary heat events to replace an intentional and beneficial open space that filters air, sequesters carbon, cools the ground and feeds and shelters, pollinators and wildlife with grass, a bed of costly disposable non-native annuals or even worse, some sort of statue. This forest is a monument and a gift to future generations of Swampscot and this planet and no, we should not move it to a less conspicuous place because a huge part of the benefit of this micro forest is to educate, inspire and build awareness. I would agree that this has not been robustly communicated and I believe there is work that needs to be done on multiple levels in order to host a micro forest that has happy neighbors and an engaged and informed community.

Physically, there are steps that can be taken to make the site more clearly defined and attractive to community members and visitors to Swampscot. This cannot purely be the responsibility of the Swampscot Conservancy and I believe that the town infrastructure has the capacity to make this project a success. These are just my thoughts.

So what I'm about to say and I would encourage a committee or a poll to help gather ideas. I would say maintain a clear cut area in front of the sign, maybe even put a bench in. I heard somebody wanted a bench.

Come up with a weeding plan that isn't keeping with the health and needs of the forest while also making sure that as the trees mature, the area does not look abandoned, creating the anxiety that it has created for people. Create some kind of barrier like the rope and post barriers at the end of Fisherman's Beach and possibly even use that barrier to create a sort of winding path through the forest with plant identification signage. Invest in some solid, legit looking signage, not stake signs that describes the process and timeline as well as maybe showing photos of the fully grown forests that exist in other communities.

Create a robust social media and online education campaign. I love posting and then getting people to yell at me online. No, I really don't, but I would do it for this.

Get the schools involved with walking visits and maybe ask the High School Environmental Club to adopt the micro forest. But I really wanna emphasize and I know my time is up is that we can get used to things that are different than what we think of as normal. And we should, as our understanding of the impact of what we plant and how we garden changes.

Think of No Mo' May that allows butterflies like swallowtails. My son is twerking at me right now. Butterflies, Theo, go away.

Butterflies like swallowtails to complete their metamorphosis in dead leaves. When we remove those leaves, we remove those pollinators. Think of the fact that when I first moved to this town as a pregnant woman, one of the ways I nested was by digging dandelions out of my yard.

And I am now thrilled to see yards covered in dandelions because we know they are the first flower available to pollinators in the community. How great is that for everybody? No dandelion removal.

So just think before you say this didn't work. Think how small two years is in the scheme of the world and how much we are trying to teach our kids what positive action looks like before we plow it under and replace it with kale and cabbage and marigolds and pansies and tulips, which have their place and are beautiful, but serve no real restorative purpose in our ecosystem. And that is all.

Thank you very much.

[Speaker 5] (41:09 - 41:31)
Thank you, Hannah. Seeing no additional hands raised on Teams or in the room, we'll move on to new business. We're gonna start with the reading of the National Senior Center Month Proclamation.

Aiden, will you kick us off? Yes.

[Speaker 3] (41:31 - 41:50)
All right. We have the top. Whereas since 2007, National Senior Center Month is celebrated every year in September as recognized by the National Council on Aging and the National Institute of Senior Centers to celebrate senior centers across the country and the incredible work they do to enrich and extend the lives of older adults.

And?

[Speaker 6] (41:51 - 42:02)
Whereas the Swampscott Senior Center is committed to being an inclusive community and welcoming of all people, regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity, and recognizes that we are a diverse community.

[Speaker 1] (42:02 - 42:09)
And? Whereas the town of Swampscott supports the rights of every citizen to experience equality and freedom from discrimination. And?

[Speaker 4] (42:10 - 42:35)
Whereas the origin of National Senior Center Month can be found in National Senior Center Week, which was first celebrated annually in May of 1979 to recognize the more than 10,000 senior centers throughout the nation and gain wide support through organizations such as National Council on Aging, U.S. Conference of Mayors Aging Task Force, and the full Senate and House Select Committee on Aging.

[Speaker 5] (42:36 - 43:00)
Whereas in 1985, President Ronald Reagan signed the first Senior Center Week presidential proclamation with the support of the National Institute of Senior Centers. And by 2007, the idea behind National Senior Center Week became so popular that NISC expanded the celebration of senior centers to an entire month, and designated each September to be the month of celebration.

[Speaker 3] (43:02 - 43:14)
Whereas the town of Swampscott has a senior center that focuses on social, educational, and wellness programs by providing seniors with a wide variety of enriching programming, nutritious meals, and low-cost transportation. And?

[Speaker 6] (43:15 - 43:27)
Whereas the town of Swampscott is proud of our expanding senior community and understands that senior centers are paramount to the overall health of our senior citizens, particularly as the center strives to engage with isolated seniors, bringing them into community.

[Speaker 1] (43:28 - 43:36)
Whereas Swampscott is embarking on an endeavor to create a state-of-the-art center for all ages, designed to address the needs of seniors together with all generations in one community center.

[Speaker 4] (43:37 - 43:55)
Whereas the community is embarking on an endeavor to create a state-of-the-art, oh, the next one, sorry. Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in the town administrator and each of the below selected board members in the town of Swampscott, we hereby proclaim the month of September as National Senior Center Month.

[Speaker 5] (43:55 - 44:10)
In the town of Swampscott, Massachusetts, and encourage all faith-based and nonprofit organizations, residents, businesses, and public institutions to acknowledge, honor, value, and celebrate older adults' contributions to our community and to recognize the importance of those who serve them daily.

[Speaker 3] (44:12 - 44:20)
You can witness, whereas we have hereunto set our hands and cause to be a fix, the great seal of the town of Swampscott, Massachusetts, the sixth day of September, 2022.

[Speaker 11] (44:24 - 44:24)
Thank you.

[Speaker 7] (44:26 - 44:35)
Sorry, the Suicide Prevention Month, the ones in your packets, there are a few changes. So the one that's in a green folder is the one that should be red.

[Speaker 5] (44:40 - 44:41)
Sure, go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (44:42 - 45:08)
National Suicide Prevention and Action Month proclamation by the Select Board. Whereas September is known globally as Suicide Prevention and Action Month, the National Suicide Prevention and Action Month proclamation was created to raise the visibility of the mental health resources and suicide prevention services available in our community. The goal is to start the conversation about mental health and the impact of suicide to help destigmatize the conversation and help connect people with the appropriate support services.

[Speaker 6] (45:10 - 45:33)
Whereas according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, suicide is the second leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 10 and 34. With more than 48,000 people dying by suicide annually in the United States with a daily rate of 132. In 2022, more than 600 Massachusetts residents died by suicide.

And?

[Speaker 1] (45:35 - 45:44)
Whereas every suicide directly impacts the minimum of 100 additional people, including family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and community members. And we're just gonna go ahead. James, thanks.

[Speaker 6] (45:46 - 45:53)
Whereas the town of Swampscott publicly places its full support behind those who work in the fields of mental health, education, and law enforcement.

[Speaker 3] (45:54 - 46:10)
Whereas global organizations like Hope for the Day, as well as the town's local mental health partner serve on the front lines of a war that many still refuse to discuss as stigma regarding suicide and mental health issues is far too prevalent. And?

[Speaker 5] (46:11 - 46:21)
Whereas we encourage all residents to take the time to understand the importance of mental health education and recognize that taking care of ourselves and others includes taking care of mental health.

[Speaker 4] (46:24 - 46:52)
Now, therefore, on behalf of the entire select board, we do hereby proclaim September 2023 as National Suicide Prevention and Action. I'll finish. The town of Swampscott, Massachusetts, and encourage all citizens to join us in a worthy observance.

In witness whereof, we have here unto set our hands and cause to be affixed the great seal of the town of Massachusetts, the sixth day of September, 2023.

[Speaker 1] (46:54 - 47:21)
Mr. Chairman, can I? You do something. Yeah, I do.

David, can I say something quickly? The proclamation fails to recognize 988, which is the national hotline for crisis and suicide prevention. And so it just, I hope parents are teaching their kids and us are teaching our families that 988 should be known like 911 to be able to help people.

And there's no bad reason to call. So reach out and use that hotline and seek help.

[Speaker 5] (47:23 - 48:05)
Yeah, and just as we're emerging from the three years of a three plus years of a pandemic, we're out of the pandemic, but we're now into a global mental health crisis. So I think bringing awareness to this, I assume this proclamation is great, but hopefully the town can also put some additional resources on its website and continue to work with the Board of Health and health directors to really make these resources available, prevalent and really obvious to those so we can get the word out and protect our residents and citizens and our families.

[Speaker 2] (48:06 - 48:48)
Absolutely, David. Really appreciate Peter, you bringing up the suicide prevention hotline of 988. Look, we know we're in a crisis and we know that, this is a stigma to talk about mental health.

It's still a problem. And we wanna make sure that families just understand that there's a lot of help out there and support. So we'll double some of these efforts.

I know the police department and the fire department and our Board of Health are all talking about ways that we can really engage citizens a little bit differently to ensure that we can be simple. So how about we wrap some up?

[Speaker 3] (48:48 - 49:26)
I was gonna say, and hopefully our school department is helping teachers understand how to recognize certain markers for depression and mental health issues. And additionally, teaching our young folks to be supporting each other, not tearing each other down, but actually helping one another if they see other students struggling, if they're not the person who can get them help finding somebody who is. So it just, everybody needs to know that there is so much support out there.

It's not just rhetoric and how we get people connected to that.

[Speaker 6] (49:28 - 49:33)
Is this a normal that you use this in all the channels throughout the month, newsletter and those types of things?

[Speaker 2] (49:33 - 49:55)
We'll send this out. We'll reinforce this. It'll become part of a opportunity for us to help share this proclamation with a number of different groups and we'll ask that it be read and just be a conversation starter with a lot of organizations.

[Speaker 1] (49:56 - 51:34)
The last thing, if it's okay for me to say on this is I just, Lynn last year allocated a half a million dollars for unarmed crisis management team. And if you've been in Lynn enough, you see the vehicle actually, it's rolling up to a lot of events. And back when we had the Swampscott reporter and we really had a police log, you'd read the police log and you're like, well, not much is happening in Swampscott.

And that's because the police log is sanitized. It never actually tells you what the calls are. And it's for reason, privacy and other reasons for that.

And the vast majority of them, that's an overstatement. A large number of them has to do with chemical dependency and mental health issues. And we have officers who have done yeoman's work and getting more sensitized and equipped to be able to do it.

But what we haven't done is backfilled it with mental health substance abuse advisors that really can take the responsibility from that initial call after it's been made a safe situation to be able to do the follow-up. And I know that our police officers have expressed that they feel strained. So maybe that follow-up, maybe in the future, we can find a way to resource having that follow-up by mental health professionals or chemical dependency professionals to really offer that guidance and that family support.

Because the truth is, our town is no different than any other town. And if you really look at the data and you really look at the call logs and you really look at what happens here, a large number of the calls have to do with chemical dependency, has to do with violence that's as a result of mental defect or chemical dependency, things of that nature. So I would just add, and I know, Sean, you talked about this, so I know you were squarely on board with it, but if you can find a way, as we are thinking about the future here, to start weaving that in, because that is...

[Speaker 2] (51:34 - 52:41)
Yeah, absolutely. I'm so glad you are bringing these issues up because I do think, you know, I just looked today, there's three communities on the MMA website that are posting for a position for behavioral health professional that will be emerged in a municipal police department that will support three different communities. And frankly, I would love to see a position like that in SwampScript, hosted by SwampScript but shared through the region.

I think there are incredible opportunities for us to actually be more innovative and supportive. And we just, we've got to be able to see some of these challenges as opportunities because there's a real need there and we're not meeting it. So we've got to really wrap our heads around some of these best practices that are starting to emerge.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We can just look at where communities are really leaning into saving lives and making a real strong, powerful difference. And it's not novel.

[Speaker 1] (52:41 - 53:00)
It's not novel. Greenfield and Deerfield are two of the communities that are in the forefront of this. And if you think about it with resource-constrained communities, those are resource-constrained communities.

So this is not the forefront. There are communities that have no resources or have very little resources that have pooled together to create that position. And so maybe that's a good start for us to talk with our community neighbors.

[Speaker 4] (53:01 - 53:09)
When is funding going to be available on those lawsuits? The opioid lines lawsuits?

[Speaker 2] (53:09 - 53:15)
Yeah, we have some of the funding, and it's going to be doled out over the next few years.

[Speaker 1] (53:15 - 53:31)
I think some of it's now back in the courts because I believe the Supreme Court rejected the largest portion of the settlement. So it has to go back to- But isn't there a portion of the settlement that was- No, no, no. The largest portion is what I'm talking about, but there's other portions that also are paying.

Yeah, we had a war in our court. Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (53:33 - 53:34)
Well, there would be some funding.

[Speaker 2] (53:35 - 54:14)
Yeah. I just think, you know, to me these are one-time funds and I wouldn't use one-time funds for reoccurring. I think, you know, what I'd like to see is some of these best practices that are happening in other communities that are regional, that are supporting embedded professionals that are going to be part of an emergency response and really help, you know, backfill the void after an incident because after that initial response, what happens?

And oftentimes it's, you know, not enough. And we've got to figure that out.

[Speaker 3] (54:14 - 55:21)
The other thing is it's often not just one response, right? It's often multiple calls helping the same individuals and without the support on the backend, we're gonna, they're gonna keep being in those positions. They need to understand that there are helping hands reaching out so that they have the tools that they need to put themselves in a better position.

I mean, mental health is a cycle that it is very difficult for an individual themselves to help themselves out if they need support, they need people there with them while it's happening, after it's happened to ensure that they don't go back to a place where, you know, they can't get out of again. And without having something like this, I think it's, I don't know the data, but it's almost certain that we'll be back helping those same individuals. So it's, I think it's really important if we're going to get anywhere with combating the mental health crisis that we're looking to actually provide services in mental health and not just proclamations, so.

[Speaker 5] (55:24 - 56:14)
John, you had mentioned funding, and I do recall that we weren't receiving a lump sum, we're receiving funds over, I wanna say a 15 or a 20 year period. And plus we're paying for this anyway. If our police officers who are not behavioral health professionals are responding to these calls, you know, their attention is being taken, you know, from other matters to deal with these mental health issues, to deal with these substance abuse issues.

So, you know, we are paying for it one way or another. So, you know, I would certainly think that we should explore how we can find, you know, the funds in the budget, the funds that are coming to us from settlement to see what we can do, how we can leverage the resources with the community in the region.

[Speaker 2] (56:15 - 57:06)
Appreciate that. I really appreciate the board's support for this because frankly, I wanna get beyond the rhetoric here. I really appreciate, you know, this sense that somehow these proclamations are just pure.

We don't wanna just read proclamations, we wanna save lives. And we've gotta do something different in order to save those lives. We've actually gotta create some positions and some responsibilities, and we've gotta really take some of the best practice examples and put them into place.

We can do this, and we actually have the flexibility to do this. And I'll work with our police departments, our health departments and our fire department and really think about ways that we can strengthen our response.

[Speaker 5] (57:10 - 57:23)
Yes. Great. We'll move on to our first reading of the Hadley School RFP.

And I'm gonna go around and read it. We're just gonna take a paragraph.

[Speaker 1] (57:26 - 57:30)
So if you'd like me to go ahead and.

[Speaker 8] (57:33 - 57:44)
Mr. Fitzgerald, can I just mention the Narcan training that was given at the Narcan school? I wasn't able to make it, but I think something like that, if that can get redone, please.

[Speaker 2] (57:44 - 57:50)
Absolutely, great idea. I'm happy to talk about getting more people trained in Narcan and save lives.

[Speaker 10] (57:51 - 57:54)
Because I think empowering students is a good help.

[Speaker 5] (57:55 - 57:59)
Absolutely. You good?

[Speaker 1] (57:59 - 1:04:15)
Yep, sorry. All right, so in the packet tonight is a draft of the RFP for the hotel RFP consistent with town meeting approval from last year's data weight, this year's annual town meeting. This year's annual town meeting.

And that has been prepared with the help of clinical advisors, our consultant, and I also want to just thank town staff as well for their participation in creating this. And I also want to thank Jonathan Lehman from the historical commission who wrote a really great piece about the history of Swanscot hotels, which is now included as part of the RFP process. Excuse me.

The only change that I'm aware of since the draft we have now is the fact that Pinnacle Partners is really strongly suggesting to us that we do a full 90 day open period for responses. And so that would change our, assuming for the sake of conversation, September 15th is when the RFP goes out, it would be until December 15th it comes back. So the dates will shift by roughly one month in here.

We'll try and catch back some of that time here. So we might tighten some of the other timeframes, which are all discretionary timeframes, just kind of getting a sense of when we would review, when we would meet, when we would negotiate things of that nature. So that's going to be revised.

