[9:20] All right, it's 7 o'clock, so we'll call

[9:22] the meeting to order. Um, so first we'll

[9:25] start with the pledge of allegiance.

[9:26] Thank you, Ken, for rescuing the flag.

[9:33] To the flag of the United States of

[9:35] America and to the republic for it

[9:38] stands one nation underyice

[9:43] for all.

[9:47] » Thank you everyone. Uh so we have no one

[9:50] here for public comment so we'll just

[9:51] move on. Um one thing I was going to

[9:54] just say to the board is um we do have a

[9:56] pretty packed agenda today. Um, so just

[9:58] sort of in the spirit of trying to keep

[10:00] things moving along and making sure

[10:01] everyone has a chance to speak. Just a

[10:03] reminder to um try to run all questions

[10:05] through me first. Um, we'll try to keep

[10:08] this as efficient as possible. Um, so

[10:11] the first item uh was supposed to be a

[10:13] presentation by Cornerstone Financial um

[10:16] on the trust and the investments and the

[10:18] strategy. Um, so unfortunately they were

[10:20] not able to present tonight. Um I had a

[10:22] conversation with um uh Greg Miner

[10:26] earlier in the week and Cornerstone on

[10:28] their end made some changes to their

[10:30] compliance standards and because of

[10:32] those changes because this meeting is

[10:34] televised this is now considered a

[10:37] advertisement um which means that his

[10:39] presentation would need to get reviewed

[10:40] by their compliance team which takes two

[10:42] weeks and he just found this out earlier

[10:45] in the week. So nonetheless the last

[10:46] they won't be able to present tonight.

[10:48] Um given that it has been a while since

[10:51] they presented I think one of the um

[10:53] options we discussed if people are okay

[10:55] with this would be to have cornerstone

[10:58] present at some point in July or August

[10:59] when we're not meeting present to the

[11:01] investment committee of the board so we

[11:03] can sort of get an update on the fund

[11:05] talk about investment strategy things

[11:06] like that and then we can report back to

[11:08] the full board for a discussion in

[11:10] September. Um, do you folks I don't know

[11:12] if we have to vote on that, but just

[11:14] wanted to see if folks feel okay with

[11:15] that course of action.

[11:19] » Okay.

[11:20] >> Would it be okay if I just attended only

[11:23] because I have no clue about it?

[11:25] >> So,

[11:26] >> or does that throw off the quorum idea

[11:27] or the

[11:28] >> I think we'd have to check. Um, so let

[11:31] >> just let me know. Otherwise, that's

[11:32] fine.

[11:33] >> Yeah. I mean, and we could one option

[11:34] too would be to have a meeting over the

[11:37] summer then have them come back in

[11:39] September. I think Greg's perspective

[11:41] was he just didn't want to wait until

[11:43] September um just because it has been

[11:46] like I haven't heard a presentation

[11:47] since I've been on the board. So that

[11:49] could be an option too is that we have

[11:51] the meeting and then we can have a more

[11:53] focused presentation for September. So

[11:54] maybe that's the best course. Donna,

[11:56] >> but one thing I can add to that because

[11:58] I think what we wanted to do after his

[12:00] presentation was see about reinvesting

[12:02] our money or going with their

[12:04] recommendation.

[12:05] >> We won't be able to vote on it until

[12:07] September anyways, right? So maybe it

[12:09] wouldn't matter if you waited till

[12:10] September because you'd have the

[12:12] information, but we couldn't vote until

[12:14] we had a meeting.

[12:15] >> That's true.

[12:16] >> Just throwing that back out.

[12:17] >> Yeah,

[12:18] >> I'm okay with whatever we choose to do,

[12:20] but it really doesn't matter if he comes

[12:22] now or comes in September.

[12:23] >> Okay. Um I can I can speak to Greg again

[12:26] and just sort of get his thoughts on

[12:27] what he thinks might be most effective

[12:29] as well.

[12:30] >> Any other thoughts on that topic?

[12:32] >> Sure.

[12:33] >> So I'm sorry. What he's saying that

[12:35] because we public now because it's

[12:38] televised.

[12:40] >> Yeah. So from from their perspective, it

[12:43] could be viewed as advertising

[12:44] cornerstone financial services. So and

[12:47] because they're a regulated industry,

[12:49] anything that's an advertisement needs

[12:50] to be approved to make sure the

[12:52] messaging is correct. So, um, what he

[12:54] basically said was, um, but what would

[12:58] be ideal for him is if we could provide

[13:00] him a list of questions two weeks before

[13:04] the full presentation, which would be in

[13:06] September, and then he would prepare

[13:08] answers based on that and could get that

[13:10] reviewed by the compliance team, which I

[13:13] told him that would be fine.

[13:16] >> Okay.

[13:20] » Questions in advance, maybe it makes

[13:21] sense to have that meeting July.

[13:25] >> That's what I was thinking.

[13:31] Have an

[13:33] initial conversation to sort of

[13:36] keep the scope narrow and focused and

[13:38] then we could put a call out to the rest

[13:39] of the board for additional questions.

[13:41] >> Yeah.

[13:42] >> That way that way we're making the best

[13:44] use of his time in that September

[13:45] meeting.

[13:46] >> Yeah.

[13:46] >> So,

[13:47] >> yeah. I mean, if I'm correct, you can

[13:51] communicate outward to the board your

[13:53] takeaways from a meeting like that as

[13:56] long as we don't have a back and forth

[13:57] discussion. You can like share with the

[13:59] greater board kind of what the overall

[14:02] recommendation would be so that we can

[14:03] be efficient in our conversation about

[14:05] it at the next meeting.

