[0:08] Um, good evening
[0:09] everyone. I would like to
[0:10] declare the
[0:14] Brown Charter Review Commission meeting on
[0:15] Wednesday, September 23,
[0:17] 2026, open. Um,
[0:20] now our first
[0:21] task is to
[0:22] approve the
[0:23] protocol that we have
[0:24] here. Um, has anyone had
[0:27] a chance...I don't know
[0:28] if anyone has had a
[0:29] chance
[0:30] to read them?
[0:31] I just had a quick
[0:32] look at them,
[0:33] and I think Joy
[0:36] said she
[0:39] got them from...
[0:41] I mean, we, Jessica,
[0:43] know we're going to have
[0:44] ... Well,
[0:45] we'll
[0:45] talk
[0:46] about at least one more
[0:47] meeting later.
[0:48] We need to have
[0:48] at least
[0:49] one more meeting to
[0:50] discuss public
[0:51] gatherings. So, should
[0:52] we postpone
[0:52] approving this
[0:53] protocol until
[0:54] then? Of course. Yes.
[0:58] Good. Because we
[1:00] only had 50 meetings
[1:02] , so we have...
[1:05] Yeah, we need to
[1:06] do one. That's
[1:07] it.
[1:08] Um, um, I don't see any
[1:09] need to change the
[1:10] agenda for tonight
[1:11] . Does
[1:12] anyone else see any
[1:13] reason why we can't
[1:14] execute the
[1:14] agenda as
[1:15] published?
[1:16] Good. So our
[1:18] first task, um,
[1:20] is to review and
[1:24] hopefully
[1:25] approve our
[1:26] final
[1:26] proposed draft
[1:27] bylaws. And
[1:28] Seth was quite
[1:29] kind, I think. Do
[1:31] we have it or not?
[1:35] Oh, you don't have it?
[1:37] No. Good. I have it.
[1:39] I didn't print it out, I
[1:40] printed out a small
[1:41] copy. I have a copy.
[1:42] This is a bit of writing.
[1:44] Hmm, a little done. Um, I'm
[1:47] doing it. Uh, so I
[1:52] sent it out a couple of
[1:53] weeks ago, I think, before...
[1:55] Yes, I made changes,
[1:56] very minor changes,
[1:57] which are still highlighted in the
[1:58] charter. Um, and Maya, I
[2:03] know, read it
[2:04] from beginning to end
[2:06] , both this draft and the
[2:08] red
[2:10] line draft. Um, has anyone
[2:13] seen anything based on
[2:14] what was
[2:15] sent out that would
[2:15] need to be
[2:17] changed somehow?
[2:18] Yes,
[2:20] I have two tiny
[2:21] spots, and neither of them
[2:22] are significant.
[2:24] Good.
[2:26] Um, both are places
[2:27] where because of all the
[2:28] complexity of additions
[2:29] and deletions...
[2:31] Yeah,
[2:34] we added, um, a letter in
[2:35] ...
[2:37] Okay.
[2:38] On the list.
[2:39] Good. So, the first one
[2:40] is on
[2:41] page eight. I'm in the,
[2:42] um, red and
[2:44] green, um, red
[2:45] version.
[2:49] Eighth page.
[2:54] Good.
[2:56] Uh, in the
[2:57] Assignment section in
[2:58] the current
[2:59] draft it goes from A to C
[3:01] , a green A, and then a
[3:06] black C. Where is that
[3:09] on the right, in the right
[3:10] column of the eighth
[3:11] page of the
[3:12] track version?
[3:14] Good. So,
[3:16] what's going on?
[3:18] If I
[3:19] understand correctly, we
[3:20] need to correct
[3:22] C to B,
[3:24] D to C, D to E or E to D and F
[3:26] to E. Parts C, D and E
[3:28] are on
[3:29] page nine.
[3:32] Yes.
[3:32] And B,
[3:33] Y
[3:34] is on the
[3:34] eighth page. So
[3:36] this doesn't make any
[3:37] significant changes, which is why
[3:38] everything goes
[3:39] alphabetically.
[3:40] That's right. Do
[3:42] you see this, Maya?
[3:44] I didn't understand. I didn't
[3:45] see, I was looking.
[3:46] You know, I only noticed it
[3:47] because I
[3:48] was working with a clean
[3:49] draft, and
[3:50] when I happened to
[3:51] look at something
[3:52] to check, I
[3:53] saw that there was a place, the
[3:54] second one, the one I'm
[3:55] going to name in a
[3:57] second, that I
[3:57] saw had a different
[3:58] letter than the one that
[3:59] was in the clean
[4:00] draft. And
[4:02] I said, "Wow." And when
[4:03] I realized that, I
[4:04] went back and
[4:05] checked all the others again.
[4:06] And this is the only other
[4:07] option I
[4:08] found.
[4:08] And in its pure form
[4:09] it is normal.
[4:10] This is Yes. Clean
[4:11] option.
[4:12] That's why we did
[4:13] n't see him either.
[4:14] That's right. That's right.
[4:15] I...I'm sorry, Kate. After
[4:18] I said I
[4:20] only found one
[4:21] typo in the
[4:22] clean graph, I
[4:23] found another one in the
[4:24] red line.
[4:25] Good. On the second
[4:26] page under A two.
[4:35] Second page. Okay
[4:38] . Article two, you
[4:39] are looking under
[4:41] Yes.
[4:41] Chapter One A.
[4:42] Is this what you
[4:44] mean?
[4:44] Yes. Y
[4:46] number two.
[4:48] Yes. I think
[4:52] after
[4:53] the sentence at the end where it says
[4:54] serve three years,
[4:58] I'm not
[4:59] my...my version...not
[5:00] okay...
[5:01] great, but
[5:02] in the track version...
[5:05] sorry, it looks like it's a
[5:06] semicolon,
[5:08] not a period,
[5:09] because it goes into the
[5:10] next sentence...
[5:11] let's see how you
[5:12] go from one
[5:13] ...every semicolon
[5:16] at the end of every
[5:17] period...it had a
[5:19] semicolon after
[5:20] two. Yes.
[5:21] After one.
[5:23] Yes.
[5:23] Good. Because I couldn't
[5:24] figure out if
[5:25] they were all
[5:27] semicolons or...
[5:27] No, they were all
[5:29] after the first period.
[5:31] It was a period, and it
[5:33] was a semicolon.
[5:34] No, they are all green
[5:36] semicolons. The
[5:37] red dots were
[5:38] crossed out.
[5:39] Yes.
[5:40] Good. Does this make sense?
[5:41] Yes.
[5:42] My version, when I
[5:43] printed it out, isn't very
[5:44] good. It is complicated.
[5:46] It was difficult. So, I
[5:47] think we understand.
[5:48] Good.
[5:49] Yes.
[5:49] Good. Did you have another
[5:51] one, Peter?
[5:52] I had one. Hmm, the only other one I had was the same
[5:55] . He was,
[5:57] you know, the same,
[5:58] just in terms of
[5:59] letters.
[5:59] Hmm, still in the red-
[6:01] green version,
[6:02] page 10, two-
[6:03] thirds of the way down in the
[6:04] right column.
[6:06] We're going from P
[6:08] to R.
[6:08] Oh, yeah.
[6:09] We remove Q.
[6:10] Yes. So
[6:12] then from R all the way to Uh on
[6:17] page 12, double
[6:19] B.
[6:20] Yes.
[6:21] Everything needs to
[6:22] be redone. Yes. So
[6:24] you know it's QRST and
[6:25] then it goes up
[6:26] to a double A.
[6:27] So where it's a P, it's
[6:28] wrong. P
[6:29] is correct, but then
[6:31] it goes wrong.
[6:32] Yes. And everything that happened
[6:33] after that needs to be
[6:34] corrected. And there's a
[6:35] nuance here that you should
[6:36] pay attention to when
[6:37] you start making
[6:39] corrections, which is that there
[6:40] 's an X in the middle,
[6:41] whatever was previously an X
[6:42] has also been removed.
[6:44] Yes. And what came
[6:46] after that was
[6:47] shuffled and
[6:48] shuffled correctly
[6:49] , but now it's
[6:50] not accurate because of the ones
[6:52] we missed before.
[6:55] So when you do this
[6:56] fix, you
[6:57] need to fix
[6:58] all of them from the Q all the way to the
[6:59] double A.
[7:00] It did that, and it
[7:01] did nothing.
[7:02] Although
[7:04] everything is correct in the pure version.
[7:05] OK. So I can
[7:06] do this,
[7:07] I'll check it again
[7:08] now, but I think it's
[7:08] true
[7:09] because then I can
[7:09] make it
[7:10] match correctly.
[7:11] That is absolutely
[7:11] correct. You can
[7:12] follow this
[7:13] clean option.
[7:13] That's right. Right.
[7:15] Keep an eye out for the clean
[7:15] option because of this.
[7:16] OK.
[7:17] Yes.
[7:17] Good. So, I'm
[7:19] amazed that this is all there
[7:21] is.
[7:22] Yes. And it was very
[7:24] easy.
[7:26] This is a test.
[7:27] This is testing people.
[7:29] Good.
[7:29] And you got the one
[7:30] I sent you in a
[7:32] clean version
[7:36] where
[7:36] I did what I did
[7:37] in the library.
[7:39] Oh, yes. I changed it. Um, there
[7:41] should be "should".
[7:43] There is no "s" in front.
[7:45] Yes, I fixed it.
[7:46] Supervision of the
[7:47] library director, who will be
[7:49] responsible for
[7:50] the implementation of the same
[7:51] . Yes, I
[7:52] did it.
[7:52] Yes.
[7:53] Good.
[7:53] I give
[7:54] my husband credit for
[7:56] noticing this.
[7:57] Gratitude works too,
[7:58] right?
[7:59] Yes.
[7:59] Good. So, and I know
[8:02] Mr. Davis is here and
[8:03] wants to talk to
[8:04] us about something, but
[8:04] before we get
[8:05] to that, I just
[8:06] want to make sure. Do
[8:07] we see anything else? Um,
[8:11] and I just so
[8:12] you know, when you
[8:14] look at this,
[8:14] you know, these little
[8:16] parts, especially in the
[8:17] clean version, this is
[8:18] in the clean version,
[8:19] page seven, there's
[8:20] still some bold
[8:21] and underlined stuff there.
[8:23] This is what we
[8:24] talked about at the last
[8:25] meeting. I'm going to
[8:26] remove the bold
[8:27] and de-emphasize them.
[8:28] So, all of this will be,
[8:30] um,
[8:31] yeah,
[8:32] and we'll put, I'll
[8:33] put,
[8:34] proposed,
[8:35] you know, on the back
[8:36] burner. Hmm, the date was
[8:38] changed to September 23,
[8:39] 2026, which is today.
[8:41] Hmm,
[8:43] great.
[8:44] Good.
[8:45] Thank you.
[8:45] Good. No, thank you to everyone
[8:47] who watched it 400
[8:48] times. Hmm, so from our
[8:51] perspective, we're ready,
[8:52] but I want to know that
[8:53] Mr. Davis probably
[8:55] wants to ask us something
[8:56] .
[8:58] Well, I sent, um, I
[8:59] sent three of you an
[9:01] email. I did
[9:03] n't send one to all of you
[9:04] because I didn't have
[9:06] your address
[9:07] handy,
[9:08] and Peter forwarded it.
[9:10] I thought you would
[9:11] forward it.
