[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.

Brattleboro Charter Revision Commission Mtg 9/23/26

Transcript