[14:07] >> Okay. and Ellen. Um, if you wanted to

[14:10] get monthly statements, you you can we

[14:13] can set we can uh that there's um a

[14:16] contact that we can have and you can get

[14:18] updates of every month of what

[14:21] >> I don't think I need.

[14:22] >> Okay, I DON'T NEED ALL THAT. I JUST WANT

[14:24] to know over like just because I'm new.

[14:26] But thank you.

[14:29] >> But you don't want more emails.

[14:30] >> I don't need more. I just want a good

[14:32] feeling for an idea of what what it all

[14:35] is. Yeah.

[14:36] >> Okay. Well, I will. Any other thoughts,

[14:38] Mike?

[14:42] Okay. Um, so yeah, so I I'll connect

[14:45] with Greg and then I'll connect with all

[14:47] of you and share the next steps. Um, so

[14:51] we'll move on to vote to approve the

[14:52] minutes of the May 2020 20 May 20, 2026

[14:56] meeting, which thank you to Julian. I

[14:58] know there were some updates that were

[14:59] sent out. So did everyone have a chance

[15:01] to review those updates? And I did did

[15:03] include the new minutes separately in

[15:06] your folders and everybody's folders so

[15:08] that there was no confusion of which

[15:10] minutes in case you printed out the old

[15:12] packet yourself.

[15:14] >> Um, so can we have a motion to approve

[15:16] the minutes from May 20th?

[15:19] >> So moved.

[15:20] >> Second. Okay.

[15:21] >> Would have been in this.

[15:23] >> All those in favor of approving the

[15:24] minutes from May 20th.

[15:26] >> I I opposed.

[15:29] Okay.

[15:31] >> Nice and easy.

[15:33] I'll just remind people to make sure

[15:34] you're speaking into your microphones.

[15:37] >> Thank you.

[15:38] >> Um so now we'll move on to the trustes

[15:40] reports. Um from my position the chair

[15:42] was really just that update around um

[15:45] cornerstone financial. Um so we move on

[15:47] to the treasures report.

[15:49] >> Sure. U so I have reached out to I have

[15:52] reached out to Greg. Um so he has my

[15:55] information. So, I think that process is

[15:57] moving forward. In terms of just the

[15:59] transition uh as treasurer, I will reach

[16:03] out with Jenny who is um the accountant.

[16:07] I'm scheduled to meet up with her next

[16:09] week. So, we'll see. Hopefully, that'll

[16:12] be fine. And then I do have the the data

[16:14] that I sent you already, Julie. I'll

[16:16] just read it out loud. It's

[16:18] >> beginning balance of 73734,845.

[16:25] 15

[16:26] zero on deposits. Income of $9932

[16:33] withdrawal of 15,000

[16:36] expenses zero change in value 23,230

[16:42] 237.44

[16:44] ending balance of 744,076.2.

[16:52] And can I get a motion to approve the

[16:54] treasur's report?

[16:55] >> So moved.

[16:56] >> I have a second.

[16:57] >> Second.

[16:59] >> Any discussion?

[17:01] >> All right. All those in favor of

[17:02] approving the treasures report.

[17:06] >> Any opposed?

[17:07] >> All right. Making this easy so far.

[17:10] Great job. Thanks. Yeah.

[17:12] >> Zipping through.

[17:13] >> Um, okay. Friends of the library update.

[17:16] >> Um, so they did not have a meeting uh

[17:19] this month because of the book sale.

[17:22] basically, which is happening right now.

[17:23] So, if you haven't been to the book

[17:24] sale, you still have tomorrow's

[17:27] Thursday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday

[17:29] until 2 PM to uh go by the book sale. Uh

[17:32] they had an opening night last night,

[17:34] preview night, um that I checked in on,

[17:36] and they had um like a good number of

[17:38] people, a lot of book sellers will show

[17:39] up to that first one and like grab boxes

[17:42] of books. Um but they said this morning

[17:44] was even busier than it was last night.

[17:47] So, um so they feel like they're they're

[17:49] doing really well. So that's uh that's

[17:51] great. Um and you know a little tech

[17:55] glitch glitch here or there but

[17:56] otherwise uh that's all that's all I

[17:58] have for right now um because they have

[18:00] not otherwise met. So

[18:03] >> excellent.

[18:04] >> Nice and easy.

[18:06] >> Um

[18:06] >> I will I will say I was just there

[18:09] before this meeting. They do have a lot

[18:10] of Elvis books. So if you like Elvis for

[18:12] some reason they have a lot of Elvis

[18:14] books.

[18:16] >> Interesting.

[18:17] >> Did you purchase any?

[18:18] >> I did not.

[18:19] I know.

[18:20] >> Yeah. Somebody somebody's uh it was

[18:22] either their father or grandfather or

[18:24] something had this giant collection and

[18:25] they donated the whole whole collection

[18:27] of Elvis items, books and all sorts of

[18:30] things. So they're like, "Do you want

[18:32] Elvis things?" No,

[18:35] >> nothing against the gentleman who does

[18:37] the Elvis um impersonation at the Falcon

[18:40] Fest event. He's always there and he's

[18:43] very good.

[18:44] >> I know.

[18:44] >> Very good. Well, um

[18:46] >> I'll see if I

[18:47] >> That's right. Yeah.

[18:48] >> reach out to someone at Falcon

[18:49] >> if anybody Yeah. before before Saturday.