[9:13] Well, you know, I came
[9:14] earlier in the process and
[9:15] raised this issue, and
[9:17] then I just said,
[9:18] “Oh, okay. They
[9:19] made a decision on
[9:20] this." But
[9:22] then, when I sat down to
[9:23] read it, I
[9:24] said, “This is it. "The
[9:28] first article has been put in order, hmm." And
[9:31] the first thing that's asked
[9:32] is, "Second
[9:33] Tuesday after the
[9:34] first full
[9:34] moon after the first
[9:36] full frost," and
[9:37] , you know, it's kind of like,
[9:38] "Well, why do
[9:39] we even need this
[9:40] document?" And it
[9:47] seems to me that in this day and age,
[9:48] I'm just repeating to
[9:50] everyone online what
[9:51] was in my
[9:52] email,
[9:53] hmm, it seems like a
[9:54] missed opportunity,
[9:56] because anyone who
[9:57] repeals a
[9:58] city charter...Is there an opportunity
[9:59] to say why we have a
[10:00] city charter? There is, I
[10:08] know it's
[10:09] meant to
[10:10] delineate
[10:11] the rules that we have
[10:13] in the city that
[10:13] separate us
[10:15] from the state, what we
[10:16] do in Bradboro
[10:17] that they might not
[10:18] do in Middlebury or
[10:19] Burlington. But the
[10:22] old preamble, I
[10:23] agree, is long. This is a kind of
[10:28] historical
[10:29] statement that is incredibly interesting to
[10:30] me as a citizen
[10:31] , because
[10:33] I've studied this whole
[10:33] history of how
[10:36] New York and New
[10:37] Hampshire used to argue.
[10:41] It touches on this issue there,
[10:42] but not in great detail, it
[10:44] simply says that there
[10:45] was a period when we
[10:46] here in Bradborough were
[10:47] subject to
[10:49] two jurisdictions, and
[10:50] that's fascinating. But there is
[10:53] also a list of reasons
[10:55] why we have a system of
[10:58] city
[10:59] government, and there is a
[11:00] small bulleted
[11:01] list. And when I
[11:02] sent you the
[11:03] shortened version of the
[11:04] preamble, I left
[11:05] these things out. I didn't say, "Oh
[11:07] , I'm going to
[11:07] rewrite the preamble
[11:09] ." But if the point was
[11:10] in brevity, um, and
[11:14] maybe you had
[11:15] other reasons, but it
[11:16] seems to me that there are
[11:18] some really good
[11:19] civic reasons
[11:20] to say why
[11:22] we have a government at all. And
[11:25] why, and this is our
[11:26] uniqueness, we
[11:28] only have one
[11:28] Browderborough on the
[11:29] planet, and Bradborough
[11:30] only has one charter.
[11:32] And why do we have it? We
[11:35] do things in this city
[11:36] that
[11:37] reflect our
[11:38] values. Um,
[11:40] encouraging
[11:41] civic participation
[11:43] is here. Er, charity is mentioned
[11:45] . It's kind of
[11:49] one of
[11:50] those "we the
[11:52] people" moments. This is one of those
[11:55] "we the people" moments.
[11:57] And I'm just wondering,
[11:59] at this point in our
[12:00] history, when people
[12:01] feel like, will
[12:02] democracy hold up? It seems like a
[12:06] funny moment
[12:07] when someone wrote these
[12:11] words, and I don't know how
[12:13] long they've been in
[12:14] our charter, but I
[12:15] find them a good and
[12:16] reliable
[12:17] reminder. So
[12:20] if a high
[12:22] school student was
[12:22] assigned what a
[12:23] city charter is, it's
[12:25] now like it's
[12:25] been developed...No, I
[12:26] completely appreciate all
[12:28] your work. 50
[12:29] meetings. I am
[12:31] delighted. Good. But
[12:35] for a student or a young
[12:36] person who is starting to
[12:37] study this statute,
[12:38] they will go to
[12:39] article one,
[12:40] section A, and they
[12:41] will think: why
[12:42] should I continue to
[12:44] read this document?
[12:49] Whereas the preamble gives a
[12:50] reason why a young
[12:51] person who is just
[12:52] trying
[12:53] to understand what
[12:54] city
[12:55] government is, gives
[12:56] them a rationale
[12:57] why they should
[12:58] read this and
[12:59] maybe understand
[13:00] why we have these
[13:01] rules and maybe
[13:03] get involved. So I
[13:06] just think it's me
[13:07] ...I consider it a loss.
[13:10] It's not necessary, because
[13:11] when I looked around, not
[13:13] every city in the state
[13:14] has a preamble, but
[13:15] when there is one that has a lot of
[13:16] valuable material,
[13:17] I just wonder
[13:19] why. Uh, that's why I
[13:23] said it, or is it just
[13:24] brevity? And as we
[13:27] were going up the stairs
[13:29] , Peter gave a few
[13:30] other ideas about
[13:31] why you, uh, and
[13:32] maybe, uh, but it's me
[13:33] ... I've been thinking a lot about
[13:35] what I would say to you
[13:36] all before you
[13:37] close the book on
[13:39] this and say, "Here's the
[13:40] finished product." But
[13:46] I think it's an
[13:46] opportunity to educate,
[13:48] inspire, and
[13:48] let people know that
[13:50] it's important. It's not
[13:54] just about when we
[13:55] vote, but also why we
[13:56] vote. It's not about
[13:58] us simply
[13:59] electing an elected council,
[14:01] but about what their
[14:02] responsibilities are and what our
[14:03] responsibilities are to them.
[14:09] We are a joint
[14:10] project that
[14:11] involves citizens, it
[14:12] involves some, uh,
[14:13] you know, this is the language
[14:14] that was in our
[14:16] national
[14:16] documents. in our
[14:21] state documents
[14:22] , and I see no
[14:23] reason why we shouldn't
[14:24] have some of that
[14:25] wording in our
[14:27] local documents.
[14:28] So, that's all. I'll just
[14:29] pass it on to you. And as I
[14:32] said to Peter as we
[14:33] walked up the stairs
[14:34] , I'm not going to
[14:35] storm the Bastille
[14:37] over this, but I
[14:38] feel like I can
[14:39] go home and sleep
[14:40] better having said this
[14:42] because I believe it.
[14:44] Good. So that's all I'll
[14:45] say. Thank you.
[14:46] Can I ask?
[14:47] And thank you for your
[14:48] work.
[14:49] Yes. Um, I don't know what
[14:55] Peter told you, but
[14:57] I assume it had something
[14:58] to do with the fact that
[14:59] we decided to
[15:00] throw out the
[15:01] history part. I
[15:04] mean, I think it
[15:05] was important if I
[15:07] remember, because it was a
[15:08] long time ago when we
[15:09] talked about it. Um,
[15:17] but after reading
[15:18] your
[15:20] email, um, I thought
[15:21] that these things at the beginning,
[15:22] A to F, um, might
[15:28] be good at the
[15:30] beginning. I
[15:37] mean, this is just
[15:38] my reaction to your
[15:39] letter.
[15:42] Yes.
[15:45] Um, first of all, what I
[15:46] said to Andy is just
[15:48] so you all
[15:49] can either
[15:54] confirm as accurate
[15:55] memories or
[15:56] correct me if
[15:57] you remember differently. Um,
[16:00] there were, um, two things that I
[16:01] think
[16:02] influenced it,
[16:03] at least for me.
[16:05] First, the fact
[16:05] is that we
[16:06] made the decision
[16:07] collectively,
[16:08] and we made it
[16:09] unanimously.
[16:10] Um,
[16:10] and that's when
[16:11] we had David
[16:12] Gardenstein and Hannah,
[16:13] who were still here at the
[16:14] beginning. Yes. I
[16:15] remember because Andy
[16:16] actually asked
[16:17] me, he said yes,
[16:18] but it was a long time ago. I
[16:19] think we've done
[16:20] this relatively recently,
[16:20] within the last 6
[16:21] months, where we've
[16:22] gotten to the
[16:22] point where we've
[16:23] gotten to the point
[16:23] where we're
[16:24] saying, is this our
[16:24] charter? We
[16:25] returned to
[16:26] the question, at least
[16:27] briefly.
[16:27] Yes. And so, um, so
[16:29] one thing that I think is
[16:31] important is that we
[16:32] discussed this. We
[16:34] made the decision
[16:35] collectively. For me, um
[16:36] , the next two things
[16:38] that I remember
[16:39] being the basis for
[16:40] our decision, um,
[16:42] are still valid in
[16:43] terms of our
[16:44] work, the core of
[16:45] our work.
[16:47] Um, one of them was that
[16:52] we
[16:54] identified and
[16:54] fulfilled that intent,
[16:56] one of our goals
[16:57] was to streamline
[16:58] that document
[16:59] because the old
[17:00] statute, um, had
[17:01] some language
[17:02] that duplicated the
[17:03] state statute,
[17:04] some language
[17:06] that duplicated other
[17:07] language in the
[17:08] statute. Um, in some
[17:11] cases, some things that
[17:13] we thought
[17:14] contained a lot of
[17:15] redundant language
[17:16] that didn't help, um,
[17:18] actually reduced
[17:19] its clarity,
[17:20] made it difficult to
[17:21] understand the purpose of the
[17:22] statute in those
[17:23] sections. And so we
[17:25] really
[17:26] committed to, um,
[17:27] following our
[17:28] recommended
[17:29] charter of being as clear as possible
[17:30] ,
[17:32] so that hopefully it's
[17:33] clear and, you know,
[17:34] easy to understand
[17:35] the rules of how we
[17:37] govern at Braa. Um,
[17:41] so to boil it down to the
[17:42] point is one thing, and
[17:43] the preamble is obviously to
[17:45] ,
[17:46] you know, set the table,
[17:47] not to be part of
[17:49] this, um, set of,
[17:50] you know, part of the
[17:51] set of rules
[17:52] effectively laid out
[17:53] . So that was one thing. Um,
[17:58] and the other thing was that, um,
[17:59] we had, at least,
[18:00] earlier...I don't know if
[18:02] we had a second
[18:03] conversation about this, but I
[18:04] remember that in that, in
[18:06] that earlier conversation,
[18:07] um, we were struggling at the table ourselves
[18:08] with, well,
[18:10] like, if we're
[18:11] going to have this,
[18:12] we need to work on this
[18:13] . This
[18:16] requires some
[18:17] writing. Um, because
[18:19] we didn't all necessarily
[18:20] agree even
[18:21] on the six scars and,
[18:22] um, certainly on
[18:23] some of the other things
[18:24] that were written there. And
[18:26] then we said to ourselves,
[18:27] "Well, you know, why do we
[18:28] have to
[18:29] fight this? We have,
[18:30] you know, a job that
[18:31] involves
[18:32] actually
[18:33] running the city...
[18:34] we" right, I don't
[18:35] think any of us
[18:36] ; I can definitely say
[18:38] in the first person
[18:39] singular, I didn't think there
[18:40] was anything here, um, that
[18:42] wasn't useful and
[18:43] interesting, um, but that it
[18:44] could be found elsewhere.
[18:46] Especially the
[18:47] history part—it's something that, you
[18:48] know, for that
[18:48] hypothetical
[18:49] eighth grader who
[18:50] wants to understand,
[18:51] like, "Why
[18:52] do we do these things this way
[18:53] ?"—has resources
[18:55] that they can
[18:56] access, um,
[18:57] from city government,
[18:58] from the historical
[18:59] society and others,
[19:00] um, to better
[19:01] understand these things.
[19:04] So, um, for all of these
[19:05] reasons, because we
[19:07] saw it as a
[19:08] potential point of
[19:09] unnecessary
[19:09] conflict, and because
[19:11] we saw it as
[19:12] inessential to
[19:12] creating, you know, an
[19:14] effective and
[19:14] clear
[19:16] rules document for the game, we
[19:17] collectively decided not to
[19:18] include it. And as for
[19:21] me, I'm still
[19:23] there. I could
[19:24] be, you know, I'm
[19:25] open to
[19:26] talking
[19:27] about this further if others
[19:29] besides me are
[19:29] interested in maybe
[19:31] coming back to it.