So I suspect the end date's not going to change. We're going to kind of squish some of the later things, but we will give, my suggestion anyways, is that we do give a full 90 day response period. Pinnacle will be as hoped, actively out there in the marketplace, reaching out to who they believe to be appropriate groups to make sure this opportunity is seen.

We have had a number of groups reach out preemptively as well. And if they had, if they requested to go see the Hadley and the Hadley was available during the summer, the facilities director was nice enough to be able to show them. I attended a couple of those as well.

Interesting questions. It's interesting to sit there and listen to their thought process here. The RFP speaks for itself, happy to take questions.

I do want to just stress, I do expect that there's going to be some subtle, not subtle, limited language changes between now and our final reading. And it's really just going to be, to continually and often express the following message, which is, this is an invitation for ideas. This is not the idea, right?

And the idea, town meeting did set some parameters. And if you remember, we talked at town meeting about a welcome mat with parameters, right? But the message is to the community out there saying, come to SwampScout with your ideas.

Let us talk about your ideas and invite those that deal in this industry or know things about the industry or creative people that have ideas about things to come to us and say, hey, we think it should be this. And so in the package, as you may recall, Pinnacle did do a marketing study and Pinnacle made some, a recommendation for a possible program. And then group one architects, who is one of the preeminent architects for hotels in the city of Boston, did some test fits of the hotel, of the Hadley Historical building, the original portion.

That's in here, but we're just going to add some more language to stress saying that that's not mandated. It's merely just the juice, if you will, the creativity to show you one idea and there could have other ideas as well, just to bring it back to us. That doesn't negate that we've created some kind of priorities, right?

Maintaining the historical building is a priority for us. And it's been a priority. We've said that since day one.

Flexibility about the annex is continued as well, which is the annexability, not so much though. So there's going to be some Pinnacle suggested and they're going to get some language by the end of the week to us. That's just literally is going to just be, it's already in here in a couple of places where it just says, this is just one idea.

Don't feel constrained. Come back and propose your idea, consistent with zoning, consistent with town meeting approval, but come back with your ideas. That way we get the full view of the market as opposed to, I think, ask the market to respond to all of us about our ideas of a hotel, which isn't necessarily what the market's idea of the hotel would be.

It's still at the end of the day, ours to say yes or no, right? So we're not obligated to take any ideas. If anything, it's going to feed our knowledge about these things.

And then finally, I'm just going to speak generally about the macroeconomic situation. And be perfectly clear. You know that I do this during the day.

I don't do hotels. I stay in hotels. But the capital markets are simply said are not great at the moment for real estate.

David's in the lending side and can speak to it. So look, I said at that town meeting, don't know what the capital markets are going to do and where that is. That can have absolutely nothing to do with Swanscott, right?

There are some great projects that I have for my team to work on that we're letting go because we can't make them work. It's not because of the projects, it's because of the timing and the capital markets. It doesn't make sense anymore to do those projects.

So I don't know what that means for us. I'm glad we have Pinnacle on our side, pounding the pavement and gonna put that out there. And so that doesn't mean that this isn't the right idea.

It doesn't mean it's not the idea that we should do. It just may be that our exact moment right now may not be the best, having nothing to do with any of us just because of macroeconomic concerns. And this one time, I hope that I'm completely wrong.

And I hope that the world responds accordingly and comes with some great ideas and gives us stuff to have to seriously consider and debate and think about. So at least we're consciously making an affirmative decision for the future, one way or another on that. With that, I'm happy to take questions.

I think that David did, sorry, David did send an email to us about potentially doing the second reading next week. And I would ask that we do the second reading next week. And that's just to be consistent with Pinnacle's request to add, basically to do a full 90 days.

It's important to get the responses before the end of the year. And so we want December 15th to be the deadline and not December 31st or January, because we want to get it before the holiday season there. So I would just ask that we, I don't anticipate substantive changes.

If you see any changes, you'll see them in red line, but I don't anticipate substantive changes that would require.

[Speaker 5] (1:04:16 - 1:04:28)
Yeah, that was going to be my question was when can this board anticipate a red line motion ahead of the second reading, which we have posted for 6.30 on 9.11?

[Speaker 1] (1:04:29 - 1:05:14)
So I'm happy to commit to Friday by noon, and you'd get it, and we'd also post it online as well, the red line. And so it would be a red line from this version here. Again, I think it's going to be minimal at most changes on it.

Council has it for a second look. They took an initial look. They're doing a second look right now just to see some, just the final stuff, just to make sure that they have questions as well.

But that would be dotting I's and crossing T's, I believe. And then that additional language I mentioned just about encouraging people to be creative and not feel the plans that are in here are needed for it. Maybe a watermark.

Don't use this idea. You got a better one. I thought they did a good job putting it in here, but they went back and said, no, you should really just keep on saying this is just in an idea.

This is in an idea.

[Speaker 4] (1:05:15 - 1:05:18)
So- Is this draft going to be online? Yep. Is this draft online now?

[Speaker 1] (1:05:18 - 1:05:19)
Is it online right now? It is.

[Speaker 5] (1:05:19 - 1:05:27)
I don't know the answer to that question. I'm going to ask Diane or Sean. I will be back here.

I don't know.

[Speaker 4] (1:05:27 - 1:05:29)
Or can we have it online tomorrow?

[Speaker 1] (1:05:29 - 1:05:34)
Yes. Fair enough. Other questions?

[Speaker 4] (1:05:36 - 1:05:39)
It's finally selected. So we're shooting for December 31st.

[Speaker 5] (1:05:39 - 1:05:47)
Yeah, so on the schedule, Mary Ellen, that- Yeah, so the fifth line down won't be November 15th.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:47 - 1:06:53)
It will be December 15th. And then I'm going to, what I'm going to do is I'm going to work with, it's frankly, I'm going to work with staff because it's mostly internal after that just to compress those dates afterwards so that we're still finishing within the timeframe expressed here. It just means that we're going to probably have to be a little bit more nimble and be quicker and do things quicker.

I do, I mean, I have said this before, I'm sorry. I do, I have said this before that I do think that there's probably going to be, I think I said it's town meeting, but I'll say it here again. I do suspect that there's probably going to be a need to go back to town meeting, potentially on real estate taxes or other things.

I said that at town meeting, I'm just going to say it now. So we should anticipate whether it's a special town meeting or the annual town meeting. I'm just setting the expectation that these schedules somewhat differ and tie in with that need.

I can't imagine that it's not going to come up and that's not, that's going to be something we're going to have to decide if we're open to doing or not, but we can sit with the schedule in connection with town meeting as well.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:53 - 1:07:01)
So the RFP is currently being added to the website at this very, so it's the Hadley page.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:01 - 1:07:03)
I think that handsome guy up there maybe knows.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:03 - 1:07:07)
That's right, that, Mary Ellen, the handsome guy up there that you referenced earlier.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:08 - 1:07:08)
Oh, good.

[Speaker 4] (1:07:08 - 1:07:16)
Putting it up on the website as we speak. So all the developers that are watching this need tonight, go with it, go learn it.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:17 - 1:07:21)
This is the must-see TV show, hotel development.

[Speaker 11] (1:07:21 - 1:07:21)
All right, sure.

[Speaker 6] (1:07:24 - 1:07:26)
I have a couple of questions. Are you finished or?

[Speaker 11] (1:07:26 - 1:07:26)
I am.

[Speaker 6] (1:07:26 - 1:07:46)
Okay. Okay. A non-surprising request for me.

In the Pine Street RFP, we had an added a kind of green design, net zero lead evaluation criteria.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:46 - 1:08:58)
Yeah, and we have that here as well. So we've discussed it and I say, we've discussed it. This is the issue.

That building is, it'll be a Herculean thing. And what we don't want to do is scare people because it's a very hard, it's going to be a very hard adaption to be able to just candidly in that building in particular. We're not saying the disqualified.

Yeah, no, no, I hear you. Let me, let me, let me, I hear you. And I'm totally in agreement with the concept.

No issue whatsoever with the concept. Let me go back and talk with them about how to word it in a way that says that we were careful in a number of these preferences or the evaluations to make sure that they seemed. We have a lot of flexibility.

We have complete flexibility. Let's be clear, the board, when the board meets on this stuff, this is not, we're not buying a dump truck for the lowest bid. Where the board has a significant flexibility.

So I hear you. So let me, thank you for raising it. Let me.

[Speaker 4] (1:08:58 - 1:09:01)
What your concern is, you don't want to scare somebody away or.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:02 - 1:09:08)
Yeah, a building like this is very hard to do. Passive house, it's very hard to do anything that's actually LEED certified.

[Speaker 4] (1:09:09 - 1:09:09)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:09 - 1:09:30)
I mean, just candidly, it's the expense is significance in the way in which sadly hotels are usually heated and cooled. Isn't the most efficient way of doing things. So, but I hear you.

It doesn't mean that if someone came and we had a unicorn came and said, hey, I want to, you know, do all electric and triple. Well, let's not presage it by calling them a unicorn.

[Speaker 6] (1:09:30 - 1:09:33)
I mean, I think, I think that, you know, there's a lot of evolution here, right?

[Speaker 1] (1:09:33 - 1:09:36)
If a stallion, if a stallion came.

[Speaker 3] (1:09:37 - 1:09:37)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:37 - 1:09:40)
Okay, with a point at its head, and made it look like a motor.

[Speaker 3] (1:09:43 - 1:09:58)
Instead, an idea might be is explaining like a philosophy related to Swampstat instead of a preference related to the building, like that, that we're moving in this way. So it would be not rather than.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:58 - 1:10:04)
Yeah, no, no, I get what you're saying. Let me, let me just remind me of the Pine Street language and maybe there's a way to use that. That's interesting, I know.

[Speaker 6] (1:10:09 - 1:11:07)
Is there any way that they're basically, this all boils down to give us a number, either for the lease or the purchase in many ways. And I'll come back to it. There's two ways in which it appears that way to me.

One is like, you know, that's the sheet at the end. I mean, that's very similar to Pine Street. What's different from Pine Street, my big reference point, obviously, is that we've got a lot more kind of minimum submittal requirements in Pine Street, a lot more kind of required description of what they were really offering, which, you know, when I kind of did a admittedly relatively quick scan of like what was included here versus there, there was a big difference.

And I didn't know if that was very conscious because of the different, you know, purchases we're making here, or if that's an opportunity for us to make sure that we're getting a much more comprehensive plan and explanation. Yeah, so, go ahead, Kate.

[Speaker 3] (1:11:08 - 1:11:36)
I was going to say, I feel like the difference that sort of apples and oranges, same group but different, because we have an idea at Pine Street. We want to see come to fruition. Here, Peter has been, we all have been saying, come with your ideas.

Here's some fuel to ruminate with your ideas, but, you know, we'd like to see, we'd like to see the idea not swayed by our ideas. Like we want to see the best version of this, and it doesn't have to be our version.

[Speaker 6] (1:11:36 - 1:11:45)
I'm not talking about the specifics. I'm talking about the structure of, you know, what is your plan for X, Y, and Z? I just agree that you need to have that.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:45 - 1:13:02)
So, page 12 of the RFP contains the submission requirements. I'm actually taking it from other hotel RFP responses. That's where this came from.

I'll go back and look at Pine Street. I was pretty involved with drafting that, but I can't remember what we put in, to be honest with you. So, let me, I'll go back and look at that.

No, it's fine, I'll go back and look at that to see if there's things. What I will say is the level of what you're going to get in response to this RFP is going to be extremely different. Level of quality of response, quality of material, or presentation materials, I anticipate to be materially different than what you're going to see from Pine Street.

Pine Street is, no disrespect, but a bit more casual, a bit more stock, boilerplate. The housing nonprofits do this all the time. They submit a lot of things.

They have the same architects usually working on projects, so they have them on retainer, and we'll recognize the same names keep coming back, and so this tends to be a different quality where they are selling brand, they're selling credentials. You don't have to tell them what they're going to do. Yeah, it is, but I will go back and look at the Pine Street.

Fair point. Let me go back and look at Pine Street to see if we missed anything, because I just don't remember Pine Street right now.

[Speaker 4] (1:13:03 - 1:13:26)
How is this being advertised? Like, you know, maybe hotel people way up in Maine, you know, boutique hotel people, how do they know that we have something like this going on? How do people down in Maryland or wherever, I mean, how is this really, how does this get advertised out there?

[Speaker 1] (1:13:26 - 1:15:10)
So, obviously, the normal way is just that we're doing the legally required ways through the registry and whatnot to advertise that. We have the benefit of having Pinnacle on our team, who's basically, he covers the East Coast, and so Pinnacle's going to actually be using their network to do blasts of this, which is something we normally don't do, right? We don't normally blast an RFP.

I'll use Pine Street as an example. We did, Eat, Pain, and Marzi Golaska did email out local nonprofits who have previously communicated with the town to say, hey, we have an RFP out there for veteran senior housing or veteran housing type of thing, but that was a limited purview because we have Pinnacle on our team, and as our consultant here, they will actively reach out. There are also other, this is a less formal answer, there are other hotel, what I'll call brokers in the Boston community that, between Rachel Regenski and myself, we've reached out to as well to let them know that we're going to share it with them when it comes out.

Don't worry about commissions. They're not paid by us. They'll be paid by the hotel that they represent.

So this is actually, I think, going to get much more coverage than anything I've been part of for the town, just because we've never had a consultant, a trade consultant like this on board. If senior affordable housing, the condo development, we literally did the registry for those and nothing more. But I welcome other ideas.

We can do billboards for a while. I mean, I'm being actually serious. There are other, I can go back to Rachel and say, give me more, tell me how we can go even further, because we can't, and it's not, in the realm of things, money's not the issue here.

Those aren't really expensive things, but I'm happy to ask her.

[Speaker 5] (1:15:12 - 1:15:13)
Worth doing?

[Speaker 4] (1:15:15 - 1:15:17)
Anything we can do to really get the word out on this?

[Speaker 5] (1:15:18 - 1:15:19)
Thanks.

[Speaker 9] (1:15:19 - 1:15:20)
Sorry, I don't know that you were talking.

[Speaker 6] (1:15:21 - 1:15:33)
Okay. I have two other things. Did we, was there, was it here at town meeting that we evolved and there was something added about a community room?

[Speaker 1] (1:15:34 - 1:15:40)
There is, there's actually language in the warrant.

[Speaker 9] (1:15:40 - 1:15:47)
Someone made an amendment, right? Yeah. In the warrant.

And that, is that in here? It's actually in the speaking exhibit. So let me just make sure.

I'll make sure it's in there.

[Speaker 6] (1:15:50 - 1:15:54)
It was just, it was, that's what we ended up with, just the community room was in that amendment, or was there?

[Speaker 1] (1:15:54 - 1:16:08)
That's not quite the language, but yes, that was it. Yep. Okay.

I believe the sponsor of that amendment is sitting in this room right now. Oh. We're all forgetting about Narcan in that room.

We've got him covered.

[Speaker 6] (1:16:11 - 1:16:25)
Last thing, will this be restricted as a hotel forever? Will it be deed restricted, or will they be required to have a hotel, or could they create a hotel and three years later decide to slip it into something else?

[Speaker 1] (1:16:25 - 1:17:50)
So really, really, really great question. And if I was to tell you where we spent a lot of time doing is having that conversation. And I don't even know if we should have this conversation publicly.

No, no, it's okay. I mean, it is what it is. The LDA is our contract with the developer, right?

And so we're going to have a land disposition agreement, which is our contract between the town and the equivalent of the purchase and sale agreement or whatnot. There'll be attached to that the other legal documents that attach to that. That LDA is going to mandate the hotel use.

I will say, do not be surprised that they come back and say, well, what if a hotel fails? Like we just put $30 million in this building, what do we do? And so we're going to have to have conversations as a community as to how, what rates we want to protect ourselves and what rate the market may require there.

And that's just a natural, frankly, that's just a natural thing that we're just going to have to have a conversation about. I don't want to have that conversation tonight, just because that's something we're going to have to decide how we want to handle and we can talk privately. So we're not telling the universe how we want to handle, but I do want to, you're raising a really legitimate point, but one that there's not a easy answer for me just to give you, because if lenders in particular, lenders, there's going to be lenders, just like on any project they're going to want rights if something happens and they need to step in and they're just going to want to know what their rights are in this. It's just going to be a detailed conversation that I just don't have clarity on point right now.

Great question though.

[Speaker 10] (1:17:53 - 1:17:55)
Are there restrictions on that site too?

[Speaker 1] (1:17:56 - 1:17:58)
There is one about no market rate housing.