[18:51] Um what they do at the end of the sale

[18:54] is um they contract with they there's

[18:58] like various companies that are willing

[19:00] to pick up books because they're free to

[19:02] them and then they do whatever they do

[19:03] with them. So I think it's I want to say

[19:06] it's called Bayate Books, but I could be

[19:07] wrong. Um but they'll be coming like

[19:09] right at two o'clock on Saturday and

[19:11] we'll scoop up everything that's left

[19:12] over. So, so the revel impersonator

[19:16] wants to know anything before then, let

[19:18] me know and uh I'll I'll make sure they

[19:21] save the Elvis books for him. Maybe he'd

[19:23] want them. Maybe he's like, "Please

[19:25] know.

[19:27] Maybe already has plenty of them."

[19:29] >> So, we'll keep it rolling with Noel into

[19:31] the director's report.

[19:32] >> Uh indeed,

[19:33] >> which we all should have received or you

[19:34] all should have received.

[19:35] >> Should be should be in your packet. Um,

[19:38] and I'll I'll keep things brief, but

[19:40] I'll first just ask if anybody has any

[19:43] comments or questions about what I wrote

[19:45] in my report, and then I just have a few

[19:46] extra notes.

[19:46] >> Yeah.

[19:47] >> Go Julie.

[19:48] Um, I was very interested to

[19:53] um read about the archives won an uh

[19:56] auction.

[19:57] >> Yes.

[19:58] >> And um, you know, it it's amazing. It

[20:01] sounds amazing.

[20:03] >> Uh, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I've not seen

[20:05] any of these. I think he has them now.

[20:08] It's a it's a tricky thing with the

[20:09] auctions because, you know, they want

[20:10] payment like right away and it's like

[20:12] kind of very very tense. Um but and I

[20:15] think the price went up higher than he

[20:17] wanted it to go uh for it. But um but

[20:20] yeah, it's a it's I mean we do have um

[20:23] one of the largest collections I guess

[20:25] of anything of Samuel Holton. So um it's

[20:29] a real coup to be able to have you know

[20:32] add to that collection.

[20:34] And and the other thing is this um

[20:39] viewing of the two declaration of

[20:41] independence.

[20:43] >> Yes.

[20:44] >> Yeah. I definitely will be there for

[20:46] that.

[20:46] >> Yeah. We originally they were

[20:48] considering um having it happen with the

[20:51] annual Fourth of July reading of the

[20:54] declaration, but we thought that that

[20:56] would end up being too limiting. Like

[20:57] there's not that many people who

[20:59] actually go to that um and not that many

[21:01] people would see it. So, uh Richard and

[21:02] I discussed Yeah. moving it to being

[21:05] like that first. So that's the first

[21:06] night of the concerts as well. Um and so

[21:09] I did contact uh the the Danvers Police

[21:12] Department about getting a detail

[21:14] officer for that as well. Um since those

[21:17] are both very valuable documents that we

[21:20] have. Um not not that many places have

[21:23] declarations. So um yeah, but that

[21:26] should be cool. I think that's I think

[21:27] that's great and I hope a lot of people

[21:29] go into popping to see it. So

[21:31] >> are there from the cost perspective is

[21:33] there like additional costs that like

[21:35] were not covered in the bud budget or is

[21:37] there any

[21:38] >> in regards to the or the

[21:41] >> for the broad size is the cost just is

[21:43] it just just for the details

[21:45] >> yeah it's just for the details yeah like

[21:47] um yeah and and that's you know I I

[21:50] don't think there's probably a real

[21:51] threat but you never know right you

[21:53] never know where people might yeah

[21:55] better to be safe so that's yeah that's

[21:56] the only

[21:57] >> the only thing

[21:59] >> um that Yeah. And he's Yeah. hoping to

[22:01] have like the the alarm company come and

[22:04] um maybe another person or two,

[22:06] whatever, to do an honor guard kind of situation.

[22:10] >> That would be nice.

[22:11] >> Yeah. Yeah. They did that um for the

[22:12] archives um for hisif the 50th

[22:15] anniversary of the archives. Like they

[22:17] had that honor guard as well.

[22:18] >> They could have shoot their guns on it.

[22:19] >> I hope not.

[22:22] >> Especially since they're inside the

[22:23] building. So, please don't.

[22:26] >> How much was how much did uh was spent

[22:28] at the auction?

[22:31] It was a lot. It was um I don't have the

[22:33] exact number in my head. I want to say

[22:35] it was around $20,000 though. Yeah.

[22:38] Right. Right around there.

[22:41] >> Um one number um under the archives

[22:44] report the second item which I found

[22:46] rather interesting that the American

[22:49] Revolution would apply for a grant

[22:51] >> in order to further preserve the Holton

[22:54] Homestead. Do we actually have a copy of

[22:57] the letter that the D are sent to the

[23:01] historic preservation. I'd like to read

[23:02] that because that seems as though to me

[23:04] like a rather important thing for us to zero in on.

[23:07] >> Um I do not know. I'm sure Richard does.

[23:11] Like I'm sure he probably has a copy of

[23:13] whatever they they submitted. I'm sure.

[23:16] So um we can we can apply to him for

[23:18] that.

[23:18] >> Would you would you mind doing

[23:19] >> Yeah. Yeah. Let me write myself a note.

[23:20] >> Thank you very much.

[23:22] >> All right.

[23:23] >> I'm sorry, Charles. That was a letter

[23:25] that was

[23:25] >> Yeah. The Daughters of the American

[23:27] Revolution applied to the Massachusetts

[23:29] Historic Association for an emergency

[23:32] grant to further restore the Holton

[23:35] Homestead Home here in Danvers. And

[23:37] Richard wrote a letter in support of

[23:39] their applications. So, I'm interested

[23:41] in seeing specifically what the D said

[23:44] about the condition of the home and

[23:48] maybe that's something that we as a

[23:50] group might want to further support in

[23:52] some way. I I don't know because This is

[23:55] the first I've actually heard about it.