[19:35] Well, I had a
[19:36] conversation with Andy
[19:37] last summer.
[19:40] It seems like a year
[19:41] ago. It seems like a
[19:43] year ago.
[19:43] Actually, I
[19:44] think it was just
[19:45] last spring,
[19:46] maybe, or
[19:47] early summer. Um, and
[19:49] then I brought it up again
[19:50] in the
[19:51] meeting. Yes, this is the
[19:53] second time we've
[19:54] raised this issue
[19:56] and
[19:59] we didn't vote on
[20:00] it,
[20:02] but there was a kind of
[20:03] consensus,
[20:04] I'm looking for what
[20:05] agenda it
[20:06] was on, because we
[20:07] talked about it recently,
[20:14] that we're not going to
[20:15] , um, have a
[20:16] preamble, and I don't
[20:18] mind if there isn't one
[20:19] , but I agree with
[20:20] Andy that something at the
[20:21] beginning might be
[20:23] helpful. I don't know what
[20:30] , so I look at the
[20:32] points of the letter. And I don't... I
[20:35] mean, there's a
[20:36] lot to discuss about
[20:38] this, and maybe it's
[20:39] too late to do it
[20:40] . But yeah, I mean,
[20:45] I think I
[20:46] agree with everything
[20:47] Peter said about what
[20:48] our
[20:49] conversation was like. And I think,
[20:54] you know, Andy gave them a
[20:55] one to six, and
[20:57] I think they're A
[20:58] to F or something like that in the
[20:59] current statute, as I
[21:07] read them. And I think
[21:09] one of the conversations
[21:10] was, "Can
[21:11] we as a city
[21:12] agree on what this is
[21:13] ?" You know,
[21:16] because there are
[21:17] many different opinions in our city,
[21:19] and the preamble appeared
[21:21] in the 1984 draft. It so
[21:23] happened that
[21:24] the preamble that is
[21:26] there now belongs to the 80s, the
[21:28] 80s and me. And I
[21:29] remember that it was
[21:30] particularly the first time
[21:32] we had this conversation, and
[21:33] then it moved on to the
[21:34] conversation that we
[21:35] had, probably after
[21:36] you guys had
[21:38] this conversation a few
[21:39] months ago, was
[21:40] like, you know, there was a
[21:41] disagreement about
[21:42] what the history of
[21:43] our city is, and there's a
[21:44] question of how to explain
[21:46] the history of our city,
[21:47] because some of the history of
[21:48] our city doesn't
[21:49] take into account important
[21:50] things. And there are also,
[21:51] you know, I think, different
[21:53] opinions about the
[21:53] right words and the
[21:54] right language to
[21:56] use
[21:57] if we're going to
[21:58] use a
[21:59] 1 to 6 or
[22:00] an A to F. You know, we
[22:01] had a really hard time, as
[22:04] avid
[22:05] observers of the
[22:07] Charter Vision Commission know,
[22:08] words were really
[22:09] important to us
[22:10] throughout
[22:11] this. And you know, sometimes it's
[22:12] hard for us to choose
[22:14] one word to
[22:15] make sure we're
[22:17] using one that we
[22:18] think
[22:19] meets our
[22:20] expectations and what
[22:23] our fellow citizens would want,
[22:24] you know? Or
[22:25] explains what we
[22:26] want. So that was
[22:28] one of the reasons.
[22:30] For example,
[22:31] writing a preamble
[22:32] may seem like an
[22:33] easy thing for me to do, but
[22:34] in fact I think
[22:36] it's probably one of the
[22:37] most difficult things
[22:38] for a charter because we're
[22:39] trying to embody
[22:44] something that's not just a
[22:45] rule, but a thought, an
[22:46] emotion, or a reason. I
[22:47] think it's much more
[22:49] complicated. And I'm not saying
[22:52] we weren't ready
[22:53] for the difficult stuff,
[22:54] but as Peter said,
[22:56] you know, it was like,
[22:57] if it's not
[22:58] mandatory, it's not
[22:59] mandatory, it doesn't
[23:00] guide our city the way a
[23:02] charter does–it's a
[23:03] set of rules that
[23:04] adds something, and, you know, it
[23:06] could be something, and I'm not
[23:07] sure. Anyone in
[23:10] city government
[23:11] watching me right now is
[23:12] probably going to be
[23:13] pissed, but that doesn't
[23:14] mean something like that
[23:15] can't be
[23:17] posted on the
[23:18] city's website, where the
[23:19] bylaw is:
[23:20] whatever it is, we
[23:21] don't know because it has to
[23:22] go to a vote.
[23:25] And I'm just saying:
[23:26] ultimately, when we have
[23:28] some kind of charter,
[23:29] whether it's in March,
[23:31] April, May,
[23:32] June of 2027, whether it's
[23:34] in 2028 or 2029, there can't
[23:35] be something that is
[23:37] , isn't, that isn't
[23:38] necessarily in the
[23:39] charter, but it's something
[23:41] that's added to this
[23:42] page of the charter.
[23:44] Do you understand what I'm
[23:46] talking about? As Peter says, there
[23:47] are explanations everywhere about
[23:49] how our city
[23:50] government works,
[23:51] and this may be the
[23:52] right way.
[23:54] Another thing we
[23:56] really try to
[23:57] do is keep
[23:58] the charter as
[23:59] relevant as possible, and if
[24:00] we add six
[24:01] points, then a year from now
[24:02] those six points
[24:03] may not be as
[24:05] important as we
[24:06] think. So, Andy, there
[24:07] might be ways
[24:08] to do what you're
[24:09] thinking without making it a
[24:12] preamble,
[24:13] right? Like actually in the
[24:15] charter, but could it still
[24:16] be
[24:17] part of a larger
[24:21] reason not only
[24:22] why we have a charter, but
[24:23] why we have the kind of
[24:24] government that we do?
[24:26] You know, can I
[24:27] just answer and
[24:28] then I'll give my
[24:29] opinion.
[24:31] Um, I wanted to ask,
[24:33] well, I'll say this. I see
[24:35] about three
[24:36] sections of the preamble,
[24:37] you know. One of them is these
[24:39] goals, A to F or
[24:41] something like that, 1 to 7, uh
[24:43] , 1 to 6. I
[24:44] mean, I look at
[24:46] this and I was struck by the
[24:47] beautiful wording
[24:49] . I said, how
[24:50] can anyone argue with
[24:51] any of these
[24:52] six points? So,
[24:53] if any of this is
[24:54] controversial, it's
[24:56] news to me. Then there is the
[24:57] history, which is
[24:58] complicated for
[24:59] Vermont. It is very
[25:03] complex, and I understand
[25:04] that there are historical books
[25:06] that tell
[25:07] the story in much
[25:08] more detail, but they
[25:09] probably won't be
[25:10] read by the general
[25:11] public. But I
[25:16] like your
[25:17] idea, Kate, of taking it
[25:18] ...uh, I think we have a
[25:20] history section. Don't
[25:21] we have a story
[25:23] on the city's website?
[25:25] But I'm not sure
[25:26] he's specifically
[25:27] referring to the history of
[25:28] the charter here, is
[25:29] he?
[25:30] That we had this series of
[25:31] charters. So I
[25:32] tried to say: well
[25:33] , let's not go
[25:35] into so many
[25:36] details, but just
[25:37] list the charters
[25:38] that we had.
[25:39] That's what I meant not to
[25:41] rule out all of this,
[25:42] you know, there's a lot of
[25:44] detail here all the way back to
[25:46] March 4, 1791, and so on.
[25:48] To exclude all of that, and
[25:49] simply say that
[25:50] the charter that we have,
[25:52] that we are now
[25:53] putting forward, is part of a
[25:54] certain trend. This is
[25:57] actually
[25:57] a demonstration of the
[25:58] flexibility of
[25:59] self-government. If
[26:02] you've been following Jill
[26:03] LaPour, one of her
[26:04] main concerns is
[26:05] that when the
[26:07] U.S. Constitution was being written, it was
[26:08] important to establish
[26:09] rules for amending it.
[26:11] Well, we stopped
[26:12] changing it. Now we
[26:14] just let the
[26:16] courts decide, and
[26:17] it's a big political
[26:18] battle, instead of
[26:19] us... it was written
[26:21] to change it, and here's a
[26:22] demonstration in history that
[26:24] as a self-governing city
[26:25] we have limitations within
[26:26] , you know, the
[26:28] barriers set by the state... We changed
[26:30] our charter to
[26:31] fit different
[26:32] situations, and here's a
[26:33] demonstration of that.
[26:36] So this is an evergreen
[26:37] lesson for everyone that the
[26:38] charter is not
[26:39] engraved in
[26:40] cement. There is a chain of
[26:45] descent, if
[26:46] you will, that we are now on the
[26:47] fourth or fifth
[26:48] iteration. And then the
[26:52] last section, I'll
[26:53] just say in
[26:55] conclusion, and I
[26:56] wonder where
[26:57] that quote came from,
[26:58] because it says
[27:00] that in '84 there was a
[27:01] significant
[27:02] revision made to, um, Act
[27:10] Number 302 of 1959
[27:12] called the
[27:14] Representative Powers Act, as it
[27:16] was stated. Then
[27:17] , it doesn't say how it
[27:19] was stated, who
[27:20] said it, or where it is
[27:21] located. And here's
[27:23] another little thing. This
[27:25] charter is a living
[27:26] document full of
[27:28] checks and
[27:28] balances. This is true.
[27:31] According to which the
[27:32] board of elections, you don't mention
[27:34] school principals or RTM,
[27:35] but according to which the
[27:36] board of elections, I think
[27:37] in my I said that
[27:39] the board of elections, the city
[27:40] council and the citizens
[27:41] can make
[27:42] laws for the good of the
[27:43] people. The overall
[27:45] governance structure
[27:46] was designed to
[27:47] be flexible yet
[27:48] strong, concise yet
[27:50] complete
[27:51] to govern the city.
[27:52] And I changed the wording a little here
[27:54] . But I
[27:57] just think that if
[27:58] you look at
[27:59] the number of words
[28:00] you removed from the charter,
[28:01] you still achieved
[28:03] your optimization
[28:04] even if you added
[28:05] a couple of paragraphs at
[28:06] the beginning to set the
[28:07] table. So that's all I'll
[28:09] say. But I
[28:10] like your
[28:11] idea, Kate. If there
[28:14] was a
[28:15] page on the website where some of
[28:16] this language was, I
[28:17] think it could be
[28:19] done even from the
[28:20] 1791 charter, from the
[28:21] 1981 charter,
[28:23] because it's part of the
[28:24] rationale for what
[28:25] we call
[28:27] self-government, which is a
[28:28] living, changing,
[28:29] breathing process,
[28:31] not "set it in
[28:32] stone and we're
[28:33] done, just
[28:34] follow the rules."
[28:38] This is not true. It is a
[28:40] constant search
[28:41] to meet the needs of
[28:42] the present and the
[28:43] future, both
[28:44] short-term
[28:45] and long-term.