[Speaker 3] (1:18:00 - 1:18:09)
So will that, do you think that it will negatively impact bidders with lending? That's really interesting. That can get flipped over to a meeting.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:09 - 1:18:49)
What's that? That can get reversed. Yes, it can get reversed, but I don't think so.

I mean, you're asking me a question. I gave you an answer as if I'd been thinking about it for 20 minutes. I haven't been thinking about that.

I don't, no, that was a town meeting. We took it to town meeting. So I remember proposing it and I remember why I did it and because I wanted people to not candidly fear that with the new elementary school coming on board that we were going to have a market rate housing project.

And because no one else was going to do it. No one intended that. So town meeting approved it and we actually voted it a couple of meetings afterwards and recorded it.

So it's actually recorded.

[Speaker 3] (1:18:51 - 1:19:01)
Just I don't understand the landscape of commercial lending that well. So I don't know if that negatively impacts bidders or.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:01 - 1:19:13)
No, it's a great, I don't think so, but I'm going to write this down and I'm going to, I frankly have never even talked to Rachel about this topic in particular. I don't think staff is either. So market rate housing.

[Speaker 10] (1:19:17 - 1:19:20)
I have one other thing, but it's adjacent.

[Speaker 3] (1:19:24 - 1:19:42)
Specifically adjacent to the building, the playground. I know we've talked about it numerous times. I know it's not related to the RFP and the hotel will not be required to have a playground, but we should be required to put that playground somewhere where it could be used within the vicinity of that current playground because it is well used and loved.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:42 - 1:20:03)
Yeah, so we've actually had some conversations about that. We can include that into our conversations with them. I think it's a, frankly, it's a cost issue, but that's an easy, I mean that in a good way.

I mean, like it's just a cost issue. It's not anything else. That's just, do it.

So I think we're going to be able to, let's not lose that point.

[Speaker 3] (1:20:03 - 1:20:34)
Yeah, and I would love to explore Linscott Park as an option. I know that it's been touted as having an issue because of its restrictions, but it has swings on it and it has some sort of oddly black topped court of some sort that is unused. So just want to really have town council take a look at that and see if not there, maybe in front of town hall.

[Speaker 4] (1:20:34 - 1:20:38)
Is it absolutely, is it going to be an absolute loss of that playground?

[Speaker 1] (1:20:40 - 1:20:45)
Yeah, I don't know the answer, but I think you should assume the answer.

[Speaker 3] (1:20:45 - 1:20:54)
Yeah, so just from that seat, not moving it to a spot a mile away, that's not helpful to that neighborhood.

[Speaker 2] (1:20:55 - 1:20:59)
Katie, we can look into the de-restriction on Linscott.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:59 - 1:21:00)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (1:21:00 - 1:21:03)
Or other possible areas, but it would be great.

[Speaker 5] (1:21:04 - 1:21:05)
Any questions?

[Speaker 1] (1:21:07 - 1:21:18)
Again, I'll get you the red line by noon on Friday. Thanks everyone for their diligence in reviewing it. Thank you for all your work.

[Speaker 5] (1:21:19 - 1:21:30)
Excuse me, all your work. A lot of work. Yeah, thank you.

I'll move on to discussion of the select board.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:30 - 1:21:45)
David, do you mind if I just suggest, can we do the Pine Street update first, just because others may not be as interested in that handboard stuff and talk about Pine Street and then we'll get stuck in the mud.

[Speaker 5] (1:21:45 - 1:22:45)
That's all good. Yes, handboard stuck. Of course.

So, but really what brought about this discussion would be the Pine Street RFP status and project finance. I've been in contact with the chair of the Affordable Housing Trust, Kim Martin Epstein. Unfortunately, she was selected, could not attend our meeting, but we've been talking with her for a number of months.

And she's certainly gonna support this affordable housing project, but I thought it made sense tonight to add this as an agenda item so that we can formalize and ask of the Affordable Housing Trust. So I think it would make sense to get an update as to the status and then we can have a conversation about how we formalize that ask and go back to people who I was impressed with on the request.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:45 - 1:24:25)
I can give you a quick update. There's not much. So the RFP's out there, I think September 25th is the deadline for RFP responses.

Sean, as you talk to the general and as you talk to other people, just keep in mind that that's the date that we have set for the RFP responses there. So it's just be aware of that. A number of groups, mostly housing nonprofits have pulled the RFP and so have the RFP.

As you know, we executed an extension of the purchase and sale agreement that allows us to defer purchasing the property until I believe mid-December. That every month costs us more money, costs the town more money to be able to get that extension, but we decided it was worthwhile and important to have that extension. And so in that vein, I appreciate you raising this issue because I do think it's important to have clarity about the commitment of the Affordable Housing Trust because I think that there was a lot of the conversation here previously.

And I'll just be honest, I believe there was a widely held expectation, but we'll find that out shortly that the Affordable Housing Trust was going to contribute $300,000 towards this project, which is, again, I think an incredibly use of their money because it's 10,000, if we're doing 30 units, it subsidizes only 10,000 per unit, which is amazing. So that $300,000 is going to create a lot of units. But I think before we were to close and do things, we've always worked on a math that is purchase price minus minus to understand what the town proper actual commitment will be to this project.

And that number has included historically 300,000 from the Affordable Housing Trust.

[Speaker 5] (1:24:27 - 1:25:13)
Yeah, so I'm just curious from the board as to, we've had informal discussions and we've gone through this process over the last six, nine months. So if it's the will of the board, I would wanna take a vote to formalize that request of the Affordable Housing Trust to fund $300,000 on the acquisition of the property. So my question, Peter, is if it's pencils down on September 25th, might we be able to close theoretically here by the end of October or the end of November?

No, yeah, fair question. So what's the timeline?

[Speaker 1] (1:25:13 - 1:26:24)
Yeah, it's a little bit of a crooked line from here to there. And so let me a couple of things. And the chair of the Affordable Housing Trust has rightly pointed this out before, which is the important thing is the commitment of funding.

We actually probably don't want it to be coming in at acquisition. There's reasons for that. So don't, but the point is the commitment of the funding when it comes in, I'm less concerned about where we sit today.

And there's conversations that we can have about that. The reason we negotiated to December, mid-December was to give us an opportunity to make sure we were at a point where we had a agreement with whoever the RFP respondent that we chose was and made sure that they had a chance to complete their due diligence and were comfortable with the due diligence that they did on the property. And so the hope is to get that done by the mid-December date so that by the time we are taking down the property, we have a hard agreement, if you will, and deposit from a housing nonprofit or whoever the RFP respondent is so that we're not taking down the property.

Let's try it again. Take two. So that we are not acquiring the property before we know that we have a partner who has completed their due diligence and we have a binding agreement with them.

[Speaker 5] (1:26:25 - 1:26:34)
Got it. Got it. So we're still confident.

So we're confident that this can happen before, well, it has to happen before December. As confident as we were previously, we are still that confident.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:35 - 1:26:39)
We're still that confident. Yes. Yes, I will agree to that.

[Speaker 5] (1:26:39 - 1:26:49)
Okay. So as for a motion to formalize the request of the Affordable Housing Trust for the $300,000, do you have a motion? So I think it's- I have a question too.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:49 - 1:27:04)
So if we don't know what the bids are coming in, we don't normally know what we're going to need, why would we ask for just 300 right now? Why wouldn't we just wait a little bit? Because maybe we want 400.

[Speaker 5] (1:27:09 - 1:27:45)
That's a good question. I thought from previous discussion, we had talked about the potential for the Affordable Housing Trust to contribute the 300, the 300,000 number was floated out there. But I mean, what if we needed 450?

What if we needed 500? I think the important thing is that those funds are allocated and set aside by the Affordable Housing Trust to contribute to this veterans project. I think that's the most important thing is those funds are available.

[Speaker 4] (1:27:45 - 1:27:46)
I would agree with that.

[Speaker 5] (1:27:46 - 1:28:22)
And ready. And to Peter's point, it's $10,000 a unit at 30 units, it's $7,500 a unit at 40 units. So somewhere in that ballpark, it's a good subsidy for this particular project.

And I know that from previous conversations, there's a lot of support. This is what the Affordable Housing Trust does. And this is what they were set up to do was to support these types of projects.

So maybe we can go at it as a minimum of. A commitment of a minimum of 300,000 with the potential.

[Speaker 3] (1:28:25 - 1:28:39)
Had discussions around that number. But if there was a Affordable Housing Trust windfall and they came and they wanted to fund additional, then I mean, I don't think anybody's gonna turn it away.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:40 - 1:30:27)
Yeah, so I think I'm asking for minimums fine. I'm gonna tell you that I would be perfectly fine with 300. My motivation tonight is just to be really honest is that we're, there's a lot of conversation about how they're using their funds and they're looking to use 300,000, up to $300,000 to create two units somewhere else.

And the way I said that probably discloses that I just I'm confused by that math. But if the trust wants to do that, that's great. But I just wanna make sure if they're gonna spend 300 on two units, that the other 300 they have is coming over here.

And so I'm just to be clear, I'm just concerned. I want that expectation to be clear. And I want it to be so that we're not at a brink when we all of a sudden get responses and they're saying the 300,000 is not coming into the project.

We're sitting there now saying, oh, now what do we do on that? And I just want clarity. And again, it's their funds, they get to decide how they want their funds.

I just want clarity from them as their commitment. So that way, when we're getting those responses, we immediately know. We are issuing just so you know, answers to questions through the RFP process.

PK has been working with town council to answer questions that have come in. And we'll be providing some information also about the purchase and sale agreements and the purchase price. Obviously, we're having a public conversation now.

So if someone's listening to us right now, they're hearing us talk about affordable housing trust, that's expected to be buying down the purchase price. Doesn't mean the money comes in at this point, but details it's buying down the purchase price. It's not seen as a subsidy, a source, if you will, for the development, it's a source for the land.

And so I just think it's important to just make sure we just don't have mixed wires and mixed expectations. So I'd be fine with the minimum language, but I also totally fine with that's all. If they had a billion dollars and they just wanted to do that, I think that's a healthy commitment.

There are other sources.

[Speaker 5] (1:30:28 - 1:31:02)
We kind of made the decision based on 300. So I would still be comfortable going forward. Yeah, and we've put this on the agenda at the request of the chair of the affordable housing trust, so that they actually had a formal request.

Right, they need a formal request. They need a formal request, yeah. So they'll take this up at their next meeting.

And Doug is not only the liaison, but a voting member. So he can certainly share this with Kim. But I don't think there's anything that we're saying tonight that's a difference from our position three or four months ago or six months ago.

Right.

[Speaker 6] (1:31:05 - 1:32:01)
Yeah, I have had experience over the last month or two about the level of scrutiny that the affordable housing trust brings to bear for a request. So I don't know if a simple request of $300,000 without further details will be sufficient. Just as a heads up, maybe that will be sufficient, but there may be further interest in understanding the full project finances as well.

So I just kind of give a heads up to the select board that that may be the case. But I do not think that there's any issues whatsoever with $300,000, even if another project happens to move forward and that be a very different project, money coming out and then back in again, totally different animal. But even if that happens, there's no issue with $300,000 from a pure bank account cashflow perspective.

[Speaker 5] (1:32:02 - 1:32:29)
But I just want to also raise the fact that. Well, I also want to raise the fact that, there have been funds from the affordable housing trust that have been promised to be on place development as well. Potential for funds to be encumbered with a project on Hillside Ave and then this project.

So I don't believe that there are funds to do everything. Are there?

[Speaker 4] (1:32:30 - 1:32:31)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (1:32:31 - 1:32:33)
It depends on the timing of everything.

[Speaker 4] (1:32:33 - 1:32:35)
There's also more funds coming in.

[Speaker 6] (1:32:36 - 1:32:51)
So anyway, so nothing I'm saying here is to dissuade us from voting for a $300,000 commitment there. My only note there was that there might be a desire for more information.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:51 - 1:34:13)
Yeah, no, the good news is this is truly a down the middle of the fairway affordable housing tax credit deal. So Kim is going to be intuitively and some of your other members are going to be intuitively aware of the finances and the typical stacking of sources and uses. We're not going to know all the finances because we won't have, but we know whatever's submitted to us is going to be balanced.

And, but the good news is we're not doing this. We're not proposing any special AMIs. We're anticipating it's going to be a tax credit deal, which basically means that we're going to see, I think mostly 60% and then some 30% units as opposed to I know on this other project you guys are doing a little bit more organically, right?

And that's good. It's creative. It's creative.

Organic is one of my neutral words that I use. It's like saying it's colorful. It doesn't say it's bad, good color.

It just says it's colorful, right? So anyways, well, but I'm happy to join a conversation but Kim and Joan and others know the math intuitively. But happy to.

So with that, so I just make a motion just to request, you know, ask to give the chair of the authority to on behalf of the select board just to ask the affordable housing for written confirmation of contributing at least $300,000 towards the acquisition of the Pine Street property.

[Speaker 5] (1:34:14 - 1:34:15)
All right. All in favor.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:15 - 1:34:23)
Aye. Compared to the keyword there was acquisition as opposed to the technical development.

[Speaker 5] (1:34:29 - 1:34:36)
All right, we'll move on to discussion of the select board handbook policies, procedures and regulations.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:43 - 1:34:45)
This was which one is the select board or?

[Speaker 5] (1:34:46 - 1:35:49)
We're gonna start with the select board handbook. Just for a matter of reference, this is a relatively new document that was taken and it was voted upon by the select board in April of 22. And big thank you to the former chair, I like to come for working on this for a number of years and seeing this through.

So really just wanna open this up for any questions. I have none. I've signed this.

I stand behind it. I think it's an important tool to help guide this select board and future select boards. I think it's certainly not a static document.

It's something that is dynamic and should be reviewed from time to time for changes to make sure that there are certainly things that change as we do and the document should change along with it.

[Speaker 3] (1:35:52 - 1:37:05)
So I am going to practice when I'm speaking and I asked him to take a look always at projects just going forward after they've happened. And I know we've lived in this for a little while. So there's probably some things that are like were intended, but maybe haven't come to fruition or maybe haven't fleshed out enough in the processes.

So like in chapter two under procedures there's a section above B that requires that new select board members obtain a list of key town officials, their phone numbers, phone number of each board member and an organizational chart of town staff and officials. I've never received any of those documents. So maybe assigning it to somebody might be helpful.

That way- That would be me. Okay, but maybe in the handbook saying whose responsibility it is so that when I'm looking at the handbook, I can say, okay, it's the responsibility of someone. So I'll reach out to them, might be helpful.

Also with regards to the agenda in section B, hold on, what's your option? I've got three sections B.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:06 - 1:37:17)
Can I just, who's doing the markup of this? I just want to make sure someone's being responsible for that. Okay, no, no, I just wanted to make sure we got there before we got to the end of this.

[Speaker 10] (1:37:18 - 1:37:20)
Three sections B agendas.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:21 - 1:37:21)
Yep.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:22 - 1:37:52)
So it says generally the chair should honor any request from the board member. If it's a question denied, however, the member can call for a vote. There's no really formalization of what a request is or how it gets denied.

So is an email enough for a request? How many emails equal a denial? Just thinking something along those lines to understand just if it's supposed to be an accountability, what is it actually holding people accountable to?

[Speaker 1] (1:37:52 - 1:38:14)
So I think it's intended, look at it. A member can bring, the remedy is for a member to seek a vote of the board so they can raise it. They ask for a vote of the board, that has to show up on our agenda.

Meaning if they're saying, hey, I asked David to do, I wanted to talk about pink, the color pink for the next six meetings and he hasn't put it on the agenda, I can say, fine, I wanna have it go to a vote.

[Speaker 11] (1:38:14 - 1:38:14)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:15 - 1:38:27)
Then he has to put it there. I don't wanna get, I'm suggesting we not get tripped up with, did you send enough emails? Did you send during the right hours?

Did you write, did you sign the email? Any kind of technical things? Because it's not intended to be.

[Speaker 3] (1:38:28 - 1:39:08)
Okay, I just think it's a little bit, puts people in a little bit less awkward of a situation if there's more clarity on the expectations. So that way, it's not catching anybody off guard or like it's a little bit more procedural that I totally understand what you're saying. Like it doesn't have to be down to the wire, what minute of every day you have to send it.

But just, even if it's just by example, a request can be in A, B and C form. A denial of request should be written within, I don't know, a month of the request, whatever the appropriate time is. I just, to have it hanging out there, it feels like.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:09 - 1:39:54)
So having, I'm sure, I'm going to give you my experience as a chair and I'm privy to, I think, David's experience a little bit here. The number of requests you get are great and they're sporadic and they're all over the place. And if I had to track dates and times to know when I need to respond as chair, the reality is this, the chair balances so much in making an agenda and ignoring a request, not really ignoring, not being immediately responsive to request or affirmative to request doesn't mean that that's not someday going to show itself.