[23:57] >> Yeah. I didn't know anything about it

[23:58] either until he he looped me in on it,

[24:00] so I was like, "Oh,

[24:02] you never know." Um, yeah. So, I'll see what there is. I don't know

[24:05] what there is, but I'll see.

[24:07] >> Appreciate it.

[24:08] >> Of course.

[24:10] >> Any other questions for Noel about the

[24:11] report?

[24:12] >> Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Uh, on the

[24:14] everything else about the hate speech

[24:16] message discovered by the teen room week

[24:19] of June 1st, you were on vacation, but

[24:22] you notified Tim McD. Do you know if the

[24:24] police filed a report or was it just a

[24:26] call to the police or

[24:27] >> uh No, they f they came and filed the

[24:29] report because we I I wanted it to make

[24:31] sure it was on record.

[24:32] >> What type of message was it? Can you

[24:33] elaborate without um causing any issues

[24:37] on the air?

[24:37] >> Uh

[24:39] >> it was not nice.

[24:40] It was a I hate a

[24:42] particular

[24:43] >> Was it a race race or

[24:45] >> Yes, it was a racial racial slur.

[24:47] >> Racial and gender and stuff like that.

[24:49] >> Yes, it was a racial slur.

[24:51] >> Yes.

[24:53] And you're receiving multiple posts on

[24:55] what on the um

[24:56] >> so we we have on our social media we

[24:58] have multiple posts especially last last

[25:00] week that were uh either talking about

[25:02] the upcoming pride events or uh we have

[25:05] a pride uh book I have a we have a

[25:08] display out in the lobby right now and a

[25:10] book list and everything. So you know

[25:12] people

[25:13] make derogatory comments about things.

[25:15] It's really just a few people. It's like

[25:18] you see the same people.

[25:19] >> Well, actually, I have a question

[25:20] because I think there's a typo in the um

[25:22] >> Yeah, there is a made mostly by

[25:25] >> redacted. I was just gonna say by the

[25:28] same few people was what I meant to say.

[25:30] Apparently, I stopped typing.

[25:31] >> There.

[25:32] >> So, just like a couple of people making

[25:34] lots of comments.

[25:35] >> Yes, it was a couple of people making

[25:36] many.

[25:37] >> Yes, I received one of those.

[25:38] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[25:39] >> Yeah.

[25:40] >> Really?

[25:41] >> It could be anybody really false name.

[25:43] Yeah.

[25:43] >> Yeah. It was I think it was a um like

[25:46] Yeah. No, it definitely wasn't a real

[25:48] name. I said that the Pride Party is my

[25:51] favorite day in Danverse and I was

[25:54] called a slur.

[25:55] >> Yeah.

[25:56] >> And it took almost a week before

[25:58] Facebook removed it.

[26:00] >> Yeah. The because that was on the town

[26:01] one. Was that on the town's post?

[26:02] >> It may have been on the town's post or

[26:04] the library's post. I don't remember.

[26:05] >> Forget which one. But yeah.

[26:06] >> Yeah. Yeah. People are swell sometimes.

[26:11] But I thought it was, you know, I'm glad

[26:13] it was noted here that the library does

[26:15] not respond,

[26:18] etc. So, just if people were wondering

[26:21] why, you know, there was any sort of

[26:23] That's because that's why,

[26:24] >> right? Yeah, that's part of the overall

[26:26] time policy as well as to not respond to

[26:28] the comments. Um, and I I do have some

[26:31] staff who, you know, were kind of like,

[26:33] is there a way for us to respond? And

[26:34] I'm like, that just gives them more

[26:36] fire, right? Fuel to the fire.

[26:39] I would just like to say continuing to

[26:41] have what you have is enough response.

[26:43] >> Yeah. Right.

[26:44] >> That's Yeah.

[26:45] >> Yes. Yes. Yes. It's like you don't have

[26:48] to like it. It's okay. Don't come.

[26:50] That's fine.

[26:51] >> Don't show up. That is your right.

[26:52] >> That is your right. It's fine. That's

[26:54] fine. Library is for all the people.

[26:57] Whichever way they feel.

[26:59] >> Uh any any other comments about the

[27:01] report? And then I just have a couple

[27:02] things. Nothing. All right. Um, so the

[27:06] just the other couple things I'll just

[27:08] mention. So I know we talked briefly

[27:10] about um the threat to the Marblehead

[27:13] Library that they were looking at

[27:14] getting slashed in half, but they did

[27:16] fully pass their top tier of their

[27:17] override. So they will be fully funded

[27:20] again. So yay. Um, so that was good. We

[27:22] don't have to vote to say we're not

[27:24] going to serve my head. Uh, so that's really wonderful. Um, and then

[27:31] oh my gosh,

[27:32] >> that's the great news. Yeah, it's it's

[27:34] really it's really really really really

[27:36] good news. Um, and we did have and I

[27:38] know I put my report already that we

[27:39] were having um Shannon Phelin who did

[27:43] get uh our position of assistant head of

[27:46] reference and she did get to start

[27:47] yesterday all her paperwork went

[27:49] through. So, yay. That's wonderful, too.

[27:51] We're very happy to have her on board

[27:53] full-time. She's quite lovely um as a as

[27:57] a worker. And I was like, what was the

[27:59] other thing I was going to say? I think

[28:01] I said all my things already. Oh, wait.