[28:47] So anyway,
[28:48] that's all I'll say. But
[28:49] I like
[28:51] your idea, Kate, that it's
[28:52] possible. But, you know,
[28:53] when you go to the
[28:54] Vermont
[28:55] Public
[28:56] Library branch or
[28:57] use
[28:58] the Internet, the story
[28:59] sometimes
[29:00] appeals more to the
[29:01] young person when
[29:02] it's
[29:03] right there, in the
[29:04] context of what the
[29:05] project is. For example,
[29:08] we want you to
[29:09] go to
[29:10] town meeting this year,
[29:11] get extra
[29:12] points, take a
[29:13] copy of the charter with you, and
[29:14] see how it
[29:15] changes your view of
[29:16] the world. And if that
[29:19] includes reading
[29:20] Vermont history, I do
[29:21] n’t think that’s as
[29:22] effective as just
[29:23] saying, “Oh,
[29:24] look at this. This
[29:25] thing I'm sitting next to
[29:27] here in the city, in the
[29:28] school gym,
[29:30] dates back to the 1750s,
[29:33] you know? And that
[29:35] little piece of
[29:36] history, Colonel, is
[29:37] sometimes more important than
[29:38] saying, "Oh, just
[29:40] get the complete
[29:41] history of Vermont,
[29:42] read it on your
[29:43] next vacation
[29:44] ." “It's sometimes more effective in the context of
[29:46] something
[29:47] . That's
[29:51] all. Thank you for the time
[29:52] you
[29:53] gave me. I'll
[29:54] stay a little longer and listen to
[29:55] you talk about
[29:56] how you can
[29:57] involve
[29:58] the public in
[29:58] this process, but I
[30:00] think it was
[30:00] well organized.
[30:02] If you guys
[30:02] decide to make
[30:03] a change or if this
[30:04] issue comes up at a
[30:05] board meeting
[30:06] , well, you
[30:07] know how I feel.
[30:08] No, I thank you for
[30:10] paying attention to what
[30:11] we're doing because you
[30:12] were here at the beginning.
[30:14] I know
[30:15] you were here. So,
[30:17] well, I was trying to
[30:17] get on this
[30:19] committee, and I was saying
[30:20] that my prayers are for
[30:21] thanksgiving for
[30:22] not getting elected for the
[30:23] last few
[30:24] years. Because you all
[30:26] did the work.
[30:28] So thank you for that. And
[30:30] I'm serious about it.
[30:31] Thank you. So, well, I
[30:34] know how I feel, and
[30:35] I really appreciate everything
[30:37] Andy said. Um, but I
[30:40] still, um, feel like
[30:42] we discussed it, and
[30:46] I don't mind there being no
[30:48] preamble.
[30:50] Agree. I
[30:51] like your
[30:52] idea too."
[30:53] Yes. I think we should
[30:55] write something, I don't
[30:56] know who will write it,
[30:57] or,
[30:59] well, we should
[31:00] do it, as soon as the
[31:01] charter is adopted,
[31:03] then the new thing will start
[31:04] .
[31:04] Yes.
[31:05] So we have some time
[31:06] .
[31:06] So something could be a
[31:09] kind of introduction
[31:11] to the charter or something like
[31:12] that.
[31:12] Yes.
[31:13] This is not a preamble, but
[31:15] on the website.
[31:16] Yes.
[31:16] I
[31:17] like this idea too.
[31:18] Yes. Good. We could
[31:20] call this the introduction to the
[31:21] Truth
[31:22] Proud
[31:23] World Charter
[31:25] or something like that. That's what
[31:27] you were thinking.
[31:28] That's what I'm thinking. And
[31:30] yes, I can look at that
[31:31] .
[31:32] Yes.
[31:35] And through our educational
[31:36] part, part of
[31:37] it is explaining to
[31:38] people that there is, I
[31:40] mean, we have a few
[31:41] short sentences in
[31:42] the memorandum that
[31:43] we'll talk about later on
[31:44] about the history, it's our
[31:46] kind of version of a charter.
[31:49] So we're going to
[31:50] talk about it through
[31:51] this thing, and it might give
[31:53] us some language to
[31:54] use.
[31:57] Good. Um, so if we
[32:00] think everything is
[32:01] ready,
[32:03] I don't know if anyone
[32:04] wants to make a
[32:05] suggestion that
[32:09] if I
[32:10] fix this, then everything
[32:11] will be
[32:14] fine. Are we ready
[32:15] to make a final
[32:16] proposal for
[32:17] the adoption of our
[32:18] charter, or do we want to
[32:19] drag out the process?
[32:21] No, you can make
[32:23] a suggestion.
[32:23] I propose that, with
[32:35] these two
[32:37] minor changes, we
[32:38] approve the charter
[32:39] before
[32:40] us tonight
[32:41] as our
[32:42] recommendation to the community
[32:44] .
[32:45] Secondly.
[32:47] Good. Peter
[32:49] proposed, and Maya
[32:51] seconded, that
[32:52] with the two
[32:53] minor changes
[32:54] we mentioned
[32:56] tonight, we accept
[32:57] this version, the version of
[32:59] September 23, 2026, as
[33:00] our...Oh, does anyone want
[33:01] to talk to us? Oh,
[33:03] Neil. Yes. But I'll make
[33:04] a proposal, and then
[33:05] we'll talk before we
[33:06] vote...
[33:07] Yes.
[33:08] Um, that we accept this
[33:09] as our
[33:09] recommended changes
[33:12] that we will submit to
[33:13] the voters. Um,
[33:16] and I was careless
[33:17] not to mention this earlier tonight
[33:19] than I intended.
[33:20] Um, there's Joy, who's still
[33:22] on our committee on
[33:23] behalf of everyone.
[33:24] She just had a
[33:25] sudden
[33:26] problem that she
[33:27] can't...be here tonight
[33:28] . I
[33:29] talked to her. Um, I
[33:31] talked to her yesterday
[33:32] about what she thought
[33:33] about the draft charter and the
[33:35] memorandum, and I'll
[33:36] get to the
[33:36] memorandum when we
[33:38] get there. She is
[33:39] fine with that. Um, and she'll
[33:42] come back when we
[33:43] get engaged, etc. So
[33:45] I…I wanted to point out
[33:46] that Joyy's didn't
[33:50] give up at first. Um, Neil,
[33:58] I think it's Neil, right?
[34:00] Yes.
[34:00] Okay, like this
[34:01] . Can
[34:03] you hear me now?
[34:04] Yes, we hear.
[34:05] Good. Thank you. First of
[34:07] all, I really want to
[34:08] thank
[34:09] your entire committee for the
[34:11] hours and hours that you
[34:13] people have put in to
[34:14] try to make
[34:15] some positive
[34:16] changes. There are some of them that
[34:18] I
[34:19] still disagree with, of course, but I
[34:21] know you put
[34:22] a lot of work into
[34:23] making this. One question
[34:27] I have is,
[34:28] uh, for the city, the
[34:30] first meeting is an
[34:31] open city
[34:32] meeting where, uh, the
[34:33] board of elections
[34:34] presents the budget, and
[34:35] then it is
[34:36] discussed and
[34:37] amended? And
[34:42] are they
[34:43] amended by
[34:44] motion, uh, or are
[34:46] amendments just…
[34:47] Take it away and
[34:48] go back with an
[34:48] amendment to the
[34:49] elected council? Um,
[34:53] part of the open
[34:54] town meeting
[34:56] that will be held in
[34:57] January.
[34:58] Yes. This would be done in the same way that
[35:04] open
[35:05] town meetings are currently held,
[35:06] meaning that the elected councils' budgets could be adopted at
[35:07] open town
[35:08] meetings
[35:10] . They
[35:16] can
[35:16] reject it and
[35:17] return it. They
[35:18] can make
[35:19] amendments to it. It will be so
[35:22] that there will be
[35:23] no difference, except for the date.
[35:26] So this is
[35:27] comparable to what we
[35:28] used to call RTF.
[35:29] That's right. This is the same thing
[35:31] we just did in
[35:32] April of this year or
[35:33] so, this year.
[35:35] And then this, and then this will be what it will be
[35:37] , except it will be
[35:39] in January, and then this is the
[35:40] budget that will be
[35:42] put to a
[35:42] vote in
[35:43] March.
[35:46] Good. And at these
[35:47] open town
[35:49] meetings, are there any
[35:52] quorum restrictions or
[35:54] anything like that? I think
[35:55] maybe it was
[35:57] because, um,
[35:58] we had
[35:59] pretty bad weather in January
[36:00] and people decided not to
[36:02] come. So you're going to have a
[36:03] much smaller
[36:04] population in terms of
[36:05] making those kinds of
[36:07] judgments. We
[36:11] talked to the city
[36:12] attorney about this
[36:13] , and since
[36:14] we're dealing with
[36:15] all the...voters,
[36:16] because there were 9,000 of us in all.
[36:19] 9,000 voters are
[36:20] gone, and these are not elected
[36:22] ...there's a difference. When it
[36:24] was a representative
[36:25] town meeting, they
[36:26] were elected, and, you know,
[36:28] about
[36:29] 140 people were elected. But since
[36:30] it's an open
[36:31] town meeting now, and there's no
[36:33] requirement to be elected,
[36:34] which means
[36:35] 9,000 people can come, we can't
[36:38] set a
[36:39] core or require one
[36:40] .
[36:40] Right? He, he,
[36:41] actually, um, we
[36:43] also talked about this
[36:43] : what if we didn't
[36:44] use
[36:45] the word "quorum" and
[36:45] called it
[36:46] the minimum
[36:46] number of voters
[36:47] needed to
[36:47] take action? And we
[36:48] were told that if it
[36:49] was what if it wasn't
[36:50] called the
[36:50] minimum
[36:50] number of voters
[36:51] needed to
[36:52] take action? And we
[36:53] were informed that, if
[36:54] it were not
[36:55] called something
[36:56] else, it would still be a
[36:57] quorum, and that quorums
[36:58] are for
[36:59] bodies where there is a
[36:59] set
[37:00] number of people. Um,
[37:03] yes, we currently have 9,000
[37:04] registered
[37:05] voters, but over time there
[37:07] may be more or
[37:08] fewer registered
[37:09] voters. So there's no
[37:12] set number, a
[37:13] fixed number would be
[37:15] ...Um, there's no quorum, just like
[37:16] saying a
[37:17] majority of the
[37:19] commission members must be
[37:20] present to take
[37:21] action. So, um,
[37:23] I see what you mean
[37:25] . My concern is
[37:26] that if we
[37:27] have really terrible
[37:29] weather or something
[37:31] and there are only,
[37:33] say, 20-30 people there,
[37:35] those 20-30 people will now
[37:37] have a significant
[37:41] impact on the budget, which
[37:42] then could be
[37:44] offset by only 60% of the
[37:45] 2,000 or so people
[37:47] who would normally come
[37:48] to another vote,
[37:51] um, which seems
[37:52] relatively
[37:52] unbalanced. Yes,
[37:55] you go first. You
[37:57] have...you are leaving.
[37:58] Good. So, um, I want to
[37:59] make a comment
[38:00] on that and a little bit
[38:01] more of the history of how
[38:02] we looked at it.
[38:03] Um, and then
[38:04] come back to it
[38:05] when we're done
[38:06] discussing this
[38:07] quorum issue. I
[38:08] want to go back to
[38:09] your original
[38:10] question because I
[38:11] think there's another
[38:12] thing that we did in
[38:13] this recommended
[38:14] charter that is
[38:15] important in terms of
[38:16] how, um, the
[38:18] budget hearing in
[38:18] open session
[38:20] will be different from how
[38:21] it was. Um,
[38:22] about the Quorum Question,
[38:23] you know, some of us,
[38:25] maybe all of us, I
[38:26] know I share your
[38:27] concern. Um, I
[38:28] think
[38:29] we talked about it
[38:31] at different times, each of
[38:32] us putting it in
[38:33] our own words,
[38:34] like what
[38:34] number would be the
[38:35] appropriate threshold.