It's just that too many things on an agenda or there's a strategic or other reason, whether it's personnel or legal or otherwise things. And so I just, again, I just want to make sure the chair doesn't then all of a sudden have to get on these tripwires because no one's keeping track. Just in truth, no one's keeping track of these things, like in that way.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:57 - 1:40:06)
I think that's fair. But then does that non-conversation act as a denial inadvertently to a person?

[Speaker 1] (1:40:07 - 1:40:40)
So I think a denial can be whenever, I guess my point is denial can be whenever someone wants to deem it to be denied. With the second you feel like you're being denied, you can just say, hey, I want on the next agenda, I'm gonna, I would like a vote on whether or not to include an agenda item. And then that tells the chair, okay, well, you better respond to me now or else it's going to go for a vote.

And the chair can say, great, well, it can go for a vote because I'm not putting it on the agenda. That definitely tells the chair privately. But I think, so maybe there's something that at the request of any manner that has to be put on for a vote to put something on the agenda, that vote had to be automatically put on the agenda.

Okay. So that's what has to go into there. So maybe that's just the way to report.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:40 - 1:40:47)
It has to be request. You need to make a request to put it on the agenda and the chair can't deny the request to put it on the agenda for a vote.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:47 - 1:40:50)
It is whether or not you should be on the agenda.

[Speaker 3] (1:40:50 - 1:40:52)
Yes. I guess not.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:52 - 1:40:53)
Not the topic, but whether or not the topic.

[Speaker 3] (1:40:53 - 1:41:00)
I guess it'd have to be a carve out though for like, unless like legally there's a bar to have it on the agenda.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:00 - 1:41:01)
Yeah, well, and then.

[Speaker 3] (1:41:01 - 1:41:03)
Like, I mean, that's intuitive.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:03 - 1:41:11)
So let's just, let's just see if we can come up with some letters that carves that out. I don't think that's a huge issue. I do think that responds well to the situation.

[Speaker 6] (1:41:12 - 1:41:24)
That's the request to have the topic discussed to potentially be talked about. It has to go on the agenda. So that provides the avenue instead of feeling disruptive.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:24 - 1:41:26)
If you. Yeah, exactly.

[Speaker 3] (1:41:27 - 1:42:29)
And the, in the sense that no answer isn't a denial necessarily, right? And so that it, I just want to sort of flush that understanding out a little bit, but I think we just did that. In section E of the same sections, in chapter three, yep, notions.

Curious why, Jeremy, not second emotion. I think that I did a tiny bit of research on this and generally that's true in cases where the body's much larger. And like the second of emotion implies just that the motion should come before the board, not necessarily that the motion has merit.

Whereas maybe when you're creating the motion, you're suggesting merit. The second isn't, it's not necessarily doing that. So I was just thinking about that.

[Speaker 4] (1:42:30 - 1:42:34)
I think we got hung up a couple of times with not being able to second the second motion.

[Speaker 3] (1:42:35 - 1:42:36)
We did get second.

[Speaker 5] (1:42:36 - 1:42:46)
It's when you get down to four members that it's actually cripples the board. Well, also there had been, I thought there was some language that talked about three member boards, but I think that's on it.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:46 - 1:42:47)
No, that's in the board.

[Speaker 5] (1:42:47 - 1:42:57)
That's in the board of committees. But I do think that if we're meeting there, the chair, but I guess, I don't think is the time where we vote on annual water and sewer rates.

[Speaker 6] (1:42:57 - 1:43:13)
We didn't do it now and we did it before. And so I think that's a different timing for that. Is it to the town administrator review timing?

Is that reasonable in the midst of what happens in May and June, that that's really going to happen in June?

[Speaker 2] (1:43:15 - 1:43:17)
No, I don't think that's a great time.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:18 - 1:43:40)
So let's maybe just to your point, let's have a separate, there's specific things you want to talk, debating all these things. Some two of you should get together and maybe work with Sean on making sure the calendar is what it should be. Okay, because I already did the whole calendar.

So there you go. She did it in two weeks. Two weeks too.

Like she had a hell of a two weeks.

[Speaker 3] (1:43:41 - 1:43:43)
We're at 20 days in the year now. No, no, I did the last one.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:44 - 1:43:48)
Oh, right. We only meet 41 days a year. Yeah, so- Really?

[Speaker 5] (1:43:50 - 1:43:50)
I wish.

[Speaker 6] (1:43:50 - 1:44:08)
Okay, so those are the two in particular in the calendar and then also the quarterly reports. That's not happening. I'm not sure it really needs to happen at that level of frequency.

So I'm going to make a suggestion on that one specifically that literally quarterly reports of all three of those things seems excessive to me.

[Speaker 4] (1:44:08 - 1:44:09)
I disagree.

[Speaker 6] (1:44:09 - 1:44:12)
Okay, that's fine. But we ain't doing it, that's for sure.

[Speaker 4] (1:44:12 - 1:44:25)
We have had several quarterly reports, but we have fallen off on our quarterlies. So I think we just have to step it up and we could get the quarterlies emailed to us and then be ready for questions so that we can minimize the amount of time.

[Speaker 5] (1:44:26 - 1:44:30)
Sean was sending, you have been sending us monthlies.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:30 - 1:44:31)
No, yeah.

[Speaker 5] (1:44:31 - 1:44:34)
We haven't gotten it for a while. Let's just leave it.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:34 - 1:44:45)
We haven't gotten it in a while. That's fine. But I agree with Mary Ellen that these are, even if we're not talking about them at this point with Munis and other things, it's easy to pump these out.

We're not asking them to invent something.

[Speaker 6] (1:44:45 - 1:44:49)
This says, it's like we shall review the following in open session on a quarterly basis every year.

[Speaker 4] (1:44:51 - 1:44:51)
We can do that though.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:51 - 1:45:05)
Absolutely. That's something that frankly, historically has been done. You ruined it apparently when you arrived.

I don't know how you clearly thrown us off. Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (1:45:18 - 1:45:43)
I'm going to six. Does anyone have anything else in four or five? I have other things, but I'm just listening to you.

You might, okay. All right. Six climate action plan committee is not listed here, but I think that's because it's also not, it's not in the charter per se yet, which is one can be one of our suggestions for the charter.

And that's why it's not here, right?

[Speaker 4] (1:45:43 - 1:45:44)
Is it a standing committee?

[Speaker 1] (1:45:45 - 1:45:46)
I believe it is.

[Speaker 4] (1:45:46 - 1:45:47)
Advisory committee.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:48 - 1:46:27)
The recommendation certainly is going to be that that is a standing committee. So the reason it's not here is I don't think it existed at the time that we originally approved the handbook. Correct.

So that's why it's not here, but so going one of the two of these. And it's not in the charter yet. But it doesn't, you don't need, very few committees are actually in the charter.

So just so you know that like. Okay, but this says the following boards committees are in the charter. By statute found charter or found general.

They mean they're, it's in any one of those things as opposed to the charter. The charter actually is not nearly, for example, all these advisory committees don't exist in the charter. Right, that's a separate section.

But just to give you an example.

[Speaker 6] (1:46:29 - 1:46:36)
So the upshot of that is we can put it in now or that's a different conversation about where it goes.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:36 - 1:46:46)
Well, we have a general bylaw, don't we? Is it created as himself as a bylaw or just a Warren article? I don't think, I think it was just a vote of the select board last year that created that.

We created that? Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (1:46:47 - 1:46:50)
We didn't create that at town meeting. No.

[Speaker 5] (1:46:51 - 1:46:55)
Okay, so we'll figure it out. Let's have, figure it out. Wait, stop.

[Speaker 6] (1:47:02 - 1:47:24)
The advisory committees, again, I don't, I think what we say here is great, but I don't think we're actually doing it in terms of the oversight and monitoring and clear kind of instruction to the advisory committees about what their role is, what they're supposed to be reporting back on, that type of thing. I've kind of had that conversation as a context before.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:25 - 1:47:33)
Again, I don't know what you're doing with your committees, but my committee is now exactly the opposite. I don't even know what committees are mine. You are the comedian for tonight, huh?

[Speaker 6] (1:47:35 - 1:47:40)
So, don't, follow up there.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:46 - 1:47:47)
And Ken.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:48 - 1:47:54)
Wait, let me just go back to, so what are you saying with the advisory committees? You're just saying- He's saying that we're not following the handful.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:54 - 1:47:55)
We're not following the handful.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:55 - 1:48:02)
No, it's nothing. Well, I mean, he wasn't proposing a change. He was critiquing our performance, informity with the handful.

Yes.

[Speaker 6] (1:48:04 - 1:48:07)
He's noting it. I was critiquing it.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:07 - 1:48:08)
You're noting it loudly and publicly.

[Speaker 6] (1:48:08 - 1:48:44)
Okay. All right, well, hey, you know, I mean, if we're going to put it down here, and so, yeah. NA4, this again is, I think, an opportunity, a good idea.

This is like a regular committee reports to the select board. Basically kind of rotation of the committees coming before the select board and giving updates. I think, what language is it?

I don't want to change it. I'm actually, we might want to suggest a change, but actually this is telling us that that's what's supposed to happen.

[Speaker 5] (1:48:45 - 1:49:04)
But I don't think that's necessarily happening. I don't think that's necessarily true. I think as things are, as things are coming up, I mean, we did invite, you know, the Ford Laws and Trustees.

And I, unfortunately, she wasn't able to attend. ERAC, I don't think you can see that. I don't see that.

Yeah, Historic Commission's been here.

[Speaker 3] (1:49:06 - 1:49:07)
We can do better, but.

[Speaker 6] (1:49:08 - 1:49:17)
I thought, yeah, let's talk about the changes to the board. You know, we're signing this book, and then, you know, it says, at least annually, we're going to invite each one of the committees.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:17 - 1:49:23)
Is that really what we want? But it's what you want. And I think that's what you're saying, and I appreciate that, but give.

[Speaker 6] (1:49:23 - 1:49:32)
No, I'm sorry, I'm not being clear about this one. I do think this is, I think in general, this is a good idea, but right now this is saying every single one.

[Speaker 5] (1:49:33 - 1:49:37)
So let's just change it then. To what? Every other year?

[Speaker 4] (1:49:38 - 1:49:56)
Just to say that there'll be an update. I mean, because does it mean that a committee has to come in? Because I give an update constantly on the committees, and, you know, a committee that I think that needs to come in and update, I ask them, like, for example, we're going to have our Solid Waste Advisory Committee come in, but I've got the- That's not what this is saying.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:56 - 1:49:56)
Second paragraph.

[Speaker 4] (1:49:57 - 1:49:58)
Right. No, no.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:59 - 1:50:08)
She will present it up. She understands what it says. I think she's just trying to offer that there's already an alternative that is happening through the liaisons.

[Speaker 5] (1:50:09 - 1:50:19)
Yeah, so why don't we, could we strike? So could we strike paragraph two? I'm fine striking it.

Liaisons? Second paragraph.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:19 - 1:50:20)
Is that okay for you, Doug?

[Speaker 5] (1:50:21 - 1:50:27)
Yeah. Yeah, so we can add the liaison language. The liaison language is there.

The liaison language is there. Right, it's paragraph one.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:27 - 1:50:30)
Chapter 10A4, second paragraph. Is that correct?

[Speaker 1] (1:50:31 - 1:50:31)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:31 - 1:50:38)
Okay. So there will no longer be an annual commitment of them to come in. They will come in as they deem it necessary.

[Speaker 9] (1:50:39 - 1:50:40)
Yeah. Or I'll be- Or at the invitation.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:41 - 1:50:43)
The liaison will deem it- Okay.

[Speaker 6] (1:50:44 - 1:51:37)
Yeah, I think that makes sense. Now, I'm gonna apologize in advance for this one, because I know this can be a sticky wicket, but I find 10 to be, I totally understand the intent of it, but I think the level of constriction here, frankly, creates a kind of massive log jam through Sean. And I'll just say through the town administrator.

And I think there needs to be some way to kind of finesse this, so that the town administrator is aware of what is happening. People can't go willy-nilly, but the way this is set up right now, I just feel like you're basically just gonna end up being a traffic cop, you know?

[Speaker 1] (1:51:37 - 1:52:26)
So I think there's some- So let me, so I have a suggestion on that, because I hear you. I think the assistant town administrator should be put, it should be saying town administrator or assistant town administrator, because that's why you have assistants, right? To be honest with you, is to include them.

I don't think that it should be anything more than that, because I do think it is, to me, so I personally was just saying, look, you have a couple of town administrators, and they'll decide if they're not comfortable saying, hey, Doug, that's no problem. They'll say, hey, I gotta get back to you, and they'll go to you, but in fairness, right? I do think there's a legitimacy to that, but I think we can't make changes that even come close to undermining just the chain of command in town.

And so that's, the rigidity here was intended, actually, to deal with that, I think, and I support that completely, as much as I, like, all of us at times run afoul of that, so.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:27 - 1:53:15)
I absolutely want every member of this board to feel like, if you need information, if you are working to help support this town, that you get the support you need. We need your help. We need you to help the town with so many important projects.

We're a small town. We have to work together as a team. It's just important that we do it through a chain of command.

Ultimately, you know, I'm the fiduciary. I have to be responsible for all the contracts, all of the work that the staff are engaged in, and we have to do it in an orderly way. I think, you know, even the department heads, I think we can find a way to ensure that it's not a log jam.

I think the assistant town administrators can help us expedite any requests that you may have, and just keep everybody working as a team.

[Speaker 4] (1:53:17 - 1:53:53)
So I have a comment on this. I do believe in keeping order, but I also believe that trying to really control a conversation is a problem. If I see the DPW director outside in a field, and I want to ask him a question about something, I don't think I should be, I don't think I should have to turn around and send an email and say, or call and say, hey, can I ask this question?

[Speaker 1] (1:53:54 - 1:53:57)
Can you give an example? Just help me flush it out with an example for me.

[Speaker 4] (1:53:58 - 1:54:57)
One example would be DPW director is working in the field and turns around and waves hi, and I go over and ask him, is there a possibility that weeping willow trees could be a good conduit here for sucking up some of the water that's flowing into all these people's basement in here? That's something that we could ever look at in the future. What would be another question?

Another question would be, if I wanted to call the chief, the fire chief, and ask the fire chief, are there any ways to offer programs for citizens who still have very old fashioned type of electricity in their house? Can we have a program where they can re-up their electrical system or make things a little bit easier? I think that asking a select board member, you can't have a conversation.

I think it's too much.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:57 - 1:56:22)
And I just, I appreciate you giving the examples. And so I guess in my experience, it took me a while to realize this, is what you ask and what they hear are not necessarily the same thing, which is there is an inherent hierarchy in play here. They recognize the politics, they recognize that someone's up here and can be in control, and they're down here in the subordinate ranks.

And you may ask about willow trees, but the concern is that the DPW director then hears that and is saying, well, Mary Ellen Fletcher wants me to plant willow trees. And so I should now do willow trees, or Mary Ellen Fletcher wants me to now come up with a whole new program to help people with fuses convert to circuit breakers. And you might or might not mean that, but staff oftentimes hears even questions as directives.

And that, unfortunately, then the way human, my experience is that they don't then go back and say, hey, Sean, Mary Ellen just told me or that I'm going to do willow trees, so I'm going to do it. He day-to-day uses his discretion and tries to be responsive to you because there's not a single email from staff. I mean, for example, today, I think we saw an email that you had sent Margie asking for information, which was a great email, totally appropriate for you to do that.

That was great. But Margie's like, yep, I'll get it to you immediately. As soon as I'm out of this meeting.

And you said, oh, well, you don't need to rush, but staff's always going to say- Anything I emailed Margie, I copied Sean. No, no, no. I'm saying it was a great email.

[Speaker 4] (1:56:23 - 1:56:24)
No, no, I'm saying- That's in the rule book.

[Speaker 1] (1:56:24 - 1:58:31)
I'm saying it's great. My point was more about you just saw, you saw the urgency of her response, meaning she was uber responsive. Margie's that way anyway.

So I'm using that example here. And so I just ask you to think about, it's not how you intend the conversation. It's how it's received.

And what happens is Sean, the town administrator needs to understand that if all of a sudden brain matter is going to be spent researching water absorption with willow trees or circuit breaker programs that takes away from what he understands, his team to be working on, Sean absolutely needs to be aware of that. And so that's why the conversation needs to include, if not be through, Sean to do that. And in my opinion, it's just that, because I don't think staff here is the same way.