[28:02] Oh, the other thing I said was uh so

[28:04] today I actually met this afternoon with

[28:06] um Heather Bachmann from the

[28:08] Massachusetts Board of Library

[28:09] Commissioners uh to talk about the

[28:11] process of applying for the state

[28:15] construction grants if we want to move

[28:17] forward with renovation of the library.

[28:19] Um so that was really I showed her the

[28:21] building and that was very informative.

[28:23] So she kind of gave me what the process

[28:25] looks like. Um it is a very long

[28:29] process. Um they do walk you through

[28:31] every single step of the way and as she

[28:33] was saying, there's really nothing to do

[28:35] right now. Uh they because they they

[28:37] only do the grant rounds every so often.

[28:40] So they're looking to do another grant

[28:42] round um to be begin applying for

[28:44] another grant round, probably in FY27,

[28:48] maybe FY28. So it's another year, year

[28:50] and a half out before you can apply.

[28:53] and she's like, "They don't want you to

[28:55] do basically any pre-work until you

[28:58] actually do the they have like a list of

[29:00] things you need to do and they want you

[29:01] to do it as up to date, you know, as

[29:03] possible." Um, so,

[29:06] uh, and if we don't apply this round, so

[29:09] even if we apply, it's it's about a

[29:10] six-year process, like if we get they approve our application,

[29:14] everything, it's like a six-year process

[29:16] before you're talking about having a

[29:17] building at least. Um, and there's a lot

[29:20] of steps in between there. So, uh, if we

[29:23] don't apply in the next upcoming grant

[29:25] round, then it'll probably be about five

[29:27] years before we can apply again. So,

[29:29] >> so 11 years to

[29:31] >> So, yeah. Yeah. Well, so yeah. Well, so

[29:33] if we

[29:34] >> Yeah. So, yeah. So, it would be about

[29:36] seven years from now that we could apply

[29:40] for if we didn't if we don't try to

[29:42] apply for this grant round,

[29:43] >> then it'd be like seven years before we

[29:45] can apply.

[29:46] >> And then it's a six-year process.

[29:47] Yeah.

[29:49] >> And this would be for renovation. This

[29:50] would be for renovation. Um the uh thing

[29:53] that she did mention was that they do

[29:55] ask for you to have two sites. So she

[29:59] like you can have your site but they do

[30:01] want you to have a backup site whether

[30:03] that's another building or whether

[30:05] that's a plot of land

[30:08] >> um just in case you know one thing

[30:11] doesn't become feasible. So you have

[30:13] that's a whole another thing to figure

[30:14] out. So like I don't know. Um

[30:18] >> um are there costs associated like with

[30:20] just the application?

[30:21] >> Just the application itself? No. But uh

[30:24] but there there's there's a lot of

[30:26] pieces and like one of the one of the

[30:27] costs that would end up coming through

[30:29] it um would be that you do have to get a

[30:32] study done of the building and just like

[30:35] basically the condition it's a

[30:37] conditions

[30:38] >> um survey basically so that so you would

[30:41] pay like end up paying for that thing.

[30:42] So, you know, once you're doing the

[30:44] application, there are things that will

[30:45] incur costs getting there. And then, you

[30:47] know, as she was telling me, like

[30:49] there's a lot of towns who have done

[30:51] this process, you know, and gone through

[30:53] and they're, you know, they gotten the

[30:56] grant, but then the towns have voted

[30:59] down,

[31:00] >> you know,

[31:01] funding it. So, so they kind of like end

[31:03] up in a they're still there and like

[31:05] kind of in a queue, but because it's

[31:07] voted down like they will move up other

[31:08] people on the wait list. Do you know

[31:10] like roughly roughly what percent of the

[31:12] cost the grant covers? I'm very curious.

[31:15] >> It's it's so it's variable um is what

[31:17] she was explaining to me. So it depends

[31:18] uh you get um graded on a list depending

[31:22] on your town. So what your like the

[31:25] population of your town is like the

[31:26] needs of your town. So like a

[31:28] Springfield is going to do you know is

[31:31] going to get more granted to them than

[31:33] Welssley is going to get granted to

[31:34] them. Right. So I mean so I don't know

[31:36] where we would fall on that list. um in

[31:38] the middle.

[31:39] >> Yeah, probably I was gonna say probably

[31:40] in the middle like we'd probably be in

[31:41] the middle. Um yeah, so it's so it's

[31:43] really dependent on like a bunch of

[31:45] factors.

[31:46] >> So So

[31:47] >> I think um there's a green initiative

[31:50] going on right now. I forget what it's

[31:52] called. They had a a thing with the

[31:54] planning

[31:55] >> resilient damage.

[31:55] Thank you. That's what

[31:57] it's called. So, they're talking about

[31:59] changing um you know, if you green build

[32:01] and it's specific to town buildings and

[32:04] they're to talking about whether or not

[32:05] they're going to pass that and it has

[32:07] grants involved as well and maybe we

[32:10] should just make sure we're paying

[32:11] attention to both

[32:12] >> right

[32:12] >> as we go along.

[32:14] >> Yeah. Say like this is right now we're

[32:15] just in a it's like we're just basically

[32:17] in a waiting phase. Um but I just want

[32:19] to make sure it's on our minds

[32:21] >> um as something that we'll you know be

[32:23] looking at hopefully pursuing. Um, and

[32:25] I'll have some, you know, more

[32:26] conversations with the town manager, um,

[32:29] to discuss, you know, what we think

[32:32] about it and like I, you know, who

[32:34] knows? Who knows?

[32:35] >> Do we have a sense for like ballpark

[32:39] costs for like what that study would

[32:40] look like? I assume we need to have

[32:42] that. That all needs to be determined.