[38:36] You know, we were kind of
[38:37] heading towards
[38:38] establishing a quorum
[38:39] . Um, and then we
[38:40] got very clear
[38:41] advice that it would be
[38:42] inappropriate for that
[38:43] form of meeting, so
[38:44] we ultimately didn't
[38:45] do it. But, uh, I
[38:46] think it's a legitimate
[38:47] concern, and, uh,
[38:48] one of the things that we
[38:50] maybe just
[38:51] need to consider is,
[38:52] you know, it's a living
[38:53] document. Uh, we have a
[38:54] provision in the
[38:55] document and in the
[38:56] state law about how it
[38:57] can be changed, and you
[38:58] know that could
[39:00] be, uh, a matter
[39:01] for
[39:01] reconsideration at some
[39:03] point if we
[39:04] have a bad experience
[39:05] with it, uh.
[39:06] Let me
[39:07] just intervene and
[39:08] then you can
[39:09] continue. Another
[39:10] thing that came up, Neil
[39:11] , when we were talking about
[39:12] this is that there's nothing
[39:14] stopping two people from
[39:15] going to the gym and
[39:16] actually saying,
[39:17] we're going to, we're
[39:18] going to take a
[39:19] break from this
[39:20] meeting until...
[39:21] next week.
[39:22] Do you understand what I mean? And
[39:24] that was also
[39:24] part of the problem, because
[39:26] if we don't
[39:27] do that, if we
[39:27] say, "Well, there's 200
[39:28] people as a quorum, if
[39:30] only 20 people
[39:31] can
[39:31] get in there, those 20 people
[39:33] can't even,
[39:34] you know, interrupt the
[39:35] meeting." So there is a
[39:36] mechanism by which the
[39:38] meeting can be
[39:39] postponed
[39:41] in case of bad weather, then,
[39:42] you know,
[39:43] most likely, it will be
[39:44] postponed to another
[39:45] time. Yes. But
[39:47] I mean, it
[39:48] could be something
[39:49] like CO, which, you know,
[39:50] none of us could have
[39:51] predicted, but then
[39:54] thank you.
[39:54] Of course. One more
[39:56] question regarding, uh,
[39:57] budget consideration at the
[39:59] town meeting. We
[40:01] added a provision, and
[40:02] it's in
[40:03] Item D on
[40:04] page seven of the clean
[40:05] draft, that requires that
[40:07] if the open
[40:08] meeting makes changes to
[40:09] the budget
[40:10] proposed by the
[40:11] board of elections.
[40:13] Open meetings in
[40:14] the proposal for
[40:15] amendments, uh
[40:17] , should clearly
[40:18] state what
[40:19] is being changed, why it is
[40:20] being changed. So, that's
[40:22] a difference from
[40:23] historically open
[40:24] town meetings or
[40:25] representative
[40:26] town meetings where you
[40:27] can just say,
[40:28] you know,
[40:29] cut...
[40:30] half a million dollars
[40:31] or add
[40:31] half a million dollars.
[40:36] Um, it requires a
[40:37] specific reason, and
[40:38] the purpose of that is a
[40:39] companion document,
[40:40] which is then
[40:41] the responsibility of the
[40:42] board of elections,
[40:43] because the
[40:44] board of elections still has the
[40:45] authority to either
[40:46] make that change, or the
[40:47] financial impact of
[40:48] that is binding,
[40:49] but, uh, the purpose of that
[40:51] is not binding on the
[40:52] board of elections. Therefore,
[40:58] we wanted to have a
[40:59] mechanism to make it clearer
[41:00] what
[41:01] intention should be
[41:02] made at
[41:03] the meeting of such an
[41:04] amendment, and a concomitant
[41:05] provision that if the
[41:06] election board does what
[41:07] was intended, then it is
[41:09] complete. But if the
[41:12] board of elections
[41:13] decides to do
[41:14] something different, or just
[41:15] not make this change,
[41:16] or make it but on a
[41:17] smaller scale, or
[41:19] something else, uh, then the
[41:20] board of elections in
[41:21] next
[41:23] year's city report must
[41:23] explain to the community
[41:24] why it took different
[41:26] measures. Both of these
[41:30] points are intended to
[41:31] take some of the, uh,
[41:33] mystery, if not
[41:34] manipulation, out of what has
[41:35] happened
[41:36] historically, where there has sometimes
[41:37] been controversy
[41:38] over what
[41:39] significance the action at
[41:41] town meeting had when a
[41:43] budget amendment was passed.
[41:46] So, Peter, you say
[41:47] ? that the initial
[41:50] amendment must
[41:51] relate to a specific
[41:52] line or item
[41:53] within the budget,
[41:54] even if it
[41:55] affects the overall
[41:57] budget outcome?
[42:00] Right? And we
[42:02] mean that we didn't
[42:03] want to create a
[42:04] line item veto or not a
[42:05] veto, but
[42:06] the authority of the city
[42:07] council to make changes to the
[42:08] line item. We wanted the
[42:12] town meeting to be able
[42:13] to express the reason
[42:14] why they made the
[42:15] dollar change. So
[42:17] they still have
[42:18] the authority to make
[42:19] changes in dollars. They
[42:20] don't have the authority
[42:21] to apply this to a
[42:22] specific line,
[42:23] but it can be
[42:24] applied to a
[42:25] line. This may
[42:26] relate to perhaps a
[42:27] certain amount of work
[42:28] in the budget. You know, it
[42:29] could be, say,
[42:30] cutting some
[42:31] department by
[42:32] $50,000 or something
[42:33] like that, without
[42:34] specifically naming the line item.
[42:36] But the intention regarding
[42:37] budget changes must
[42:38] be expressed at
[42:39] the meeting so that
[42:40] the council can then either
[42:41] adhere to that
[42:42] intention or decide
[42:44] not to do so and
[42:45] explain its opinion.
[42:47] Good.
[42:48] And we are still
[42:50] sticking to 60%.
[42:52] Yes,
[42:52] we comply.
[42:54] Sorry.
[42:55] Everything is fine.
[42:57] This is one of our
[42:58] contentious issues, but
[42:59] it is understandable.
[43:00] So, okay.
[43:01] Thanks again for all your
[43:02] work, and, uh,
[43:03] see you in January.
[43:05] Good. Thank you.
[43:08] Good. We have
[43:09] a proposal under
[43:10] consideration. Are there any
[43:11] other comments from
[43:12] the public or
[43:13] any of the
[43:14] commission members?
[43:16] Yes, sir. Uh,
[43:17] yes. I'm just
[43:19] wondering if it turns out
[43:21] we're going to have a
[43:22] vote in
[43:22] Australia after the
[43:23] town meeting?
[43:25] Yes.
[43:26] We will have an
[43:27] open town
[43:28] meeting in January. We
[43:30] moved it to
[43:31] January and then on
[43:33] election day in March, the
[43:34] first Tuesday in
[43:35] March, when we
[43:36] vote for the electoral
[43:37] council and everything else,
[43:38] the vote in
[43:39] Australia on the
[43:40] budget will be on the
[43:41] same day.
[43:44] So, it will be on the
[43:45] bulletin board
[43:46] right after
[43:47] you leave.
[43:48] And what
[43:49] Neil Manders was just talking about,
[43:51] where he said, "Are
[43:52] we at 60%?" "
[43:55] We decided that the threshold
[43:56] for rejecting
[43:57] the budget on this
[43:58] vote on the day of the
[43:59] town meeting, the
[44:00] Australian
[44:01] ballot, um, should
[44:02] be 60%, so that it's
[44:03] an endorsement of
[44:05] the work that was done at the
[44:06] meeting, not
[44:07] a repetition of the
[44:08] same work.
[44:13] Yes, of course.
[44:15] And we recognize that there
[44:16] are people in the community who,
[44:18] um, think it's
[44:19] unnecessary, some
[44:20] think it's
[44:20] inappropriate. Um, we
[44:22] went through
[44:23] , I think, several
[44:24] different meetings where we
[44:25] looked at
[44:27] this issue carefully and heard a lot
[44:28] from the
[44:28] public, and we
[44:29] came up with this
[44:30] recommendation.
[44:32] Can you give
[44:33] us your name for the
[44:34] record?
[44:35] Lee Lee and I will be
[44:42] explaining a lot between
[44:43] now and March about
[44:45] this part of the charter, as well as
[44:46] every
[44:47] part of it.
[44:49] Yes.
[44:50] I think last
[44:53] time I was here I
[44:55] said I wanted the
[44:56] Australian
[44:57] ballot to be able to, you know,
[44:58] really vote on
[45:00] everything that
[45:00] is voted on. And
[45:04] instead of,
[45:06] you know, 3 to 500
[45:07] people dictating something to
[45:09] another 9,000 voters, I
[45:10] think."
[45:11] Registered
[45:12] voters, you ask
[45:14] what it will be, which
[45:15] seems
[45:16] fair to me. But I
[45:18] probably didn't say that
[45:20] I think the
[45:21] regular services that
[45:22] the city provides are, are, are
[45:24] good, and are...I don't
[45:25] think anyone
[45:26] personally has a problem with that
[45:27] . But I think a
[45:31] lot of the things are,
[45:32] uh
[45:34] , with charity,
[45:35] charitable
[45:36] donations that
[45:37] are not really
[45:38] effective in changing the
[45:39] situation, is something that
[45:43] I think
[45:44] needs to, needs to be able to
[45:46] vote on. So, I
[45:48] mean, if you, want to
[45:50] make a donation, no
[45:51] one is going to stop you
[45:52] . But if you
[45:57] can't, you know, have
[45:58] three to five hundred
[45:59] people or people who are
[46:00] wealthy enough
[46:01] to donate,
[46:02] dictating to the
[46:03] whole city what they
[46:05] should donate,
[46:06] that seems
[46:07] unreasonable and
[46:08] undemocratic to me.
[46:11] So I'm thrilled that
[46:12] you did it
[46:14] , and all I can
[46:15] say is thank you for
[46:16] all your work, and that's it
[46:18] , and I'm glad I...
[46:19] came. Will there be
[46:20] another meeting where all this
[46:22] will be discussed?
[46:24] Yes.
[46:24] And it will be in the newspaper.
[46:26] This will be
[46:26] reported.
[46:27] We will publish it. We're
[46:29] going to...we're
[46:29] going to move on
[46:30] to the next item on
[46:31] our
[46:32] agenda-discuss
[46:33] how we're going to get what
[46:34] we just did out to
[46:35] the public so
[46:36] they're ready
[46:37] to vote on it in
[46:38] March, because it's
[46:39] going to go on the ballot in the
[46:40] city. Oh, it
[46:41] will still be voted on.
[46:43] Yes.
[46:43] This is it, before
[46:45] it gets to the
[46:46] state. Yes.
[46:47] And this is the next day of the
[46:48] town meeting. So, there
[46:51] will be a
[46:52] lot of discussion,
[46:53] probably a lot of
[46:54] letters to the editor,
[46:55] etc., about this over the next few months.
[46:56] Good. Perfectly. Well, you
[46:57] guys are doing a
[46:58] fantastic job.
[46:59] Thank you.
[47:00] very much.
[47:02] Good.
[47:02] evening.
[47:03] Thank you very much. Yes.
[47:05] Thank you.
[47:06] Emm. I see that no one
[47:08] else wants to
[47:09] say anything, um, again
[47:10] , the proposal is to
[47:12] subordinate the two
[47:13] minor changes that
[47:15] we discussed
[47:15] tonight
[47:16] to the adoption or
[47:18] approval of this
[47:19] charter
[47:19] of September 23, 2026.
[47:22] As our recommendation to
[47:24] the community,
[47:24] as our recommendation to the
[47:26] community. Hmm, everyone who is "
[47:27] for", please
[47:28] say "I". "I". "I".
[47:30] Nobody is
[47:31] against it. 4 Z.
[47:35] Great job, folks.