When I, I would love to think, I always tell Pete Kane in particular, I've known him probably the longest of almost any staff here. I always tell Pete, no, Pete, really tell me what you think, right? And I, to this day, I think Pete is really nice to me.

He left and he would speak up right now because he knows I always ask him, like, you have to tell me, like, this is a stupid idea. Tell me this is a stupid idea. But Pete doesn't.

Pete is incredibly diligent and respectful. And so he doesn't. He, through Sean or someone, it comes back to me eventually.

So I just ask you to think about it that way because I hear what you're saying. It's not intended to prevent, it's not intended to be that way, but our role isn't running the town at all. Our role is by majority rule only, if you will.

That's where we set policy. If it's not a majority policy, it's not a policy. And we shouldn't, I think it's concerned about tapping the resources of the town or distracting from what the town administrator has set as the course.

We should judge the town administrator. If you go to the town administrator and say, don't Weeping Willows help with some of that and planting those here, wouldn't that be a good idea? And the town administrator or his assistants constantly ignore you on that, then we have a process for that, which is we do reviews and he has a contract and then there's, that's a personnel issue.

So that we have our protocols there. And so I just, I've said enough, but that's just.

[Speaker 4] (1:58:31 - 1:58:50)
I think the charter is very clear on what the town administrator does and what the select board members do. And I don't see any reason, I don't see any reason for saying pleasantries is tried except on extraordinary circumstances, select board and its individual members should only communicate with town staff. I just think that there's no reason for that to be honest with you.

[Speaker 9] (1:58:50 - 1:58:50)
So what would the language say?

[Speaker 4] (1:58:50 - 1:58:51)
Take it out.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:54 - 1:58:54)
And so then.

[Speaker 4] (1:58:55 - 1:58:57)
Actually, I think the charter is very clear.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:58 - 1:59:51)
So, but if the charter is really clear, I mean, we'd be careful on this. I think there have been examples by members of this board, myself included in times past. If the charter is that clear, that if that sentence is taken away, then I'm not exactly sure what the handbook does then.

Because the handbook, the handbook. Are we talking about the whole handbook? No, I'm talking about this provision then on this point for the handbook, which is this, this is, and I'm gonna speak on this, but this is to me, I guess, from my perspective, if I was town administrator, it's not about controlling conversations, it's about controlling resources and knowing where things are going and what's happening here.

If I show up after a two week vacation, I find out that the DPW director just spent two weeks researching willow trees, I frankly would be pissed. And I'm using the example, I'm using the example just being said. No, no, no, but I would be because things beached, that report needed to go out, that had something else had to go out.

[Speaker 4] (1:59:51 - 2:00:00)
And again, Gino is incredibly- But that would be asking, but now what you're saying though, is a select board member is asking, making a request to do some work.

[Speaker 1] (2:00:01 - 2:01:04)
And that's in the charter, that's clear, it's not your- But I think that all I'm suggesting, I'm not suggesting that you're asking, I'm suggesting that human nature is, is that subordinates in a hyper political system don't hear questions necessarily the way you intend them. They hear them as, this is a good idea, I think you should do it more often than not. And I think it's in this town, I think it's in other towns, it's all good intentions.

But keep in mind, this is also a hyper political environment where all of a sudden things show up on Facebook and things like that. They are aware of the environment here. And so they want to be responsive, whether they agree with you or not, they want to respond because they don't want Mary Ellen Fletcher to be unhappy with them.

And they don't want Peter Spellios to be unhappy with them. And I'm saying this truly from my experience, because they don't say no to me. You know what I mean?

They're so respectful. And I ask a question, I'm afraid, I've come to learn that they sometimes infer that I've said, this is a great idea, go do it. So I'm just, we've heard each other.

I appreciate your position. Disagree with it just because I wouldn't want to be a town administrator in an environment where, first of all, I don't want to be a town administrator.

[Speaker 2] (2:01:04 - 2:02:59)
So look, here's what I just want to share. I've been a town manager, town and city administrator. Inevitably, there's a conflict in every one of the organizations where people are getting mixed signals and they're getting misdirection.

And the language here is intended to ensure that we have a clear chain of command. And there's not, you know, confusion about whether or not one or two board members that may have a different idea than other board members are providing direction for staff to do certain things that may be at odds with some of the policy goals. And again, the language here is to ensure that we have that esprit de corps.

It's also to make sure that we're just focused as a team on clear priorities. I do get a number of staff that come up after select board members meet with them or ask to meet with them. And I'm surprised at times, and I don't want to be surprised.

I want to know what you need. I want to know when my staff are being pulled into certain meetings so that I can actually, you know, have a good idea about what their level of demands are and really understand how we're gonna help address all the other priorities that we have. It's just helpful for me.

I don't wanna say no to them. I certainly don't want you not to say hello to staff. I want you to have- Well, the pleasantries are okay.

Absolutely. Talk to them about, you know, the willow trees, but, you know, they do want to be helpful. And there are times where, you know, we just don't have the resources.

And I've had to say no, and I've had to kind of go back and say, look, we've got to talk about, you know, our financial priorities. We're at the end of a fiscal year. We just can't address every, you know, issue that everybody wants to get resolved.

And again, it just is helpful.

[Speaker 4] (2:02:59 - 2:03:32)
I don't think there are select board members here that are asking for finances or, I mean, to me, the charter is very clear. We don't ask for it. If you mean a select board member doesn't ask for our finance, they don't go to a department head and say, can you do this or can you do that?

I mean, without you, you mean the protocol is to go to you first and to say, for example, Sean can, you know, I drive the bus and take the seniors over to this thing. And I mean, like there is a protocol.

[Speaker 6] (2:03:33 - 2:03:56)
Since I opened this can of worms, I apologize to you before I did it. I try to close it down just with that. Can we make it such that a request can be made to, you can determine like what level of staff is just the assistant town administrator or whatever it is in a written form, the CCTU without every single thing being, Sean, may I talk to- Absolutely.

[Speaker 2] (2:03:57 - 2:03:57)
Absolutely. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:57 - 2:04:29)
I think that's fair. Again, the assistant town administrator is a great way to deal with a lot of these things. I don't think, Sean, you have never made it be that way.

And we've never treated it that way. It's actually been about, and I appreciate you talking about the charter, but the charter is not self-affecting, meaning self-enforcing. So I appreciate you saying that's the charter, but if all of a sudden I go in and I'm starting to, you know, run the clerk's office and say, you should be doing this, you should be doing that, you should be doing that.

The handbook is intended to give us something to hold each other accountable. The charter, yeah, we could say that, but no, the charter says you can't do that.

[Speaker 8] (2:04:29 - 2:04:30)
I'll be like, okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:31 - 2:05:18)
The charter said I can't do that. What are you gonna do about it? Right, the handbook was intended to create self-accountability amongst us and boards to each other to do it.

So that's why I think I hear you. You're right. The charter is really clear, but I think there is ample examples of people inadvertently, good faith, intention, whatnot, just, and sometimes not, maybe, doing things that run afoul of the charter.

The handbook's the attempt to, especially in this category, as staff is a really tough one. We all want to banter. We all see them.

We all do those things. And it's hard for me, after nine years of working with people that, again, I run afoul of it, so I'm not just gonna sit here with purity of heart and mind here. But I think maybe doing what Doug's saying, is saying, whatever, whether it's Sean or the town administrators, just make sure.

[Speaker 6] (2:05:19 - 2:05:44)
So it can be communicated to staff, too. You may have had a conversation because you show up at some event, you're chatting with the chief here, the chief there. You're not just gonna talk about your kids for the whole time.

You're just gonna be relative with things you want to talk about. Nothing actually is, nothing's an edict to do something, unless it's put in writing, which leads to CCDU, just so everyone understands the ground rules, but it just, it increases the flow. You still know exactly what's happening, but it increases the flow.

[Speaker 2] (2:05:44 - 2:06:50)
We could try that. Yeah, Doug, I'm happy to give that a try. I always just like the fact that if you're communicating with department heads, and you have a few questions you want answered, just copying me, keeping me in the loop, I can read it.

I can kind of figure out, is that something I have to lean in on, or is that something that really is innocuous and really just a request for some information or some level of support? Generally, I want you to feel supported. I really do.

And deeply, I want my department heads to feel supported. I want- No issue with that whatsoever. It's expensive teamwork to really permeate.

They are busy though, and they have come to me, and they have expressed concern that they are feeling pulled in directions where they're getting a lot of requests for time. I know new elected officials require a lot of time. I know that, and I'm not begrudging that, but we just have to be mindful when we have a list of priorities.

Everybody's gotta be looking for clarity on how they spend their time.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:50 - 2:07:18)
So can you suggest, Sean, if I ask this, can you suggest language then? If you would have revised it in a way that was acceptable to you, objectively as a town administrator, using your experience, but kind of knowing that this would outlive, right, this is a document, and come back and suggest tweaks to this? Absolutely.

Is that fine to do it that way? Yep. Thank you.

You done? I am done. That was my- You're up, Mary Ellen.

[Speaker 4] (2:07:19 - 2:07:40)
I'm up. All right. So I just recommend on chapter two, and in any chapter that we have a mass journal law, to also print out the mass journal law and keep it in the packet under section three, board meetings.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:40 - 2:08:13)
Can I just say, I don't, I'm gonna disagree with you on that. This day and age with Google, you can Google in a second and you're gonna get the current version of it. If we have to do it, that means staff every year is gonna have to go in and say, were there any changes to this law and then print it out again?

And how would people, you know what I mean? I just, I hear what you're saying, but with Google, it's so easy now to pull up a law as opposed to needing- Yeah, if you hyperlink it, it's gonna go right to the updated version of mass journal law. It is, except if we then have to keep hyperlinks updated.

I'm just being realistic about our ability to keep things updated.

[Speaker 3] (2:08:14 - 2:08:19)
You wouldn't have to update the hyperlink if the- But if the link was no longer good.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:19 - 2:08:32)
If the link no longer, if the link isn't updated, if we couldn't verify the link being the right, I'm just- I'm just- I think it's a .ma.org link that is for the- It would be updated automatically.

[Speaker 3] (2:08:32 - 2:08:32)
Yes, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:33 - 2:08:42)
It could potentially be, but yeah. Or you could just type in MGL chapter 30A section 21 and you're gonna find out that it's the main law.

[Speaker 4] (2:08:42 - 2:09:04)
All right, so I'm gonna hold on here a little bit. We've got agenda one C. Katie already took care of that.

Okay, timing and delivery, town administrator's office by noon, at least seven days prior to schedule a meeting. Where's- Where's the- Number three, C3.

[Speaker 5] (2:09:05 - 2:09:06)
Precinct?

[Speaker 4] (2:09:06 - 2:09:10)
No, C3, agendas. Oh, okay, got it, got it, got it, got it.

[Speaker 11] (2:09:10 - 2:09:11)
Precinct three.

[Speaker 4] (2:09:13 - 2:09:20)
It talks about seven days prior to schedule a meeting that haven't had any agenda. Do we wanna remove that?

[Speaker 1] (2:09:20 - 2:09:40)
Because- Well, again, it's to the extent feasible. I think that is an ideal goal. I mean, to credit David, David's done a better job than I think I ever did for sure.

But I know, and that's a constant concern for you, Mariel, and it's a good concern, but I think to set the expectation, that would be great, to be honest with you.

[Speaker 4] (2:09:40 - 2:10:07)
All right, so I'm good with the extent feasible. I just, you know, on the next sentence, at least three business days prior to schedule a meeting, you know, we get things sometimes the same day, and I'm done, you know. The fact, I'm not, you know, get me some stuff on Thursday, Friday, but Monday, Tuesday, I'm not, I can't look at this stuff.

So I think get us stuff by Thursday night.

[Speaker 3] (2:10:09 - 2:10:39)
Yeah, I will echo. I know I've already said this, but it is extremely difficult for me during the day because I'm usually, while I'm to my select board email, print out whatever it is that has changed for a meeting that I have to leave work and directly come to, I want to come prepared with all the information possible. So I just, I know that this is meant to prevent that from happening, so that's why it's there, and that's great.

But to pull a Doug, if it's not happening. Oh.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:39 - 2:10:51)
Right, so what do you want to do with it? Because three business days is your Thursday, but the night before based on our Wednesday meetings. I'm just saying, the language does what you want.

I understand that there are times where we don't get our packages in time.

[Speaker 11] (2:10:52 - 2:10:52)
This isn't.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:52 - 2:11:00)
I'm just asking if there's. Call for adherence. Yeah, I was asking if there's a change or are you just saying, let's do it, let's be better.

Let's be better.

[Speaker 4] (2:11:03 - 2:11:24)
We go over to G, under one, G1. I think we, I have a question. G1, citizen petition pacing, you mean?

Yeah, generally board set aside comment time. With the new state law, don't we have to remove this?

[Speaker 1] (2:11:24 - 2:11:57)
Request residents speak respectfully and refrain. Yeah, we should just have council look at this just generally because the case law came down on this. We should appropriately say, residents don't have to be respectful or show any modicum of courtesy.

We actually should put that that way just so people have to read that and say, oh my God, we are incredible. You do not need to be nice. You can be a total jerk.

Let's not encourage it. All right, sorry. Law is law.

[Speaker 4] (2:12:02 - 2:12:29)
So on the next page under L, minutes. Oh, I moved it to the last two, so nine minutes. I'd like to see minutes ready by the next meeting.

Board must vote to approve minutes of every meeting in a timely manner. Yeah, so I'd just like to see the next meeting. I definitely don't want to see four within 30 days.

[Speaker 1] (2:12:31 - 2:12:47)
So I think that matches the open meeting law language is where it was drawn from and not to create a different standard here just because the open meeting law doesn't say it. But I think in practice, everybody agrees with you on it. Diane did a really good job with that for us comparatively.

[Speaker 4] (2:12:48 - 2:12:50)
You're right, open meeting law does say 30 days.

[Speaker 1] (2:12:50 - 2:12:52)
Yeah, it says in a timely fashion, but within.

[Speaker 4] (2:12:53 - 2:13:23)
Right, right. Okay. I read the calendar.

Oh, the bowl setting. I wanted to adjust the bowl setting to comply with the town administrator's contract. The town administrator has a contract.

And in the contract, it actually says when the evaluation should be. So I just think that's how it should be set up. It lines up with the town administrator's contract.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:23 - 2:13:33)
So you're going to submit your calendar just to make sure Diane and Sean know what to come to the way of the calendar and this goal setting language you'll submit.

[Speaker 3] (2:13:34 - 2:13:43)
To echo Mary Ellen, there are a couple of mentions of the calendar in the subsections, not just the calendar. Like when we talk about the town administrator's review.

[Speaker 10] (2:13:43 - 2:13:47)
So if you change the calendar, just make sure we're changing those. Right.

[Speaker 4] (2:13:51 - 2:14:37)
Under chapter six, boarding committee appointments. I think the way that we are selecting our committees really needs to be improved on. And I don't have that updated.

And I will come back with my recommendations on updating. But the fact that we're getting presented with one name and we haven't even seen any resumes. We have no ideas.

I don't feel like we're really participating in it enough. And yet these are people that we need to rely on to get information back. So I think we've got to really tweak that.

The only thing I can say is I will come back with some more, be a little bit clearer on how I think it should be tweeted.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:37 - 2:15:04)
I would ask you as you do it just to keep, and I'm sure you will, a sensitivity to the fact that bringing three names forward for a committee and getting stuck in a public dialogue about whether or not Bob, Sue or Amy are better qualified is something that would deter people from even applying because they're like, no, thank you. I'm offering my services. I don't want to be part of this open meeting law type of thing and so I think that's, in a way this is, yeah, so I just want to be.

[Speaker 4] (2:15:04 - 2:15:44)
I just want to find a different process. And I also, what really concerns me significantly is we have committees that are out there that are, they're just doing what they want to do and there's very little direction from us. And a committee that I think has direction from us, the Solid Waste Committee, I still think that they need a little bit more direction.

I think what we need to do is have more conversations amongst ourselves. What is it exactly we're looking for and what do we need for this coming year? And then get that information to the committees so that they can start studying things.

Yeah, so I'm going to have to think, I have to think about that.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:45 - 2:16:28)
I hear you, you're right. When we created the Solid Waste Advisory, we created, there was a charge, but frankly, the Solid Waste Advisory is coming back and talking about things that I would have never guessed them to talk about, but that's because they're thinking about it. We're not thinking about it and they want to come back and now talk to us about things that we didn't originally think about and that I like.

So for example, I mean, I'm going to use Harbor. Harbor is working, talking, doing what they're doing. The goal here is have them come to us and talk to us about what they think based on their conversations, their expertise, what we need to be doing for the Harbor because we ain't thinking about that regularly because we have 16 other things that we are thinking about.