[32:43] >> That's all that's all stuff I know

[32:44] nothing about, right? At this point in

[32:46] time, I really don't know anything. I I

[32:48] mean, I did talk when I talked to uh

[32:50] architects about it originally, I think

[32:51] they they cited me something like a

[32:53] $30,000 to do um like a conditions or

[32:56] feasibility study, but I don't know if

[32:59] that's true or just a number they made

[33:01] up.

[33:03] So

[33:05] >> yeah, I'd like to just suggest that um

[33:07] you know in light of the fact for almost

[33:10] as long as I can remember being being on

[33:12] the library board, we've had discussions

[33:15] about the archival collection that the

[33:19] Danver Historical Society, the library

[33:22] and others in Dan's

[33:25] um I mentioned the historical society um

[33:28] there's um just such a wealth of

[33:32] there is

[33:33] >> resides in Bambber that really doesn't

[33:35] have a home. It does not have a display

[33:38] facility. It doesn't have a product

[33:41] staff to develop articulation agreements

[33:44] with schools and other aid organizations

[33:46] in Andrews. So it seems though to me

[33:49] that especially in the 250th anniversary

[33:52] of the the nation that this might be an

[33:56] appropriate time to really think about

[33:58] whether or not

[34:00] a real investment in um the archival

[34:04] center here in Damas. This is a such a

[34:07] rich historical community. So many

[34:10] things that have their historical roots

[34:13] here in Damas and so many people we just

[34:15] talked about the Holton House just a few

[34:16] minutes ago. Um so um I'd like to just

[34:20] recommend that we very seriously take a

[34:22] look at whether or not an application

[34:24] centered around the archival collection

[34:27] which we spent hundreds of thousands of

[34:29] dollars on And you cannot even put a

[34:33] dollar figure on the knowledge that Mr.

[34:35] Tra has. You couldn't put a a department

[34:38] at a college or university that would

[34:40] have better information or greater

[34:43] insight than he has relative to the

[34:45] historic significance of what we're

[34:47] doing. So this may be a chance to pull

[34:49] all of this together and all of the

[34:51] concerns that we've been discussing over

[34:54] the literally over the decades about

[34:56] this. This could be an opportunity to

[34:58] really seize the moment and do something

[35:00] significant for the generation that will

[35:03] be following all of us sitting here

[35:06] relative to preservation of the rich

[35:08] historical history of the town of

[35:10] Jambers and the people who live here and

[35:12] the sacrifices they've made for this

[35:14] democracy.

[35:16] >> Yeah, and I well said and I'll I'll say

[35:18] that um you know I I agree with you and

[35:22] I think that you know part you know the

[35:24] library itself is on the national

[35:26] historic register and um there's that's

[35:30] going to be something that's going to

[35:32] have to be considered you know very

[35:33] strongly when we are moving forward with

[35:36] this process because you know a lot of

[35:40] it is thinking about you know what what

[35:42] do what needs do we have you know for

[35:44] the for the library and what and that's

[35:46] going to include like what what's that

[35:48] what does that archives need you know so

[35:51] um

[35:52] >> this would be a great fundraising

[35:53] opportunity for

[35:56] I think if we were to get the historical

[35:58] society and other concerned citizens and

[36:01] others and danders behind this that we

[36:04] could make a strong and compelling case.

[36:07] I think that the people of Danver myself

[36:09] included would be happy to support an

[36:12] effort like this right now for us to

[36:14] sort of take hold of this and make this

[36:17] something that we all all of us that are

[36:19] sitting here on this board will go on in

[36:21] history. names will be

[36:24] in history for doing this. This is our

[36:27] chance to seize the moment and actually

[36:30] do something that would change the whole

[36:33] dynamic of what's been going on in

[36:35] dances for the last 50 years.

[36:37] >> Yeah. Well, we're not quite there yet,

[36:40] but but fundraising will be a big big

[36:42] piece of it. So, yeah. Yeah.

[36:46] >> Mr. Chairman, I have one more question

[36:48] about the uh about the uh viewing

[36:51] >> uh Declaration of Independence uh in the archives the afternoon.

[36:58] I'm looking at it and it uh having

[37:00] somewhat uh 42 years law enforcement

[37:03] experience

[37:05] and knowing what the the criminal

[37:07] element is out there and then I see that

[37:10] the alarmist company and others may help

[37:13] with the viewing. Is that a a damis

[37:16] police officer on detail?

[37:17] >> Yes. So, yes, detail officer.

[37:19] >> Great idea, I think.

[37:19] >> Yep. Detail officer for sure.

[37:21] >> Um and then yeah, the Richard's working

[37:24] on um yeah, I'm already in touch with

[37:26] I've already talked to the chief about

[37:28] the detail. I've already done that.

[37:30] >> Um so, he's we're on the we're on the

[37:32] list. We're on the list the detail list

[37:34] already. And um then, uh yeah, and

[37:37] Richard's working on having you know,

[37:39] historical society alarm company folks

[37:42] to be there. What what what's it going

[37:43] to be in like a a case or

[37:45] >> Yeah. So uh so yeah, there's a we have

[37:48] like a case

[37:48] >> is it can you carry it?

[37:51] >> No, you know it's a standing case. It's

[37:53] like about

[37:54] >> I know in the state house in the

[37:56] archives they have

[37:57] >> you know you're not going to carry those

[37:59] with 10 people.

[37:59] >> Yeah. No, I mean

[38:00] >> and you can look and write then see it.

[38:01] But

[38:02] >> Yeah. Yeah. So yeah. So it's like a it's

[38:03] a you know it's like a wooden podium

[38:06] kind of thing with a cover like a glass

[38:09] cover over it. So like the documents

[38:11] will be inside, you know, under that

[38:13] >> not easily carried away.