[47:38] Now the recommendation to
[47:39] the community, we need to
[47:41] , um, first on October 6th
[47:46] , we go to Smartboard, and
[47:48] we have a draft
[47:49] memorandum. Um, which
[47:56] strangely came out as a
[47:57] draft on the
[47:58] back page. Um,
[48:01] so it
[48:02] still said that I
[48:03] strangely couldn't
[48:04] figure out how to
[48:05] do it correctly.
[48:06] So, um, and I want to
[48:08] thank Peter,
[48:09] who helped me a lot
[48:11] , especially with the
[48:12] 60% part and the
[48:13] optional,
[48:17] um, and the intention here, as we
[48:18] voted at the
[48:19] last meeting
[48:21] or decided at the
[48:22] last meeting, is that
[48:23] we're
[48:24] going to ask the
[48:26] board of elections to put
[48:27] this on the ballot
[48:28] pursuant to the
[48:29] city charter, um,
[48:30] Article 8, Section D,
[48:31] which is that
[48:32] they take what
[48:34] we gave them and put
[48:35] it on the charter,
[48:37] on the ballot.
[48:38] To the bulletin. Yes. To
[48:39] the scheme. Before the vote
[48:41] . So, the purpose of this
[48:43] memorandum was to
[48:50] reach out to those
[48:51] who didn't follow these
[48:52] meetings to
[48:53] hear what we were doing
[48:55] without overwhelming
[48:56] people with unnecessary
[48:57] information. As
[49:02] you can see, we've covered the
[49:03] highlights, or
[49:04] rather a brief overview, and
[49:06] then other
[49:07] highlights, which
[49:08] obviously include
[49:09] open town
[49:10] meetings, finance
[49:15] committee,
[49:15] funding for
[49:16] social services,
[49:17] revenue generation,
[49:18] appointing the
[49:19] mayor to the board of
[49:20] directors, which is an at-
[49:20] will part.
[49:22] And then I thought,
[49:23] since we were going to
[49:24] talk to them, that
[49:25] we would specifically
[49:25] talk about what
[49:26] we did with their
[49:27] section. After
[49:31] we talk about
[49:31] this memorandum, we'll
[49:32] talk about how
[49:33] we're going to
[49:34] make this available to the
[49:34] general
[49:35] public. This
[49:36] memorandum
[49:36] will obviously be read to
[49:37] the general
[49:37] public, but
[49:38] it is actually
[49:38] specifically
[49:39] designed to
[49:40] tell the board of
[49:40] directors: here's what we
[49:41] did. Could
[49:42] you take our thing and
[49:43] just put it up?
[49:44] Good.
[49:44] So,
[49:45] can I come back and
[49:46] ask a question?
[49:48] Yes, I know you're going to
[49:49] ask
[49:50] . I think ahead
[49:51] of time if I
[49:52] ask.
[49:54] Yes.
[49:58] Section D deals with a
[50:01] city representative
[50:02] with a special
[50:02] representative.
[50:04] Yes. We're
[50:08] right, we've already
[50:09] been through this in
[50:11] meetings with...
[50:15] Well, we've been through
[50:16] this here publicly
[50:17] as a group when Hannah
[50:18] was still on the commission,
[50:19] when Phil, when Bob was
[50:20] on the air, and then
[50:22] before that, when it came to
[50:23] what we
[50:24] could do,
[50:25] I had another
[50:26] meeting, and Peter was
[50:27] there with... or I had a
[50:32] meeting, and then we
[50:33] had another meeting,
[50:35] I mean, we had a
[50:36] lot of meetings with
[50:37] Bob, with Bob, and with
[50:38] Bob and Hannah,
[50:39] because we had the same
[50:40] concerns. It's like
[50:41] ...well, it's just
[50:42] town meetings,
[50:43] and it's the interpretation of the
[50:44] town attorney that
[50:45] since we do
[50:47] n't have
[50:47] town meetings anymore, it's going to be a
[50:49] vote in
[50:50] Australia,
[50:51] and the reason
[50:52] he explained to us is that
[50:53] it's,
[50:54] um, the place where the
[50:56] vote is being held, like there's no
[50:58] question that it's a
[50:59] vote of the people
[51:02] or the voters, um, but,
[51:04] um, his
[51:04] interpretation of, um, the
[51:05] right way to
[51:07] handle this
[51:08] issue because of the
[51:08] outdated
[51:09] representative
[51:10] temporary...The default meeting
[51:13] has to be in accordance with the
[51:14] state statute, and the
[51:15] default in the
[51:16] state statute for
[51:17] this process, when
[51:18] the commission puts it forward,
[51:19] is a
[51:20] vote of the people
[51:21] by Australian
[51:22] ballot. Yes.
[51:25] Good. The
[51:26] town meeting is not open. The
[51:27] town meeting is not open
[51:28] .
[51:29] Australian
[51:29] Bulletin.
[51:30] No. And that was because
[51:31] in the beginning, as we all
[51:33] remember, from
[51:34] day one, we intended, I
[51:35] think, for the entire city to vote on these
[51:36] recommendations for
[51:38] our charter
[51:39] .
[51:40] Yes. So, and that's why
[51:45] by March we were going to
[51:46] go
[51:48] to the board of elections and
[51:53] ask
[51:54] if you wouldn't put this
[51:55] on the ballot for the
[51:56] whites in the city, because
[51:57] it says "
[51:58] representative
[51:59] town meeting," now that
[52:00] we do
[52:00] n't have a
[52:01] representative
[52:02] town meeting anymore,
[52:02] for example, to
[52:03] address the
[52:04] voters,
[52:05] we can address the
[52:06] voters, and that was kind of like
[52:08] deciding.
[52:09] And we even asked
[52:10] this question because,
[52:12] um, there's an interpretation that
[52:13] Bob suggested
[52:14] regarding other, um,
[52:15] sections of the existing
[52:16] charter, that where it
[52:17] says "
[52:18] representative
[52:19] town meeting," it
[52:20] would instead say "
[52:21] open town
[52:22] meeting." “Since this is a
[52:24] common interpretation,
[52:25] why doesn’t it
[52:26] apply here? And
[52:27] he says it doesn't
[52:28] apply here
[52:29] because, um,
[52:30] charter amendments under
[52:31] state statute
[52:32] can't be made
[52:33] at a town meeting;
[52:34] they are entered
[52:35] using a ballot
[52:36] . This... does
[52:38] this make sense? Because
[52:41] we...
[52:41] Yes. It's like the
[52:42] 16-year-old vote,
[52:43] which was the last
[52:45] major
[52:46] charter change. Yes. And it
[52:48] went
[52:50] to Australia, I mean
[52:51] citywide
[52:52] voting in
[52:53] Australia.
[52:55] Yes, yes. It went away for a
[52:56] different reason, because
[52:58] a petition was filed,
[53:00] but, um, yeah,
[53:04] it went away. And I think what
[53:06] I really mean is
[53:07] that we're asking the
[53:08] board of elections to, um,
[53:09] go under Article D
[53:11] and put this on the
[53:11] March ballot
[53:13] . Um, the election board is
[53:15] actually taking
[53:16] steps to do this. I
[53:19] wonder if anyone will say
[53:20] why this is on the ballot and
[53:22] not in open
[53:23] session? You know,
[53:24] it's at the discretion of the election
[53:25] board according to another. I
[53:26] don't have this
[53:27] current statute
[53:28] right in front of me.
[53:29] But there is another provision
[53:30] where the electoral..." The Council
[53:31] could put this to a
[53:32] vote on
[53:33] its own initiative.
[53:34] Yes,
[53:34] I think we are
[53:35] legally protected, and
[53:36] we have advice in the council.
[53:38] Yes. It was like that because there
[53:39] was a concern that
[53:40] wait a second, we
[53:41] want to make sure
[53:43] this gets to
[53:44] everyone,
[53:44] right?
[53:45] This is section B.
[53:46] Yes.
[53:46] Good. So the board could
[53:48] do it either in
[53:49] Section B or in
[53:50] Section D. We are asking
[53:51] them to do it in
[53:52] Section D because that is the
[53:53] expected
[53:54] process when there is
[53:55] a commission.
[53:55] Yes. That's why Mayer
[53:57] knew for sure,
[53:59] because we had these
[54:01] conversations,
[54:02] and I was afraid
[54:03] that this issue
[54:04] would come up at the
[54:05] elected
[54:06] board meeting.
[54:07] Yes.
[54:07] Andy is
[54:09] very brief,
[54:10] regardless of
[54:11] the statute, politically it is the
[54:12] only way.
[54:14] Yes. That's right.
[54:15] Forget about the
[54:16] state charter.
[54:17] That's how we felt
[54:18] from the very beginning.
[54:19] Very close to 40 years
[54:20] ago we started.
[54:21] This is pretty obvious.
[54:22] Absolutely.
[54:23] Yes. We talked about
[54:25] this from the very beginning.
[54:26] Yes. Yes. Yes.
[54:28] Um,
[54:28] so you want
[54:29] to read the
[54:30] memorandum?
[54:31] Yes. Does anyone have anything?
[54:32] Yes. I have
[54:33] some. question.
[54:35] Yes.
[54:35] Um, at the very beginning,
[54:38] where we say we're
[54:39] asking that our
[54:40] proposed changes
[54:41] be put to a
[54:42] vote by the city
[54:46] and that they go through
[54:47] that process. Should
[54:49] we name a date? I would
[54:52] say March in
[54:54] March.
[54:54] Yes.
[54:57] Of course.
[54:58] We can
[54:59] put it.
[55:01] Well, I'm a
[55:04] picky eater, I
[55:05] have a nitpicking
[55:06] remark. I
[55:07] like it.
[55:08] Yes. I have no objection to
[55:09] such
[55:09] specificity. The rest of
[55:11] the sentence speaks
[55:12] in accordance with Article
[55:13] 8 Subsection D. So
[55:17] if we insert the date
[55:19] , the date is not stated
[55:21] directly
[55:22] in the subsection. We
[55:25] can do, um,
[55:27] cautiously,
[55:27] rewarding
[55:28] probably this, and
[55:29] put in a date
[55:36] because we don't want
[55:37] them to pick some
[55:38] date, like
[55:39] decide to do it in
[55:40] December or something.
[55:43] We know it's us, we
[55:45] suspect, we know
[55:46] they won't
[55:47] do it, but they,
[55:48] we suspect
[55:49] they will.
[55:50] We suspect,
[55:52] but I'm just worried
[55:54] ,
[55:55] since they've
[55:56] made suggestions
[55:57] for other dates,
[56:00] um, we have to give
[56:01] them a date,
[56:03] however you
[56:04] phrase it.
[56:04] Well, how about this? Um,
[56:07] we could put
[56:08] according to because of the
[56:09] city charter in parentheses
[56:10] . And so, you could
[56:13] say that we are
[56:14] asking that our
[56:15] proposed changes
[56:16] be moved to a
[56:19] citywide vote in brackets
[56:20] in accordance with the
[56:21] city charter, and the
[56:22] brackets to March 2027
[56:23] .
[56:23] Yes.
[56:24] Does
[56:24] this work?
[56:25] Yes,
[56:27] it's March 3rd,
[56:29] I think.
[56:30] Third, I think
[56:31] the date of the proposed
[56:32] changes is moved to a
[56:33] parenthetical vote
[56:35] with 10 votes
[56:36] in accordance with...Okay.
[56:38] Yes. Good. Good.
[56:43] I'm checking the date.
[56:44] Oh, no. It's November 3rd,
[56:45] not March.
[56:46] No, no, no, no.
[56:47] March.
[56:48] Oh, no. But I just
[56:49] thought that I seem to have
[56:50] three on my mind
[56:51] because of November.