So I want to, I hear you, I just want to, it's a two-way thing, which is I want them to have the free and the autonomy to say, hey, open space is thinking about things that I would have never thought of, right?

[Speaker 4] (2:16:29 - 2:16:45)
I don't want to see advisory committees out there applying for grants and doing all different things and having conversations with different elected officials. And we don't even know anything about it. If it's an advisory committee, then let's have some advice here and let's have some conversations.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:46 - 2:17:04)
Yeah, so I respectfully disagree. I think if people are on a committee, it's advisory meaning they're advising policy to us and doing stuff, but I think, again, any resident has the right to go call up their legislator and say, I want to do this. And the grant stuff, again, I believe town staff can handle that and work with them on those types of things.

[Speaker 4] (2:17:04 - 2:17:58)
These are things I think we really do have to have a conversation. I think we have to have a conversation about, whether we agree or not. I'm going to give you an example of solid waste.

Solid waste might be going in different directions. And some of the real clear things that we need to do is reduce our solid waste. And we might as a select board say, listen, select board, solid waste committee, could you give us recommendations on how we're actually going to reduce this, this, and this?

Along with whatever other recommendations you want to make, but we really need to make some serious issues. We need to really make a difference in what's happening here. For example, on the plastics, right?

So I think we should have gone on solid waste earlier on the plastics. You know, they're working on it right now. They're going to turn around and come back because they've been told, come back and give us the feedback on what you want for a bylaw.

[Speaker 1] (2:17:58 - 2:18:06)
Right, but solid waste has also done things that we haven't even thought to ask them. They've come to us and advised about things that have been told us words that we didn't even know existed in English language.

[Speaker 8] (2:18:06 - 2:18:07)
I think we can do both though.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:08 - 2:18:37)
Right. I think we can do both. Okay, well, let's have the conversation.

They are the power of government. Like it's to us, like we can harness the ship, so to speak, but we should not be controlling all the motors. I think it's great that they are working on things that I don't have an interest in.

Right. I'm perfectly fine with it. It sounds awesome.

I don't have an interest in it. It's never going to be a priority for me, but thank God we have all these citizens doing and not always just waiting to see if the select board is fine with it. Because I don't care if the select board is fine with it, as long as it's consistent with bylaw.

That's what I'm saying.

[Speaker 6] (2:18:38 - 2:18:52)
And Mary Ellen, to your point, like about the grant thing, I think that's again, an adherence to what we actually have written here. If I feel like it is important for members of those committees to understand that while they're making recommendations, it is the select board that makes the ultimate decision.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:53 - 2:19:42)
So I don't think that, you know, that type of thing, for example, shouldn't really happen. No, but that's- It should be circulated back in a way. But I don't think that means everything.

I think that means that things that need to come to the select board have to come to the select board. That doesn't all of a sudden say anything you guys want to do as a committee, you don't have to come back to the select board on it. Because that's somewhat ludicrous for them to decide that they want to- I'm just going to use the Solid Waste Committee.

Solid Waste Committee has initiated a number of free initiatives in town and tried to do things and push things forward that we've never voted on here. So they shouldn't talk about them and do them without saying, hey, do you really think this recycling initiative is a good idea? It's costing the town nothing in recycling.

I don't want them coming back here. My reading of that language was never intended to stifle anything they do come back to us. Only the stuff that we have authority over, they should have to come back to us for.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:42 - 2:20:05)
So- The irony of this conversation might be that whatever you're trying to solve related to the town administrator, you might be recreating right now. Right. Like you are trying to remove the backlog from the town administrator and our conversations with staff, but by telling every committee they have to show up here and have a conversation with us, you might be doing that.

[Speaker 6] (2:20:05 - 2:20:06)
Well, we got rid of that part.

[Speaker 3] (2:20:06 - 2:20:10)
I know, but I'm saying you're creating it again here, except with boards and us.

[Speaker 4] (2:20:10 - 2:20:34)
No, I think what you're just doing is I think you're just trying to get some ideas on what the conversations are. What might be this concern is when you, and I'm going to tell you right now, it's Harbor Advisory. When I turn around and I read, I read an application for a grant out there and I'm like, we don't even know about it.

We don't even know about it.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:34 - 2:21:04)
So talk to your town administrator about that. That's not, so I'm just going to say, tell you about that. And I appreciate you being open about a committee that you've expressed concern about, right?

I conversely am glad that they're out there doing stuff. If we as a select board or a town administrator need to sign off on things, but they're doing things and we're not signing off on them. And then that's a different question.

But I'm grateful and I'm a hundred percent fine with it, especially when I don't agree with it because that's the beauty of the committee structure is that we have to multiply ourselves.

[Speaker 2] (2:21:04 - 2:22:29)
In fair though, I just want to say, I work with all the committees to my best ability. On Tuesday, I sent the chair of the Harbor and Waterfront Committee a grant program, $5 million that was awarded to a handful of Massachusetts oceanfront communities. And it's disappointing to me that Swampskate didn't have a grant application in there.

And I had asked the committee to work and focus on that and discuss it because frankly, we have a Harbor and Waterfront plan that this board actually approved in a prior edition. And that plan has been instrumental in helping the town move forward with a broader vision for the Harbor and Waterfront. We talked about that in front of town meeting.

We talked about some of the goals and we're working the plan and we're going after grants that would help support some of those broader initiatives. That said, I'm happy to come back and have a few more conversations with the board about some of those programs and some of those initiatives, but that's the kind of synergy and that's the teamwork and that's the collaboration that this board and all of the other boards and the town employees are really focused on that are helping us move forward with a lot of initiatives that were just not happening for generations.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:30 - 2:23:26)
I think that was one of the reasons why when we were at the chapel, I had made the request that we go to the committee and then ask them what they feel like their mission is like from their seat coming out so that we can then understand, is there a disconnect in what these folks are tasked with doing and how they understand what they're doing? I mean, to make assumptions based on, I don't know that, I just think some more digging has to be done to understand if the boards understand the same mission we understand, who's correct there. The assumption isn't just that we're correct, right?

We should be doing some digging and seeing what was the original charge? Where is the direction they're going in? Is it a combination, a synergy of both the mission we may see and they may see?

[Speaker 6] (2:23:28 - 2:24:03)
And I respect Sean that you're saying that you work with all these committees, but I believe these are advisory committees to the select board. And so maybe you're aware of all of these things and obviously, we don't want your town administrator's report to be 14 pages long, but maybe all this amounts to really is there's been one or two hiccups here in terms of communication about a thing or two that really does rise to the level of like, it would really be nice to know at least that this is happening. We don't have to have a vote on it or something.

Maybe that's all we're really ultimately talking about.

[Speaker 2] (2:24:04 - 2:24:24)
Look, I do think there are times I could provide the board with a little bit more of a timely update on certain things that you would want to be aware of. And I'm certainly willing to go back and just try to figure out how to ensure that these committees are filtering up some information or we're really just keeping those lines of communication open.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:25 - 2:25:38)
Again, we're liaisons, that falls to us. Again, Sean, I think that's great, but to your point, good point. We as liaisons then need to make sure we're saying clear with the expectation of the chair saying, look, we can't go to all the meetings.

We're not going to, right? But have a monthly checking with the chair. It seems like a really reasonable thing with the committee where liaisons too.

Just tell them what's going on, right? Send me an email with what's going on or something. Mary Ellen does the best of obviously sharing updates on those things, but we all can do better on it.

I just, again, I just want to make sure we're from my standpoint, I'm concerned that anything we do differently now is about making sure that we agree with what these committees are advising. I want them to push our envelopes. I want them, I want to disagree with them.

I want them to educate me and that's how the system actually works. And they know that it has to go through town meeting or something. It's to their benefit of working consensus and getting this board involved.

They're smart enough to recognize that, but I've actually come to really enjoy the fact that I have these people with expertise and knowledge about things. And at times I disagree with them or it's, I'm not going to point out any committee, but I was like, oh, why are they possibly doing this? But if they want to do it, they can do it.

And so I appreciate what you're saying. Maybe the liaison just need to do a better job.

[Speaker 4] (2:25:39 - 2:25:59)
So I also want to come, I'll come back to the, in the future, I do want to add a couple of committees. One concern that I do have is with Pine Street. I would like to see a veterans committee or something so that we really have a group of people that are getting ready really to work hard to identify anybody that could benefit from that facility.

[Speaker 5] (2:26:00 - 2:26:10)
How does that differ from the, from the American Legion or the- I think what you would have is, I think we had a veterans committee in the past.

[Speaker 4] (2:26:10 - 2:26:57)
We had some type of veterans committee. That's what I've been told. I would just think you'd have a committee that would work with the veterans, those veterans agencies, and just have, you have more manpower, you know, non-veterans that can possibly do additional work.

I'll go back and research it a little bit. I just, especially with Pine Street, I want to make sure that, you know, when we went into Michon, we had a very small percentage of Swampscot residents that moved in there in the first round. And the people that had organized Michon, you know, the management company, I think did a good job of advertising.

So I don't think there was a problem with advertising, but could we have done more to really shake the trees to find out were there senior citizens that qualified for that facility?

[Speaker 5] (2:26:58 - 2:27:52)
Yeah, and I think that's, I think that's something that we can do through our veterans, through our DSO, Mike Sweeney, and through the VFW Auxiliary, and the commander of the VFW, and those organizations. Just one of my concerns is you have a finite group of very, very involved citizens, and having them join a committee where they're already in the VFW, they're going to those meetings, they're already at the DAV, one of those meetings, it just, it's sort of the same group of people anyway. So maybe there's something that we can do that accomplishes that goal.

The point is taken, I want as much as you do to make sure that we have, if we cast as wide a net as possible for this particular project. Agree.

[Speaker 4] (2:27:53 - 2:28:06)
All right, and I've already made my statements clear on the, that's all I got for this, on the 6B that Doug brought up, my willow trees.

[Speaker 5] (2:28:08 - 2:28:12)
That will be our code for now on. Willow trees. Willow trees.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:14 - 2:28:20)
If I see a willow tree planted any time in the next year, I swear to God, that'll be your memo.

[Speaker 5] (2:28:21 - 2:28:44)
If anyone has any willow trees, we'll do the same thing. Oh, okay. We will move on to the board and committee hand.

In case anybody's interested, I have no comments to add. I don't either. You guys should.

[Speaker 4] (2:28:44 - 2:28:45)
You can't be heavily commented.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:45 - 2:28:48)
Yeah, you really write it, okay, so.

[Speaker 4] (2:28:48 - 2:28:49)
I'm saying you have no comments, but.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:50 - 2:28:58)
I know, I want no changes except changes to your changes. Let's see. Well, I also have no other comments.

I have no other votes.

[Speaker 6] (2:29:00 - 2:29:05)
I don't. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that's where we were going.

[Speaker 11] (2:29:05 - 2:29:06)
No, you're right.

[Speaker 4] (2:29:19 - 2:29:31)
I have a quick question. If a committee has a subcommittee of three, what are the rules around that?

[Speaker 1] (2:29:31 - 2:29:48)
Well, you can't answer it without knowing what the committee quorum is. So if it's a five-member committee and there's a subcommittee of three, then you have a subcommittee issue. If you're even a working group, it doesn't matter at that point.

You have a quorum issue. It's too many. You have an open meeting law.

Yeah, you have an open meeting law.

[Speaker 8] (2:29:48 - 2:29:48)
It doesn't matter.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:48 - 2:30:14)
Yep. But if you have a committee of seven and there's a group of, if there's a subcommittee, so this is where it matters. And I'm gonna say enough to say that we probably should get more information, but I think even subcommittees of less than a quorum technically are open meeting law.

Have a follow-up meeting law. Yeah, that I know. Working groups or things of that nature are different.

Yeah, so what they're called, I think matters to some degree. I just don't know what degree.

[Speaker 4] (2:30:14 - 2:30:22)
All right, let me just, if I have a committee of seven and I have a working group of three, I don't have quorum.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:23 - 2:30:28)
You don't have a quorum to begin with. I'm not sure. I think we should ask town council.

I don't wanna.

[Speaker 4] (2:30:29 - 2:30:41)
Sean, I just wanna find out how we can get committees to have, if they, to be able to sit on the side and do work together with a few of them instead of having- Yeah, well, there's not a meeting law shouldn't be an inhibitor, right?

[Speaker 1] (2:30:41 - 2:30:49)
Collaboration for a few. And it does. It just freezes people.

They just don't know what to do. Even if you do the training, you don't know what to do.

[Speaker 5] (2:30:51 - 2:31:06)
And then you can highlight that. I don't see any chapter. So chapter five, G, to the exception of three member committees, the chair shall not second any motion.

If we're adopting a change there, we should adopt the change here.

[Speaker 3] (2:31:09 - 2:31:42)
Great. For chapter five, D, the minutes. Who is responsible for, who do they submit their minutes to?

The clerk. Okay. Does it say that in here?

I didn't see it. They filed with the town's clerk's office, but does the clerk follow up if the minutes don't exist, if the minutes have not been given for a certain period of time? Can we empower the clerk to do that?

[Speaker 1] (2:31:43 - 2:31:44)
Or is there? She should be.

[Speaker 4] (2:31:44 - 2:31:55)
I think the liaison should be doing it because I do. I think that, well, I think the liaison, I think the liaison should say, hey, you've got to turn in your minutes.

[Speaker 1] (2:31:55 - 2:32:06)
I mean, if you have to turn in your minutes, but we can't be tracking. I'm just being honest about it. We're doing so much stuff and I can't now be tracking some other minutes.

[Speaker 3] (2:32:06 - 2:32:08)
But Jack's homework, I can't worry about it.

[Speaker 1] (2:32:08 - 2:32:18)
No, I'm just being serious. I think the clerk, I think it's reasonable for the clerk to say, look, he was the one that posts the meeting. So he knows the meetings happen.

So he's the one that should be able to follow up and keep it. And I think he does keep a list or should be keeping a list.

[Speaker 3] (2:32:19 - 2:32:44)
I understand. All I'm saying is it would be nice if committees had a safety net. It would be nice if the town clerk, I'm sure they already do this.

So I apologize. It's just not written here. He or she reached out from time to time.

If there is a delinquency in minutes moved, just to know that the request has been made, not that he or she has to knock on doors and things, but just sort of a- I want to see this.

[Speaker 2] (2:32:44 - 2:33:09)
This is an important thing. I mean, for people to ultimately know what's going on. So our town clerk is extraordinarily diligent.

I'm sure. He has spoken to me a number of times about the number of voids that several of the committees have with their minutes. He said volunteer committees and they are obligated to put the minutes together.

He's actually talked about going back and seeing if he could help support some of the committees that are really short-staffed.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:09 - 2:33:28)
No, but this is where the liaisons then do provide a thing. Then to empower, you get a list or whatever from Jarrett or the town clerk. And then that's sent to us to say, hey, here's your committees, like for me to call a chair and say, hey, look, you haven't done minutes in six months.

That's a very fair thing for you to do. Once Jarrett, I can help do that.

[Speaker 6] (2:33:29 - 2:33:56)
Can I see you and raise you just one on that, which is like, how about monthly? I mean, would it be overly burdensome for the clerk or the assistant clerk at the end of each month to take accounting inventory of like what minutes are outstanding and just send out an email at that point to the chair, the CC, to the liaison, so that we have kind of good kind of housekeeping about keeping up with these things.

[Speaker 5] (2:33:56 - 2:34:10)
Yeah, but sometimes these meetings, if you're talking about setting off a 30-day delinquency, that's what something like what a bank would do. But I think in practical matter- That's more complicated. We're gonna work on that agenda.

[Speaker 6] (2:34:10 - 2:34:14)
No, but it's just, I know it doesn't necessarily always, maybe you've had a meeting at the end of the month, at the end of the year.

[Speaker 2] (2:34:14 - 2:34:19)
We can work on something. Let me- Just something regular. A regular key.

[Speaker 3] (2:34:19 - 2:34:49)
Usually the clerk has some suggestions. It sounds like he might. Let's do what he, like might be a best practice here.

And we can just add empower him or future clerks to just be checking out on that. Because I know a lot of folks are using minutes as a listening tool, because they don't have the ability to watch the meetings all the time, or they wanna know if something has gone through or been voted on, and they go to look at it, and it can be helpful.

[Speaker 4] (2:34:50 - 2:34:50)
Absolutely.

[Speaker 3] (2:34:51 - 2:35:04)
So also I just wanna make sure that the remote participation section complies with whatever you're required to do now, at least on anything.

[Speaker 1] (2:35:04 - 2:35:08)
Yeah, so we should just submit that to, whether or not the updated law.