[38:14] >> Yeah. No, no, yeah. No, you you would I

[38:16] mean you would have to knock a few

[38:17] people over and then take the glass off

[38:19] and then take the documents and then you

[38:21] know how you even going to fence them,

[38:22] you know. I don't know. So I don't know.

[38:26] But I mean I think I think we'll be you

[38:28] know in a good good and like you know

[38:30] and Richard you feels very strongly

[38:31] about being there present um you know

[38:34] while this is all happening and

[38:36] everything too. So, so they'll it'll be

[38:39] under eyes all the time.

[38:41] >> So, I know we talked um before that Is

[38:44] this working? Yeah.

[38:46] >> Um that there is like a a trail of these

[38:49] documents around Boston that like

[38:52] libraries and I know that we're not

[38:53] doing it on the 4th, but

[38:56] >> is that sort of a an opportunity that we

[38:59] could not advertise, but like

[39:02] >> let people know that we have this

[39:03] document to to show them so that we can

[39:07] get the best turnout and then have them

[39:09] all go to the concert after.

[39:10] >> Yeah. Let me let me see. Yeah. Like uh I

[39:13] don't even know how to get on that list.

[39:14] So, I'll see. Okay. Yeah, I don't

[39:17] either, but just

[39:18] >> I know there is a list. You're right.

[39:19] There is like a list. Sorry, didn't mean

[39:22] to put that on you.

[39:23] >> Thanks. No, just kidding.

[39:26] >> Yeah, I'll check into that. Okay, I'll

[39:28] check into that.

[39:31] What is that?

[39:33] >> So there I know there uh Jessica had

[39:35] brought up before um there's kind of

[39:38] like a website or a list somewhere of

[39:40] like other um municipalities that have a

[39:42] copy of like the declaration. So she was

[39:45] just saying like can we get on that sort

[39:47] of like a trail is

[39:48] >> right. Yeah. So like on it it's for the

[39:50] two 250th anniversary. They're all sort

[39:53] of laying them out and that they're on a

[39:55] map and people can go to each one

[39:57] >> if they want to. they want to, but I

[39:59] know we're not doing it on the actual

[40:00] fourth, but just to

[40:01] >> Yeah. And I don't know how many are

[40:02] doing it on the fourth, but

[40:04] >> Okay.

[40:04] >> I don't I don't even know either.

[40:05] There's I think that's been under

[40:06] discussion of like when people are doing

[40:08] it. And one of our copies, as I say, is special because it has uh the printer

[40:13] decided to put like George Washington's

[40:16] head on it.

[40:19] >> And I knew General Gage. It's General

[40:22] Gage. He didn't. So like no one knew

[40:24] what they looked like.

[40:25] >> He didn't know what they looked like.

[40:25] Yeah. So they just made up what they

[40:27] looked like. But it's General Gage and

[40:29] George Washington's little heads are on

[40:31] there. Though apparently it doesn't look

[40:33] anything like them.

[40:34] >> No.

[40:35] >> But but that that's that's Yeah. So

[40:38] that's one of ours is is special that

[40:39] way.

[40:41] >> Anything else for the director's report?

[40:46] Okay. All right. So we'll move on to uh

[40:48] we have Kate Connley, town council here

[40:50] to talk answer questions about

[40:51] indemnification insurance.

[40:53] >> So you have your own mic over there,

[40:54] Kate.

[40:59] and it appears to be on. Good evening

[41:01] everybody. I'm Kate Connelly with Murphy

[41:03] Hessie Tumi and Laane Town Council.

[41:06] >> Um we I can't hear you so I don't know

[41:09] if anybody else

[41:09] >> Does the green light mean it's on?

[41:11] >> Much closer to it.

[41:12] >> Okay.

[41:16] » There you go.

[41:16] >> All right. I'll try to speak loudly.

[41:21] » All right. So, I'm here to address an

[41:24] issue that this board raised with

[41:26] respect to indemnification. And my

[41:29] understanding is this came up because

[41:32] the retirement board brought it to the

[41:33] attention of the town that they thought

[41:36] a town meeting article needed to be put

[41:38] on the warrant for um approval so that

[41:41] the retirement board would be

[41:44] indemnified should anything happen in

[41:46] the course of the member's duties um

[41:48] conducting their various duties so that

[41:50] they would not be personally held liable

[41:51] and they'd be protected by the town. And

[41:54] it turns out they've already accepted

[41:56] the statute that they needed to accept.

[41:58] And looking at my notes here, chap

[42:00] general law chapter 32, section 2A

[42:03] relates to indemnification and legal

[42:05] protection of public retirement boards

[42:07] and board members in conducting their

[42:09] functions. The statute dictates whether

[42:12] a retirement board member is shielded

[42:13] from personal financial loss in the

[42:15] event of a civil lawsuit related just to

[42:18] their official duties. The statute only

[42:21] protects retirement boards, however, so

[42:22] it has no application to the library

[42:25] trustees. Um, so whether the library

[42:28] trustees would be indemnified under the

[42:31] town's what you'd look to that next is

[42:33] insurance. So under the town's general

[42:35] liability policy depends on whether it

[42:38] is under the umbrella of the town. And

[42:40] if that is the case, and I touched on

[42:42] this a little bit at this the training

[42:44] that I did, but I think a couple I see a

[42:47] couple familiar faces, but I don't think

[42:48] everybody was there. But I did a

[42:49] training for town boards and commissions

[42:51] at the request of the town manager on

[42:54] things like open meeting law, conflict

[42:57] of interest, public records, and

[42:59] conducting effective meetings and all of

[43:01] the requirements that go into that. And

[43:03] one of the things that did come up, I

[43:05] think, in questions and answers was um

[43:07] about indemnification. And I said that

[43:09] if a municipal board or any town

[43:12] official is acting in the course of its

[43:15] employment, there is something called

[43:16] the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, which

[43:18] is general law chapter 258. And under

[43:21] that there is the what's called the

[43:23] discretionary function exemption. And

[43:25] that means if you're doing a

[43:26] discretionary job, say you're the

[43:28] building commissioner and you're

[43:29] determining whether to issue a building

[43:31] permit based on the Is this is this

[43:34] feedback?