[56:51] Or is this...What is this?
[56:52] March 3.
[56:53] It's March 2nd.
[56:55] Secondly. Good. Yes, I have
[56:56] three in mind for a
[56:57] different reason. Good.
[56:58] So, March 2,
[56:59] 2027. Yes. Perfectly.
[57:01] This is the first Tuesday.
[57:02] Yes. Good. Yes. Good.
[57:13] And Andy, we have a
[57:14] story here in our
[57:16] memo to the
[57:20] board of elections that
[57:21] starts with the
[57:22] first
[57:23] Bradborough charter. was published
[57:25] in 1753.
[57:28] Do you have a chance
[57:28] to remind people of the
[57:30] past? Yes?
[57:31] I agree with you.
[57:33] Aha. We even
[57:37] refer to the amendments
[57:39] to the charter in 2012, 2013, 2016,
[57:42] and 2023. Let's
[57:45] see. There was another
[57:47] one. Oh, the
[58:02] city's private meeting.
[58:03] What page?
[58:05] five.
[58:06] Yes.
[58:09] You are on your third weekend
[58:10] . This...And in our
[58:12] project it says, where is this
[58:21] ? The first Saturday or
[58:27] Sunday after the
[58:28] third Monday.
[58:31] So,
[58:35] it's not actually the third
[58:37] weekend.
[58:38] Sometimes it can be
[58:40] fourth.
[58:40] Yes.
[58:41] In 28, this will be the
[58:42] fourth week.
[58:45] So, it is the first Saturday
[58:46] or Sunday after the
[58:47] third Monday.
[58:49] Yes. I can write
[58:51] it correctly, like we
[58:52] write in the
[58:53] statute.
[58:54] Yes.
[58:55] Good. And those were the
[59:00] only two things I had
[59:01] . I think the
[59:08] 60% explanation was
[59:10] great. Peter
[59:12] gets all the credit
[59:14] for this
[59:14] because you know
[59:19] 60% doesn't fall from the sky,
[59:21] right?
[59:22] This...Everyone has been discussing
[59:23] the budget since the summer.
[59:26] Yes.
[59:27] Um, and on
[59:32] page six, excuse
[59:33] me because, um, Kate
[59:34] included me in this
[59:35] initiative, and that's why I
[59:37] actually wrote these
[59:38] words, but I want to
[59:39] recommend,
[59:41] painfully taking away
[59:42] people's authorship.
[59:43] I want, I want to
[59:44] recommend a
[59:44] painfully meticulous
[59:46] change. So, if you
[59:47] notice that at the bottom of the
[59:48] fifth page,
[59:49] at least
[59:50] 60% of the title is in quotation marks. Yes,
[59:51] I think that should
[59:52] be in quotes again in the
[59:54] subtitle, which
[59:55] is on
[59:56] page six.
[59:57] This is your thing.
[59:58] The threshold is at least 60%.
[1:00:00] Good.
[1:00:00] Um,
[1:00:01] yes, that's normal.
[1:00:02] As I was rereading this
[1:00:03] in preparation for
[1:00:04] tonight, I thought
[1:00:05] I had to
[1:00:06] read it twice
[1:00:07] because it just didn't
[1:00:08] feel the same way as it did
[1:00:09] n't in quotes. As if this is what
[1:00:11] we want
[1:00:12] to explain, this is legal.
[1:00:13] Yes. So
[1:00:14] thank you. That's
[1:00:16] all. Good. Few people are
[1:00:18] over 60.
[1:00:21] Oh yes. There is
[1:00:25] a supermajority,
[1:00:26] particularly in the
[1:00:27] ratification processes,
[1:00:28] regularly, and then
[1:00:29] also in another
[1:00:30] process, which
[1:00:32] is actually what I just
[1:00:33] talked about, which is the section where
[1:00:35] we certify that
[1:00:36] Bob's attorney...
[1:00:37] Bob Fisher, the
[1:00:38] city attorney,
[1:00:39] has given us his
[1:00:40] certification
[1:00:41] that for various reasons,
[1:00:43] he clearly
[1:00:44] understands that this would be
[1:00:45] legal, based on
[1:00:46] various circumstances
[1:00:48] where the threshold exceeds
[1:00:49] 50%.
[1:00:52] Yes.
[1:00:53] Yes. Because we would have
[1:00:56] stopped a long time ago if he had
[1:00:57] n't done that.
[1:00:59] Good. Do we see, is there
[1:01:01] anything else? Does everyone
[1:01:02] feel
[1:01:03] comfortable with this
[1:01:04] document?
[1:01:07] And this document,
[1:01:08] apparently, comes along
[1:01:09] with two draft
[1:01:10] statutes.
[1:01:11] Yes.
[1:01:12] And again, this
[1:01:13] document is intended
[1:01:14] for the election board.
[1:01:16] When you make your changes
[1:01:17] , can you
[1:01:18] repost them for
[1:01:19] us
[1:01:20] so I can get an
[1:01:21] updated copy?
[1:01:23] Oh, I'll send everyone a
[1:01:24] clean copy.
[1:01:25] Yes,
[1:01:25] I'm going to delete
[1:01:26] the project for the polling
[1:01:27] station. I'm going to
[1:01:28] put the correct
[1:01:29] date.
[1:01:29] Yes, I mean the
[1:01:31] statute.
[1:01:31] Oh, yes, definitely. I'll
[1:01:33] give it to Seth, and he...
[1:01:34] maybe I think
[1:01:36] we should do something, and I
[1:01:37] can work with
[1:01:38] you on this, Seth,
[1:01:40] because we can
[1:01:41] change...
[1:01:41] make sure that people
[1:01:43] ... Wherever they are on the
[1:01:48] website, they can
[1:01:50] easily find our... Seth
[1:01:51] knows... You know
[1:01:52] what I mean? What a beautiful version.
[1:01:54] But I will send it to everyone.
[1:01:56] Yes.
[1:01:56] Can I make a
[1:01:57] suggestion?
[1:01:58] Oh, yes. Um, I move that we
[1:02:00] approve the draft
[1:02:01] memorandum that was
[1:02:03] before us
[1:02:04] tonight as our...er...
[1:02:05] handover
[1:02:06] memorandum to the
[1:02:07] Election Commission on
[1:02:08] behalf of the entire Commission,
[1:02:10] subject to just three
[1:02:11] minor changes that
[1:02:12] we discussed...
[1:02:13] even
[1:02:17] so...er...
[1:02:23] Peter's suggestion...I'm not going to
[1:02:24] repeat all of it,
[1:02:25] but I will say that everything that
[1:02:26] Peter just said is
[1:02:27] accepted...
[1:02:28] except for this. Okay
[1:02:30] . So, everyone who is in favor of...
[1:02:31] Okay. Perfectly. Good.
[1:02:37] Now the next thing we
[1:02:39] want to do is
[1:02:40] talk about how
[1:02:41] we want to do
[1:02:42] some community
[1:02:43] service. I
[1:02:45] spoke with Tara
[1:02:46] O'Brien at the library yesterday,
[1:02:47] and they're ready and
[1:02:48] eager to have
[1:02:49] us, you know,
[1:02:50] repeat our event
[1:02:51] that we were going to
[1:02:53] do tonight
[1:02:54] . So, uh...I
[1:02:56] said...I would
[1:02:57] suggest an idea to her, and
[1:03:01] I thought if we
[1:03:02] could just...We're
[1:03:03] going to the
[1:03:05] election commission on October 6th. Um,
[1:03:07] this will be put to a
[1:03:08] vote on March 2nd
[1:03:10] . We just need to
[1:03:12] figure out, you know,
[1:03:13] when we want to
[1:03:14] do our first "
[1:03:15] Hey World," because, you know
[1:03:16] , the election committee
[1:03:17] will have other things on the
[1:03:19] agenda that
[1:03:20] night. It's not all about
[1:03:21] us. And since we are
[1:03:22] simply asking them,
[1:03:24] please accept
[1:03:25] ...Yes, that is how it should be.
[1:03:28] We know it could
[1:03:29] be about us, but so
[1:03:30] I think, you know, I
[1:03:32] think our
[1:03:32] conversation should be about
[1:03:33] how
[1:03:35] soon do we want to get out there
[1:03:36] and do something? Our
[1:03:40] first thing, you know, for the
[1:03:41] first public
[1:03:42] meeting at the
[1:03:43] library, things
[1:03:44] like... we have to
[1:03:45] draft what
[1:03:46] we want to
[1:03:47] give to the public
[1:03:49] . Of course, this
[1:03:51] memorandum will be
[1:03:52] seen
[1:03:52] by the public, but there are
[1:03:53] other things
[1:03:54] we want
[1:03:55] the public to know about
[1:03:56] that are not necessarily in
[1:03:57] this memorandum and the
[1:03:58] website update.
[1:03:59] So, how do you feel
[1:04:04] about
[1:04:05] doing something in 2026, or do
[1:04:07] you want to wait until
[1:04:08] ...2027? It seems to me
[1:04:10] that 2027 is also a
[1:04:11] year when
[1:04:13] discussions will continue, and that we
[1:04:15] should not wait until
[1:04:16] January 2027.
[1:04:17] I think mid-
[1:04:19] November would be the
[1:04:20] perfect time. So that
[1:04:21] we don't wait for the holidays,
[1:04:25] but wait as long as possible
[1:04:26] after October 6th
[1:04:28] before launching.
[1:04:31] This gives us time to even
[1:04:32] hold additional
[1:04:33] meetings to
[1:04:34] agree on exactly how we
[1:04:35] will
[1:04:36] present ourselves, if
[1:04:37] necessary. But, um, it
[1:04:38] seems to me that,
[1:04:40] you know, right after
[1:04:41] October 6th would be an early
[1:04:42] start to the voting
[1:04:44] , which would take place
[1:04:45] in five months.
[1:04:47] The materials will be
[1:04:48] made public, this
[1:04:48] memorandum and the clean
[1:04:49] draft will be
[1:04:50] made public so people
[1:04:51] can
[1:04:52] review them, and
[1:04:53] ultimately the
[1:04:53] red line draft. So,
[1:04:55] um, people will be able to
[1:04:56] review this, and the
[1:04:57] dialogue
[1:04:57] will definitely start with those
[1:04:59] people who have been
[1:05:00] following our
[1:05:01] process more closely. But I think
[1:05:04] for us to start a
[1:05:06] public discussion
[1:05:07] somewhere between
[1:05:08] Veterans Day and
[1:05:09] Thanksgiving seems like an
[1:05:10] appropriate goal to me.
[1:05:13] Yes, I was looking at...
[1:05:19] Hmm,
[1:05:24] one of the things
[1:05:25] I can't do on
[1:05:27] November 17th, 18th, because
[1:05:29] I have DRB, so
[1:05:31] what night of the week is that?
[1:05:34] This is Tuesday and Thursday.
[1:05:35] Good. I know we can't
[1:05:37] go to the
[1:05:38] library on
[1:05:38] Thursdays. This will
[1:05:39] have to be done
[1:05:40] because they don't
[1:05:41] stay
[1:05:42] open until we
[1:05:42] can...We have to
[1:05:43] do it in the evening
[1:05:44] when they
[1:05:44] stay
[1:05:45] open. Yes.
[1:05:46] Hmm,
[1:05:46] Tuesday the 17th.
[1:05:49] Is this the first or the second?
[1:05:50] This is actually true. Hmm,
[1:05:53] if we agree
[1:05:55] with the general
[1:05:56] formulation that I
[1:05:57] just proposed,
[1:05:59] which I did as an
[1:06:00] intuition rather than as a
[1:06:01] specific thing, but it
[1:06:02] turns out that this
[1:06:04] year, um, there's only one
[1:06:06] full week between the
[1:06:07] two holidays, so it would be
[1:06:09] the week of November 16th, 17th,
[1:06:10] 18th, 19th, 20th
[1:06:11] . Good.