[Speaker 3] (2:35:08 - 2:35:22)
Since I do not, again, this has become a joke on Doug, sorry, but Doug Rolpe, that not every committee is still doing remote meetings. So it's not happening, but there's a requirement.

[Speaker 1] (2:35:23 - 2:36:32)
We should just- Yeah, I would say something on that, and this like, I've been thinking about this. I think us having an opinion on remote meetings is a fair thing for us to have. I think there's a fundamental difference between the zoning board, I'm just picking on the zoning, but they have in-person meetings.

So, but I'm just saying there's a fundamental difference of them sitting in a room, you know, they're televised, I want them televised and stuff like that, but they have committees meet and not have them perpetually just sitting on Zoom in their living rooms. There's a couple of regulatory committees, I think that are just on Zoom. And I just think that's fundamentally different when you're sitting in your room adjudicating something, or I frankly just think at some point, we might want to look at it and say, hey, we understand during times, and there are times with public health and stuff like that, but being in the room and being with your fellow residents as you're listening to their thing or adjudicating their thing, and also helps committees create bonds and do stuff. So I just think at some point, we might want to think about having an opinion about that. I agree.

I already have an opinion about it, which I- Well, maybe discussing it since it's not an agenda item, but like, yes.

[Speaker 3] (2:36:32 - 2:36:32)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:36:33 - 2:36:38)
I feel like there's a real benefit to it, as you were saying.

[Speaker 3] (2:36:39 - 2:36:48)
And so we should- Because that's in here. There were questions that were made publicly.

[Speaker 5] (2:36:49 - 2:36:49)
Carry a pigeon.

[Speaker 6] (2:36:49 - 2:36:55)
So carry a pigeon. Is that too big of a thing for us just to agree upon right now and include in this?

[Speaker 1] (2:36:59 - 2:37:01)
Well, what are we putting in?

[Speaker 3] (2:37:02 - 2:37:03)
Do you want me to have an opinion first?

[Speaker 4] (2:37:04 - 2:37:08)
No, Tristan? No. We encourage you to have it in person.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:08 - 2:37:18)
Encourage in person. That's all it says right now. Yeah.

The word encourage is not an exact word to me. I think they should be in person unless the good reason. Right.

[Speaker 3] (2:37:18 - 2:37:18)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:20 - 2:37:36)
I mean, I just look at, before COVID, you wouldn't have thought of it. I mean, obviously the law didn't allow it, but there is a collaboration to it. Very, you know, huge difference.

And I've sat recently on a regulatory one where it might still be going on.

[Speaker 6] (2:37:38 - 2:37:46)
Well, it does say at the beginning of remote participation, absent of public health crisis or other justifiable cause, boards and committees should endeavor to hold their meetings in person. Should endeavor.

[Speaker 3] (2:37:47 - 2:37:48)
What do you think? Should endeavor.

[Speaker 6] (2:37:48 - 2:37:57)
Should endeavor is like a double symptom. It's like, who wrote this? Should endeavor.

They should get rid of endeavor. Should hold.

[Speaker 3] (2:37:57 - 2:37:57)
Yes.

[Speaker 6] (2:37:58 - 2:37:58)
Should hold.

[Speaker 3] (2:37:59 - 2:38:01)
Should hold their meetings in person. Should hold.

[Speaker 11] (2:38:02 - 2:38:02)
F.

[Speaker 3] (2:38:04 - 2:38:39)
I think there should be remote availability for, I think it should be recorded so people can watch it. And I think that it should be remote for folks who can't, who have mobility issues or can't get to timing, can't get places. But I think there is a something lost when everyone's behind a keyboard and their screen is black and it says Katie Phelan.

And I don't have to look anybody in the eye or see what's happening around me. Do we really have that? Yes.

Yes. I think we do. For sure we do.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:39 - 2:38:43)
Yeah. I think we do. There's still a number of committees that are meeting and doing it that way.

The planning board meets remotely.

[Speaker 3] (2:38:46 - 2:38:46)
And not exclusively.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:46 - 2:38:48)
Not to call out any.

[Speaker 3] (2:38:48 - 2:38:49)
No, not to call out any particular meeting.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:50 - 2:38:50)
Well, I said an example.

[Speaker 3] (2:38:50 - 2:39:13)
Yeah, sure. You want to hang out with us tonight? I'll use the PTO as an example.

The PTO is fully remote for so long and there is something lost. Parents want to be inside the school building. They want to see their PTO members.

They want, there's something there that people are calling for. If I'm seeing it in that regard, I just feel like then we should be bringing it forward to other examples, which would be boards and committees. And I think that.

[Speaker 1] (2:39:13 - 2:39:24)
So we're going to delete Endeavor, but I think also at some point it would be good to have communication going out to committees to say. Transition to. To say.

Not transitioning to in-person. Effective six months ago.

[Speaker 4] (2:39:26 - 2:39:40)
I'm thinking. I just want to make sure that if somebody, like somebody's can't make it to a meeting, that they, you know, you still have somebody who can tap in. Like we can keep people going to meetings.

Otherwise I think we could lose, we could lose people too.

[Speaker 3] (2:39:41 - 2:39:42)
Well, I think there's a difference between one.

[Speaker 4] (2:39:42 - 2:39:45)
As somebody who's constantly working.

[Speaker 3] (2:39:45 - 2:40:08)
And having to take a call from on a Zoom from somewhere and the entire board being on Zoom. And coming in. I think there's a distinction there.

So, you know, you do your best to meet in person and if it's, you know, you don't meet, if it's not on Zoom, well, maybe that's a conversation that needs to be had with that board and committee and we figure out what the solution is, but. Okay.

[Speaker 10] (2:40:09 - 2:40:09)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (2:40:09 - 2:40:30)
So, I mean, for our board, you know, we meet first and third Wednesdays of each month. We know that that's our time. If we're going to meet at 10 a.m. on a random Tuesday, well, then accommodations can be made. But I mean, you know, your normal regularly scheduled meeting should be, should be in person.

[Speaker 11] (2:40:32 - 2:40:33)
On a quote. Right?

[Speaker 5] (2:40:38 - 2:40:41)
Please stop. Anything else?

[Speaker 4] (2:40:41 - 2:40:42)
You want mine?

[Speaker 5] (2:40:42 - 2:40:43)
Go ahead.

[Speaker 4] (2:40:44 - 2:40:54)
Well, I can go from chapter three. We're going to see the excessive absence, absentees. Yeah, I think we can do that.

[Speaker 11] (2:40:54 - 2:40:55)
Three E.

[Speaker 4] (2:40:57 - 2:41:02)
Three E. Any of these? Yep.

Three E.

[Speaker 6] (2:41:02 - 2:41:03)
Form requirements?

[Speaker 4] (2:41:03 - 2:41:15)
Absentee, absentee, absentee, absentee. One foreseeing certain members are expected to attend every excessive absenteeism may be cause for removal or non reappointment. Didn't we, don't we have a number?

If you missed three?

[Speaker 1] (2:41:17 - 2:41:31)
I think you might be us pollinating the charter for meeting members and not committee members. Town meeting is if you missed three town meetings.

[Speaker 4] (2:41:31 - 2:41:40)
No, I'm not thinking about town meeting, even though I do know about town meeting. The excessive. So what are we doing when we have excessive absenteeism?

What is the number?

[Speaker 6] (2:41:40 - 2:41:49)
I mean, I think we did have a conversation about this when we talked about committees at Andrews Chapel, but we floated around what the number should be, but I don't think we had landed on that number.

[Speaker 4] (2:41:50 - 2:42:00)
So if I'm a chairman of a committee and I've got somebody who's not coming, it's affecting my quorum, at what point am I able to pull the plug here? But meanwhile, I've got somebody who's like, no, no, no, I still want to be on the committee.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:01 - 2:42:25)
Yeah. So I don't, I don't, I don't know the answer. I'm comfortable with this language.

We've never had it like materialize here. Removing people from committees is a very, we should be extremely conscious and we should be extremely judicious with it. There's both, there is legal implications, but I think there's, the more important than the legal implications, there's just to me, a moral implication of.

[Speaker 4] (2:42:25 - 2:42:44)
One of the issues, one of the issues that we have is when people are signed up for the committee and they're not showing up and it's causing a problem with getting a quorum, that's a problem. And I think we've, we really have to, we have to figure out, because we're holding up committees, we're making it harder and putting more of a burden to make sure everyone else on the committee is showing up.

[Speaker 6] (2:42:46 - 2:42:48)
Well, they should, the chair should follow.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:48 - 2:42:54)
Yeah. I mean, I just have to say, I am not aware of anybody going through what this language isn't bringing to us. Right.

So I can't.

[Speaker 6] (2:42:54 - 2:42:55)
So they should follow the procedure, right?

[Speaker 4] (2:42:56 - 2:42:56)
Right.

[Speaker 6] (2:42:56 - 2:43:00)
To bring it to us, the liaison. Right.

[Speaker 4] (2:43:00 - 2:43:03)
So just leave it at is, not worry about a number. Okay.

[Speaker 6] (2:43:03 - 2:43:05)
Figured out that circumstance.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:06 - 2:43:06)
I hear you though.

[Speaker 4] (2:43:06 - 2:43:13)
The only reason I was saying a number is because I don't want, you know, one chairman who's a little bit more.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:14 - 2:43:15)
I just don't want him to be weaponized. That's all.

[Speaker 4] (2:43:15 - 2:43:16)
Yeah. To be honest with you.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:16 - 2:43:29)
But also having a number could weaponize it. You know, he missed four, but I like him. You've missed three and three is the trigger, but I don't like you.

I'm going to say, I want you to go. Right. And I just don't want that to be weaponized.

That's all.

[Speaker 11] (2:43:29 - 2:43:30)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:30 - 2:43:42)
I want them to come to us and just go to the town minister and say, hey, we have a real problem here. Can you call Bob? He's not responding to my phone calls.

Now, Mr. Bob and Bob said, I don't care about this committee. I'm happy to resign. Right.

Or whatever.

[Speaker 6] (2:43:44 - 2:43:58)
There's a bit of burden on the chairs that determine what is excessive. I mean, it feels like, you know, I hear what you're saying. The flip is that it gives them guidance and clarity.

So there isn't kind of favoritism or whatever to say, breeze the rule.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:58 - 2:44:01)
Yeah, but they come, but they have still to come to us though. It's like, so.

[Speaker 3] (2:44:01 - 2:44:42)
And the chair has the best temperature for the committee, right? So I don't see it as a burden. I mean, if they meet twice a month, then twice might be, two times might be a good number.

If they meet once a month, one time might be a good number. If they meet every other, I mean, if they meet every week, like the cadence of the meetings could dictate the number. So giving a large number might actually mean you might not be at a committee for six months because they only meet once a month.

So I don't want to trap unnecessarily.

[Speaker 2] (2:44:42 - 2:45:44)
It's all about the efficacy of the committee and the members. There's so many nuances. Attendance is just one of the, you know, I think elements of a good committee member.

It's not all encompassing. I do think you have to be present on some level, but if you have a really high recent committee member that is almost on some level indispensable, but does have some life circumstances or some other things that need to be taken into account, I do think we have to be mindful that there are all sorts of unique situations. That said, you know, we do have a number of committees that just at times, don't function well because they're missing, you know, members.

And we've got to just be able to dial in on those and ensure that we support them a little bit more with, you know, individuals that want to serve.

[Speaker 5] (2:45:45 - 2:46:08)
We can spend a little bit more time thinking about how to do this. Mary Ellen. Is there more?

I'm good with that. I have a question.

[Speaker 4] (2:46:12 - 2:46:28)
Consuming and or using alcohol, non-prescribed narcotics and controlled substance and prohibited while acting in official capacity. So if I go to a beer party this weekend, am I in official capacity? No.

I'm not sure I'm not in official capacity. You're drinking beer right now?

[Speaker 10] (2:46:29 - 2:46:33)
No, you'd be in official capacity right now, I think.

[Speaker 5] (2:46:34 - 2:46:47)
If you're not, that's a good thing. I love it. Or we can just continue sitting here.

Yeah, any of you two. Yeah, so anything else in the code of conduct? Mary Ellen.

[Speaker 4] (2:46:50 - 2:47:38)
Can you just tell me under chapter five, number B, refraining, there's one bullet point and then one non-bullet point. Refraining from giving orders or directions to town administrators and individual board slash committee member. And the next one it says refraining from providing information that concern public policy matters or issues that will be considered by the board or the board.

I mean, there's just two different things in here. I don't, what are we, what are we doing there? I really don't understand what that means.

What does that say?

[Speaker 1] (2:47:42 - 2:48:35)
Oh, I think that's kind of like secret. It's kind of like off the record stuff. It's kind of like, we're gonna talk about the sign bylaw tomorrow.

And I think Sean, blah, blah, blah, whisper in Sean's ear something that we wouldn't, you wouldn't otherwise be willing to share here. I think it's what it's, I think that's what it's, I'm saying off, I'm using the colloquial phrase. No secret, but I think it's, I don't know why it's blue, but I object, I object to the blueness of it.

But I think that's what it's intended to, which is don't have sidebars to encumber like an argument, an argument that you don't make an argument privately with Sean that you're not gonna make. I say Sean, I don't even know why I said Sean. Oh, it is contact.

Yeah, yeah, sorry. It's not administrator. Did you put your name Sean?

[Speaker 2] (2:48:36 - 2:48:40)
I don't believe, I don't recall. Where did you put your name? Blue?

[Speaker 3] (2:48:41 - 2:48:41)
Good answer.

[Speaker 2] (2:48:41 - 2:49:16)
No, I do think it's important that, board members share information with each other easily. And it's gets back to making sure that I'm not put in the middle of, I think that's better way of saying it. I don't wanna be dynamic where you're trying to build consensus and somehow it was up in the air about something and I'm being pulled in as sort of a sixth member of a policy board where I'm here to help advise, guide, and support.

[Speaker 4] (2:49:16 - 2:49:27)
I don't wanna get in the middle of something that really you're gonna have to figure out as a deliberative body. Okay, so is that just an additional bullet?

[Speaker 1] (2:49:27 - 2:49:28)
Yeah, it should have been bulleted.

[Speaker 4] (2:49:28 - 2:49:30)
All right, so that's just an additional bullet, okay.

[Speaker 5] (2:49:30 - 2:49:39)
I think we can probably talk about it. You probably don't need to. What's that?

I don't think you need to. I think you just need to give it a bullet. What's missing a bullet?

[Speaker 10] (2:49:39 - 2:49:43)
There are three C, social media communications.

[Speaker 3] (2:49:46 - 2:50:15)
So this one is non-official screen readers. Anything that goes on social media request to town hall staff. And a lot of town officials or board members or us, for example, may have like a select board page and then our own personal page.

So is this meaning anything I say is?

[Speaker 6] (2:50:17 - 2:50:32)
That was the training that I went to and people kind of, I don't know if you were listening at that point in time, you probably heard this nine times over, but that was the guidance. Like don't do it.

[Speaker 3] (2:50:32 - 2:50:32)
What guidance?

[Speaker 6] (2:50:32 - 2:50:55)
Like MMA, basically. Like no one else knows the distinction between these things. You may think that you have this distinction between your campaign page and your personal page but no one else sees it that way.

And so anything you put out there, you gotta assume that people are gonna see it in your official capacity. That was their guidance. I don't know if that's a rule or whatever, but did I get that?

[Speaker 2] (2:50:55 - 2:52:28)
Yeah. Yeah, it's sort of like when you show up and say I'm speaking here as a private citizen, that doesn't fly. And there's all sorts of people that like to skirt the official responsibility.

You're an elected official and you get elected as a select citizen, highest elected officer in the town and you can't take the hat off. Like you're representing the board. Always.

And sometimes it's tough because your board may not have a majority of members that share your opinion. When you show up and say, I'm speaking as a private citizen tonight, I don't, like you're undermining the integrity of the policy. Now look, it's a democracy.

You have the right to have your opinion about certain things, but it becomes very, very complicated in terms of the public perception when you're taking a hat on and taking it off and you're trying to avoid that level of accountability. It's just important for you to understand it never really goes well. And I've seen this in every one of my positions, board members trying to take that hat off and getting other board members upset because they misrepresent the position of the board and in a public meeting.

[Speaker 1] (2:52:30 - 2:52:43)
Because some people will implicitly misrepresent, meaning that it's misconstrued that what the person is saying is on behalf of a big... Yeah, you can't disclaimer that away. Yeah, it's tough.

It's probably tough.

[Speaker 4] (2:52:45 - 2:53:31)
On the social media, let me ask you a question. So if I'm on a committee on social media and I wanna make a comment about a select board member or another elected official, and I put something on social media that's a little bit, I don't wanna say nasty, but something that's a little negative, is that a problem? I think that's what you're talking about on a committee, right?