[1:06:14] November, if that's what
[1:06:15] we want
[1:06:16] to focus on.
[1:06:17] Good.
[1:06:18] Hmm,
[1:06:18] why don't I
[1:06:19] talk to Tara at the
[1:06:20] library
[1:06:21] and see what's
[1:06:23] available?
[1:06:25] Week? 16 or 17 would be
[1:06:26] perfectly normal from
[1:06:28] my point of view. The 19th
[1:06:29] might be a little
[1:06:30] harder, and Maya
[1:06:31] just told us she
[1:06:33] can't do the 18th.
[1:06:33] Yes.
[1:06:34] So if, um, we could
[1:06:35] , maybe when you
[1:06:36] talk to Tara,
[1:06:38] you could
[1:06:38] focus on 16-17,
[1:06:40] would
[1:06:40] that work?
[1:06:41] Yes. And we'll have to
[1:06:42] ask Joy too.
[1:06:43] Yes. But I...I'll take
[1:06:46] it and look at it, and
[1:06:47] what I'll talk to...
[1:06:48] Tara
[1:06:50] tomorrow morning, and I
[1:06:51] can write everyone an
[1:06:52] email and
[1:06:53] say great, yes
[1:06:54] or no. Um, and then I
[1:06:57] can talk to BCTV,
[1:06:58] because obviously it would be
[1:06:59] great if they
[1:07:00] could record it
[1:07:02] so it could
[1:07:03] just be a continuous
[1:07:04] loop in
[1:07:05] people's heads.
[1:07:05] Yes. Well, if it
[1:07:07] can't be that week,
[1:07:12] I would vote to
[1:07:13] move it to the
[1:07:14] first week of
[1:07:14] December.
[1:07:18] Hmm.
[1:07:20] This is after people
[1:07:21] are home for
[1:07:23] Thanksgiving and they
[1:07:24] won't be going anywhere for
[1:07:25] Christmas yet.
[1:07:25] Week of December 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
[1:07:28] .
[1:07:29] Yes. Or that week,
[1:07:31] or even the first,
[1:07:32] second, third.
[1:07:34] Hmm. That suits me,
[1:07:42] Denise.
[1:07:43] Yes. Good.
[1:07:46] I'll talk to
[1:07:47] her tomorrow and then
[1:07:48] discuss everything.
[1:07:49] Good.
[1:07:54] Um, now my other
[1:07:55] thought, and I can
[1:07:56] discuss a few
[1:07:57] dates, is to prepare
[1:08:01] for this. We've already
[1:08:04] done it, and you people
[1:08:05] may disagree
[1:08:06] with me on this
[1:08:07] , but we've
[1:08:07] done our job.
[1:08:09] We have developed a charter.
[1:08:10] I think we can
[1:08:11] make it so that we
[1:08:12] don't have to
[1:08:12] meet in the
[1:08:13] election
[1:08:14] board meeting rooms. Do you understand what
[1:08:15] I mean? We can have a
[1:08:16] meeting with
[1:08:18] me
[1:08:18] to prepare our
[1:08:19] material, and we won't be,
[1:08:20] as you think, at the
[1:08:21] election
[1:08:22] board meeting.
[1:08:23] I think if we're
[1:08:24] still going to
[1:08:25] be a commission, we
[1:08:26] still
[1:08:26] need to
[1:08:27] hold public
[1:08:28] meetings frequently.
[1:08:28] Good. No, no, I'm saying
[1:08:30] we could do
[1:08:31] it in the library. Oh, we,
[1:08:32] like, the five of us
[1:08:33] could meet
[1:08:34] at the library if
[1:08:35] it's open to the
[1:08:36] public.
[1:08:37] Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying,
[1:08:38] because I think it will be more
[1:08:39] difficult. The Election
[1:08:40] Board is putting together its
[1:08:41] budget, and I'm really
[1:08:42] worried about... we
[1:08:43] have to
[1:08:43] meet here and
[1:08:44] we're being informed.
[1:08:45] Oh, if you're
[1:08:46] just talking about the physical
[1:08:47] venue, I
[1:08:48] agree with that. I'm just
[1:08:50] saying that we can make our
[1:08:52] lives a little easier because all
[1:08:53] we're going to do is
[1:08:54] discuss
[1:08:55] what the material will be and
[1:08:56] what our process will be,
[1:08:57] we're not going
[1:08:58] to discuss the
[1:08:59] full
[1:09:00] substance of the statute. So we just
[1:09:01] kind of
[1:09:01] shut up, we
[1:09:02] still do it
[1:09:03] openly. We keep
[1:09:04] minutes and let the
[1:09:05] world know that we are
[1:09:05] meeting, and
[1:09:06] everyone can come and
[1:09:06] listen to us to
[1:09:07] decide whether
[1:09:07] we like the
[1:09:08] wording "feminine"
[1:09:09] .
[1:09:09] I'm just saying we
[1:09:10] don't need to
[1:09:10] do this.
[1:09:11] I agree. I
[1:09:12] misunderstood you
[1:09:13] . I thought
[1:09:14] I
[1:09:15] misunderstood you. What you
[1:09:16] just said
[1:09:17] sounds right.
[1:09:18] We still need to
[1:09:19] have BCTV there. No.
[1:09:20] we wouldn't.
[1:09:21] No. So, one of us would
[1:09:22] take the minutes, and it would be a
[1:09:23] public
[1:09:24] meeting.
[1:09:24] Yes.
[1:09:25] We would do it like
[1:09:26] all other commissions.
[1:09:28] Yes. Because we've already
[1:09:29] covered the basics.
[1:09:31] If we were still
[1:09:31] discussing
[1:09:32] the wording of the statute
[1:09:33] and all that, I would
[1:09:35] n't...suggest it, but
[1:09:36] since we're just
[1:09:37] writing a
[1:09:38] memo,
[1:09:38] I don't mind, especially
[1:09:40] since the result of
[1:09:41] this would be a broad
[1:09:42] public process,
[1:09:43] right?
[1:09:44] Yes, of course.
[1:09:45] I just think it would be
[1:09:47] easier for us not to be
[1:09:48] married.
[1:09:48] Yes, that's normal. Yes
[1:09:50] .
[1:09:50] And I think the
[1:09:51] election
[1:09:52] board memo was a good
[1:09:53] start. Yes. Yes.
[1:09:56] Good. So,
[1:09:59] while I'm at the
[1:10:00] library, why don't I
[1:10:01] see if there's, um,
[1:10:02] if we want to
[1:10:03] meet
[1:10:06] after 6?
[1:10:07] Yes, after the 6th. And I
[1:10:09] can see if
[1:10:10] any of them have a
[1:10:11] free room. And,
[1:10:12] of course, Joy is
[1:10:13] not here. So I'm going to
[1:10:14] send this in if you
[1:10:15] guys give me
[1:10:16] some dates at work.
[1:10:17] I can check at the
[1:10:17] library and then
[1:10:18] we'll email it to everyone
[1:10:19] and
[1:10:20] make sure
[1:10:21] Joy
[1:10:23] because we can
[1:10:24] schedule it via
[1:10:25] email.
[1:10:26] We can't talk
[1:10:27] about the substance, but we
[1:10:28] can choose the dates,
[1:10:31] and we'll make Seth's life easier
[1:10:32] .
[1:10:35] Sorry?
[1:10:36] We're going to
[1:10:37] make Seth's life easier
[1:10:39] in October, except for
[1:10:40] ...the 21st. Yeah,
[1:10:51] assuming we're
[1:10:52] only talking about, um,
[1:10:53] Monday-Thursday,
[1:10:55] not Friday, then,
[1:10:56] um, the only time I
[1:11:01] couldn't afford to
[1:11:02] check if that was
[1:11:03] true. Sorry. They are
[1:11:16] closed on October 12th
[1:11:17] due to indigenous
[1:11:18] people.
[1:11:19] Oh, is
[1:11:20] n't that right?
[1:11:21] Yes.
[1:11:21] Oh, yes. Yes.
[1:11:22] All will be
[1:11:23] closed because of the
[1:11:24] indigenous people.
[1:11:25] Yes. People's Day.
[1:11:26] The
[1:11:29] 15th won't work for me.
[1:11:33] And we wouldn't want to
[1:11:34] do it on the 8th because that's
[1:11:36] like two days. On the 20th. The 22nd wo
[1:11:38] n't work for me.
[1:11:43] So, let's see if
[1:11:44] we can get
[1:11:45] settled on the 19th or
[1:11:46] 20th. Will this work for you,
[1:11:48] Denise?
[1:11:49] Hooray.
[1:11:49] Any of these
[1:11:50] options will work.
[1:11:51] So I'll see if that
[1:11:52] works. And then we
[1:11:54] can check with
[1:11:55] Joy.
[1:11:55] Yes. And the same with the
[1:11:56] following week, the 26th
[1:11:58] and 27th. Yes, that would work for
[1:12:00] me too
[1:12:01] if we needed to
[1:12:02] go back to
[1:12:03] that.
[1:12:03] Good. Good. Is that
[1:12:06] true? Tomorrow? I'll give it
[1:12:08] enough time.
[1:12:09] Good.
[1:12:09] So, you'll send us
[1:12:10] some dates when you
[1:12:11] confirm everything.
[1:12:12] Yes.
[1:12:13] I can't on the 27th.
[1:12:15] Good. Good.
[1:12:17] This is not an annual meeting.
[1:12:19] I have to be there. Are
[1:12:21] you running again?
[1:12:23] No. No.
[1:12:26] I won't run
[1:12:29] because you still have
[1:12:30] months left to do so
[1:12:31] . Good. So I'll
[1:12:33] check. Thank you. I'll
[1:12:34] check the
[1:12:35] years.
[1:12:44] Good. Good. So I'll
[1:12:46] do that, and then we
[1:12:47] can decide,
[1:12:48] because, and then we
[1:12:49] can...I've been working and
[1:12:50] getting additional
[1:12:51] information,
[1:12:52] like more
[1:12:53] texts to go
[1:12:54] on the website to
[1:12:55] replace this. We
[1:12:56] can provide this to you
[1:12:57] and it won't be a
[1:12:58] problem.
[1:12:59] Yes. Good.
[1:13:01] Um...Okay. And then
[1:13:03] regarding the sixth, I
[1:13:04] will let you know, friends.
[1:13:05] I don't know, we don't
[1:13:06] know yet when we'll
[1:13:07] be on the
[1:13:08] agenda. We are on the
[1:13:09] agenda. Um,
[1:13:12] and I'll make those changes and
[1:13:14] get the materials
[1:13:15] to make sure
[1:13:16] I get them...
[1:13:17] I'll just pass it on to the
[1:13:18] staff so they...
[1:13:19] on the website. I will
[1:13:20] make sure everyone
[1:13:21] gets updated
[1:13:23] copies. Perfectly.
[1:13:26] So, the first stage
[1:13:28] is complete.
[1:13:30] The first stage.
[1:13:31] Wow. The second stage doesn't
[1:13:33] take four years, does
[1:13:34] it?
[1:13:35] I don't know. It depends
[1:13:37] on you.
[1:13:37] Thank you, Andy.
[1:13:38] Thanks,
[1:13:40] guys.
[1:13:40] It depends on what the
[1:13:41] legislature does
[1:13:42] .
[1:13:42] Yes, we have. Well, we
[1:13:44] have March 1st.
[1:13:46] So it's postponed. Okay
[1:13:47] . Everyone who supports
[1:13:49] the transfer.
[1:13:50] Thank you.