Yeah, I don't go on social media. So I'm talking about somebody on a committee. I'm talking about a situation, that's all.

That does not involve me. I'm just wondering, what is like... Is it, are you talking about, like say something about an employee that might create a hostile work environment or?

No, I'm talking about a person who's on a committee.

[Speaker 1] (2:53:31 - 2:53:33)
Any member saying Peter Spellios is an asshole?

[Speaker 4] (2:53:33 - 2:53:35)
Yeah. Well, no, no, not saying...

[Speaker 1] (2:53:35 - 2:54:10)
All right, well, I'm just saying that's perfectly fine. They have every right to do it. Just tell me, I'm using that example just because I'm trying to keep it somewhat PG.

Oops. As a matter of fact, I have a long book of people saying worse about me. But the answer is, it's completely...

I don't think there's anything in the code of conduct that can be... Now, certainly when it comes up for reappointment, we decide that someone is not exercising good judgment or whatnot, or is not representing the town, then that may be different, right? I'm just, I'm sharing my view, like kind of where that line is.

As someone who is probably as criticized as anybody on this board, anybody who does it's perfectly fine. They have every right to do it.

[Speaker 4] (2:54:12 - 2:54:14)
Except for us. Don't go home and read Facebook tonight.

[Speaker 1] (2:54:15 - 2:54:21)
Oh, I don't. But it's all fair game. You know?

[Speaker 3] (2:54:22 - 2:54:25)
I just wanted to put that out there. We hold ourselves to a different standard.

[Speaker 1] (2:54:25 - 2:54:32)
Yeah, no, we hold ourselves to a different standard about how we're doing it. Right, but her question was about a committee member or somebody.

[Speaker 4] (2:54:32 - 2:54:34)
Yeah, my question was about a committee member.

[Speaker 9] (2:54:34 - 2:54:35)
Did you end up getting your question answered?

[Speaker 3] (2:54:36 - 2:54:37)
I'm not gonna do that.

[Speaker 9] (2:54:37 - 2:54:38)
What was your question again?

[Speaker 3] (2:54:38 - 2:54:38)
I don't know.

[Speaker 1] (2:54:40 - 2:54:41)
Well, you can't remember if you can't.

[Speaker 3] (2:54:41 - 2:54:58)
I just feel that, like if, I don't know, it's, I'll think on it some more. Cause I, I don't wanna go down the strap. Hold on right now.

I'll think about it.

[Speaker 5] (2:55:00 - 2:55:05)
I'm 42. Honestly, I, yeah.

[Speaker 11] (2:55:07 - 2:55:07)
What did you say?

[Speaker 1] (2:55:08 - 2:55:10)
You know, I just go home and post Peter Scalios as an asshole.

[Speaker 3] (2:55:11 - 2:55:11)
No!

[Speaker 1] (2:55:11 - 2:55:14)
And see, and then we'll see the consequence of that. Then we'll test it.

[Speaker 3] (2:55:14 - 2:55:56)
Like, I don't know. If I post a bunch of pictures of my kids in Sora, like does that mean that I am in support of the police department and that's some sort of political undertone to it or something like that? Like, that's not what, like there's such a line there of like what my personal social media might have and what that may be interpreted as.

And I'm responsible for what I post and I understand that. And I know that that's what this is trying to get at but you can like read so much into what people write behind, like, you know, sit behind their keyboards and decide that that's what that means. I mean, I'm not responsible for what people sit at home and think what they mean.

I say, I'm responsible for what I say. So.

[Speaker 6] (2:55:56 - 2:55:59)
You got your life and you know, people are going to think what they're going to think.

[Speaker 8] (2:56:00 - 2:56:00)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:56:00 - 2:56:26)
You know, no, I think so. If you go through these bullets though, like Katie, I think that exam, I'm using that. It's a better official page.

No, but I know, but we're kind of saying it's blended. Your answer to hers is all blended anyway. So if you just apply the same rule to your official page, to your private page, that doesn't run afoul.

Like, again, I don't think the goal here is spirit more so than foot faults, right, type of things. No, no, no, no. I hear you.

I mean, I hear your question, but I wouldn't.

[Speaker 3] (2:56:26 - 2:57:00)
I didn't. And I mean, I use social media quite often. And I, unlike Mary Ellen, I am on social media as in a personal capacity.

I'm on multiple platforms, social media, and I don't hold myself. I'm going to step up looking. Listen, you don't, please.

Okay. Okay. So I just want to be clear about what the intention is and if the spirit of what the spirit is rather than what folks might.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:01 - 2:57:05)
Yeah, I don't. You look at it. I think there's a reasonableness.

It's the reasonable man theory.

[Speaker 3] (2:57:05 - 2:57:05)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:05 - 2:57:15)
These things are woman's theory in the sense that you're dealing with a non-reasonable person, then you don't need to worry. If it's a non-reasonable person, you don't need to worry because you're never going to figure it out.

[Speaker 5] (2:57:15 - 2:57:20)
So about good faith and doing the best we can.

[Speaker 11] (2:57:21 - 2:57:21)
Okay.

[Speaker 5] (2:57:21 - 2:57:33)
Anything else on code of conducts? When you'll bring this back when edits are ready, I think we have a lot more stuff. Great.

Thank you. All right. We'll move on.

[Speaker 3] (2:57:33 - 2:57:43)
Is the commitment that this will become the annual review and every other year review? What is it? Let me know.

Well, to be fair, like, I just, I think that.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:44 - 2:57:48)
I don't think it should be an every year. I think, you know, I don't think it should be an every year though.

[Speaker 3] (2:57:48 - 2:57:49)
Yeah, I don't think so either.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:49 - 2:58:03)
And so I think what I would say is do every three years because every select board member serves at least three years. And so make it every three years. That way, once during every each of our terms, we would be reviewing it and commenting on it, but otherwise you can't just come on board and all of a sudden say, well, I want to rewrite the rules to the things.

[Speaker 5] (2:58:04 - 2:58:15)
So that would be my suggestion. Yeah. That'd be my suggestion.

The regular KBs, most of the new thing we had. Yeah. There's a bit that each is just getting into.

Well, I was making stuff. There's no games. Yeah.

[Speaker 11] (2:58:15 - 2:58:16)
So that's sent to KBs.

[Speaker 5] (2:58:18 - 2:58:35)
Okay, we'll move on to the consent agenda designed to expedite the handling of routine and miscellaneous business to the board. Select board may adopt the entire consent agenda with one motion at the request of any board member. Any item may be removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda for discussion.

[Speaker 4] (2:58:38 - 2:59:01)
I have one question. I have two questions. I have actually two questions.

One is on the one day liquor license, I think we should amend that to add an additional rain date with the possibility of having bad weather. Is that something we should be doing here tonight? So you don't have to call another meeting?

[Speaker 5] (2:59:01 - 2:59:02)
Yeah, for Swamptoberfest.

[Speaker 4] (2:59:03 - 2:59:05)
I'm saying a third rain date.

[Speaker 3] (2:59:06 - 2:59:17)
Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Ted is behind us and he has reported the second rain date, which would be Friday, September 22nd.

922?

[Speaker 5] (2:59:17 - 2:59:22)
Yes. Friday, September 22nd from? That is the secondary rain date.

[Speaker 3] (2:59:22 - 2:59:23)
What time is it?

[Speaker 4] (2:59:23 - 2:59:26)
4 to 8 p.m. And how, what else?

[Speaker 5] (2:59:27 - 2:59:27)
4 to 8 on a Friday.

[Speaker 4] (2:59:29 - 2:59:35)
What else is going on in town? Last option we have. Do you need police details for this?

I mean, has this been considered?

[Speaker 9] (2:59:35 - 2:59:39)
Police details are already, we're all set for this weekend.

[Speaker 4] (2:59:39 - 2:59:40)
No, I'm talking about 922.

[Speaker 9] (2:59:40 - 2:59:52)
We'll do the same process planning that we've done for this weekend on the 22nd. Just like we would do on Newgate if we needed to use the Sunday as a primary rain date.

[Speaker 4] (2:59:52 - 2:59:59)
Right, but if you're looking at 922 and you, how many events are going on in town on 922? It's Friday. I don't think there's any.

[Speaker 9] (3:00:00 - 3:00:09)
There is a football game at 7 p.m. Swampstats hosting Winthrop at 7 p.m. Cool. Big game. Everyone should go to that.

[Speaker 2] (3:00:09 - 3:00:12)
Do we use police? No, no. Diana, do you want from Winthrop?

[Speaker 10] (3:00:13 - 3:00:14)
Go Vikings! Go Vikings! Woo!

[Speaker 1] (3:00:20 - 3:00:22)
They choose their dates, so it's not wrong.

[Speaker 4] (3:00:22 - 3:00:48)
Okay, so I just think, so on that, we need to make an amendment to change to add 922-408 on that in case they need that. And I just had a question about, can you just give me an update on the finances on this? People pay, food though.

And where does the money go? I'm happy to answer that.

[Speaker 9] (3:00:48 - 3:01:36)
We've got Mr. Dooley here, go ahead. Yes, so the income from this, there's $5 per person as an entry fee with a max of $20 per family. The beer sales are $10 for all of the different beverages that are being sold.

There's also revenue from Lake Water. All of those proceeds are split 50-50 with the town. The town and whom?

And the yacht club, Fonsette Yacht Club. And I believe there are other arrangements that I'm not, that the rec department has with food vendors that I just don't know the details of, but I believe there may be some sort of split revenue with that with the town as well. Food vendors, yeah, and the rec department, right.

[Speaker 4] (3:01:38 - 3:01:39)
I can only speak to one thing else.

[Speaker 2] (3:01:39 - 3:01:50)
Yeah, I can only speak to my- I can get some more information. I know that we were trying to see if we could get some food trucks in the first couple of years. We were trying to get more of them there.

[Speaker 5] (3:01:52 - 3:01:56)
But after a while, we created a raw food truck.

[Speaker 9] (3:01:58 - 3:02:09)
All of the expenses for the event overall, including entertainment, equipment, et cetera, are split 50-50 with the Fonsette Yacht Club.

[Speaker 5] (3:02:09 - 3:02:16)
And Pat, do you guys have bands for the reindeer set up in the event that we get to that 9-22 date?

[Speaker 9] (3:02:17 - 3:02:33)
We do have tentative bands for 9-22. We have confirmations for this Sunday, if needed. Thanks.

We're really hoping we don't have to use those rain dates. Yeah, I agree. And I don't think you need to.

[Speaker 5] (3:02:35 - 3:02:43)
Agenda as amended, adding the September 22nd, Friday, September 22nd as a second rain date from 4 to 8 for the event.

[Speaker 1] (3:02:43 - 3:03:17)
I'll make the motion, but can I just ask going forward two things? Can we just, when you do the consent agenda, just give quick descriptions of the items on the consent agenda, so people that aren't looking at the agenda just vote to approve walking and pedaling license for dorsal installation, vote to approve one-day liquor license for the Swap Octoberfest, vote for one-day liquor license for a recharge event, and vote to approve meds from August 16th. Sure, that would be cool.

And the other thing, Diane, I would ask is just while I'm thinking about it, we should have hard copies of the agenda available at all meetings for people to have when they come in here, please.

[Speaker 5] (3:03:19 - 3:03:24)
I moved it. Second. All in favor.

Aye. Select board's on.

[Speaker 3] (3:03:32 - 3:05:20)
But Hannah so eloquently mentioned during public comment about the micro forest, we had a very detailed report made about the lack and tree canopy. There is a meeting plan in place. I think the, I echo Hannah's sentiments that just because it's untidy doesn't mean it's not purposeful and that we could work with the folks that we have who are very passionate about it to figure out a way that it serves its purpose and is also a little bit more aesthetically pleasing.

But if it cannot be aesthetically pleasing and it still serves a greater purpose, then maybe it just becomes a smaller micro forest or it has more education regarding it. There's a plan for what it will look like in five years and 10 years so people have managed expectations. I think for right now, it's like it got planted and then some people are assuming that it is overgrown and that it's not what it's meant to look like.

It would be great if we understood, know that was the plan and, or it is not the plan and this is why it's not the plan. One thing I do think that has to be handled is the sight line coming off the street. And a walker.

Yeah, it's terrible. I take that turn all the time and now that the plantings are pretty high from the grow season and we need to pull that back a little bit so that you can still see your left-hand sight line from Walker. I don't think that means we have to bulldoze it.

[Speaker 1] (3:05:21 - 3:05:32)
I would just ask maybe someone from the conservancy can meet with Gino. They can agree on how to bring back that line so that everybody is that, no one wakes up one morning and says, oh my God, I can't believe we just did that.

[Speaker 2] (3:05:32 - 3:06:08)
I just wanna just put everybody at ease. We have heard a number of people complain about it. I have asked Gino to work with Suzanne Hale.

He met with her this week and we are gonna work something out to see if we can kind of balance some of the concerns. I get that folks are a little frustrated. It doesn't look aesthetically as if it were a beautiful little park.

It does have an environmental purpose and we wanna see that persevere.

[Speaker 1] (3:06:08 - 3:06:22)
Can I just wanna express something on that? The aesthetic thing is the least important thing for us to be addressing. I know that.

Okay, so I don't wanna reinforce it as an important thing by all of a sudden saying, we're gonna make it smaller so that we can plant grass and make everybody feel good.

[Speaker 2] (3:06:22 - 3:06:49)
I hear the public safety issue. No, no, that is different. For me- That is different.

And frankly, I hear you. For me, the most important thing is the environmental investment that we're making. And I do think it stands as a sharp contrast to all the other beautiful plantings that we have around town.

And this can exist too.

[Speaker 4] (3:06:49 - 3:07:06)
So I wanna represent the people that think that that is just horrific looking. And that's exactly how they feel. And I think Sean's point of trying to find a balance with doing something there, I think I really support that.

[Speaker 1] (3:07:06 - 3:07:36)
So- But where do we, I hear you, but where do we stop? Because I know a number of people that really think it's disgusting how the fish house smells like fish. I'm being dead serious about that.

The number of people that call and actually say, why do the bathrooms of the fish house smell like fish? When you walk up the stairs of the yacht club, they say it smells like fish. Like, okay, but that's the least offensive thing about it.

If people were maintaining fish in an unsanitary way and we had fish guts flowing all over the place, well, that's a different thing. But this, I'm just, where do we grow that line?

[Speaker 4] (3:07:36 - 3:08:08)
Very hard to beautify the front of the monument. And we've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on beautiful lights to put up and down Humphrey Street. I think when residents live in that area and they have to make that turn and they look at that constantly and they're upset about it, they're upset about it.

And I think that I don't want to be in a position of saying, hey, too bad, the fish house smells like fish and you got to suck it up. I think that if Sean can find a balance, find a balance. Let's just see if we can fix this.

[Speaker 2] (3:08:09 - 3:08:12)
No, you didn't say balance. Dan Hill is the architect.

[Speaker 3] (3:08:13 - 3:09:33)
Education and understanding that there's beauty in what some people find as ugly sometimes, right? And so you have to educate folks to understand, okay, maybe at the end of the day, they still think it's ugly, but they understand its purpose. And so they're more tolerant of it.

So part of this is educating what the micro forest is meant to look like. Is it meant to look like as it does today? I think you would find people to say, no, there is definitely weeding that has to be done.

And I think that that's reasonable. But then managing expectations of what it's meant to look like in five years from now, in 10 years from now. So we're not getting five years from now and people saying, well, that's a terrible look too, because there's a lot of time and energy and thought going into these processes.

And if we're just saying after two years, pull them up because they don't fit an aesthetic, then don't let them do it in the first place because they've wasted all that time and energy trying to do something, change something, create something, assist the environment, fix the tree canopy problem. All these things that are purposeful in a bunch of other areas of community, other than aesthetic. So I just, I agree the balance, but also educating them.

There's a purpose to it. And safety, obviously safety is number one and it's a terrible sight line and it needs to be fixed, but- So are we fixing the fish smell or not?

[Speaker 1] (3:09:33 - 3:09:40)
I just, I missed that. Just joking. I got you.

I hear you. Huh? We'll get you some fruits.

[Speaker 2] (3:09:40 - 3:09:46)
We're going to schedule our next meeting down there and we're going to- That will fix me, that will fix my problem.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:47 - 3:09:47)
I got it.

[Speaker 5] (3:09:52 - 3:09:59)
Working on the ground. I moved. I moved.

All in favor. Aye. I think we might be up next.

[Speaker 3] (3:09:59 - 3:10:00)
Save the trees.