[43:35] >> No,

[43:37] it's just in my ears. Um, if you make a

[43:40] mistake and somebody brings a lawsuit

[43:41] against you in that capacity, if you

[43:44] didn't do something willfully reckless,

[43:46] uh, just just a negligent thing, you

[43:48] would be protected by the Tor claims act

[43:51] by the discretionary function exemption

[43:53] section 13, it has to be adopted by the

[43:55] town for it to apply. Um, looking

[43:57] further into that, even if the town owns

[44:00] the library, which it does, and the

[44:02] board's duties are then set forth,

[44:04] there's another statute, chapter 78,

[44:06] that governs what the board does in the

[44:09] course of business. What this board does

[44:11] is it manages the trust, uh, which is

[44:13] not town property, and thus it's not

[44:16] protected by the town's insurance

[44:17] policy. So, the town would not be

[44:20] responsible for a separate entity

[44:22] managing a separate entity's money fund.

[44:25] So, you would not, this board would not

[44:27] be protected under the Massachusetts

[44:28] Tort Claims Act. And there is case law.

[44:31] I didn't um and I'm happy to give you

[44:33] this paper that I'm reading from. It's

[44:34] just a one page that I sort of put

[44:36] together um to cite the relevant

[44:38] statutes. But there is case law that

[44:40] says that if the main function of a

[44:43] board is managing a trust fund, which is

[44:45] what this board does, but you also um

[44:48] appoint the library director.

[44:51] Um anyway, this board also appoints the

[44:53] library director, but it's the library

[44:55] director who's responsible for the

[44:56] day-to-day administration of the

[44:58] library, including supervision,

[45:00] direction, and evaluation of library

[45:02] staff and for implementing policies

[45:04] established by the board. So there's a

[45:06] couple of cases that examine and it they

[45:08] come out differently depending on what

[45:10] the library board or the library

[45:11] trustees do. But when it's a trustee

[45:14] issue where they the main function is to

[45:18] manage the trust funds and especially

[45:20] where they are not town funds those

[45:24] trustees or those boards are not

[45:26] protected under the TOR claims act. And

[45:28] there's there's plenty of case law on

[45:29] that. didn't cite any in this memo, but

[45:31] I have I have a longer one that I sort

[45:33] of just wrote for my own notes in which

[45:35] I do cite those. So, um that's the short

[45:39] answer to that. There's no need to adopt

[45:41] a statute because there isn't one that

[45:42] applies. Um it would be the tort claims

[45:45] act, but um based on the facts and the case law that interprets those facts

[45:50] and whether the tort claims act applies,

[45:53] it would not apply to this board. So, um

[45:57] are there questions on that?

[45:59] >> Yeah. or Okay,

[46:00] >> I I respectfully disagree with you

[46:03] saying that the only thing that we

[46:05] really are in charge of is trust funds.

[46:09] I I I respectfully disagree with that.

[46:13] >> Okay. Well, the courts have decided

[46:16] those facts and found that if the main

[46:18] responsibility

[46:19] >> you said it.

[46:20] >> Yeah. I'm telling you what the courts

[46:21] how courts have interpreted the

[46:23] Massachusetts Tor claims act.

[46:25] >> The court know what we do and what we

[46:26] don't do. So the courts have interpreted

[46:29] similar cases in which trustees have

[46:32] been sued in other towns and the facts

[46:35] in the cases where the court said no,

[46:37] they are not protected were very similar

[46:39] to this board.

[46:42] >> Do you even know what this board does?

[46:45] >> I'm not here to argue with you. I'm just

[46:47] here to tell you.

[46:48] >> Am I asking you a question?

[46:49] >> I I just told you what my understanding

[46:50] of what this board does is. Let me read

[46:52] it again.

[46:55] While the board hires, evaluates, and

[46:57] where appropriate may recommend

[46:58] discipline or termination of the library

[47:00] director subject to applicable law and

[47:03] any employment agreement, that is the

[47:05] board's only other responsibility

[47:07] besides managing the trust. It is the

[47:10] library director who is responsible for

[47:11] the day-to-day administration of the

[47:13] library, including supervision,

[47:15] direction, and evaluation of library

[47:18] staff and for implementing policies.

[47:20] >> Can I ask you that?

[47:24] from looking at all of the documents

[47:27] that was provided including the website

[47:29] for the library. Yeah, just to jump in

[47:32] just if I can clarify that what I'm the

[47:34] interpretation I'm reading is the key

[47:36] thing is the main function right like

[47:39] our main function as a trust we may do

[47:41] other things but our primary role is

[47:43] managing administering the trust which

[47:45] is I think is where the distinction

[47:46] comes in it's not saying we don't do

[47:48] other things we do but our primary role

[47:51] is to manage the trust which law comes

[47:53] from

[47:53] >> I'm happy to be corrected like I said

[47:55] there's other cases that go other ways

[47:57] but in those cases the courts

[47:59] itemized. I'll I'll send you the

[48:01] citations if you want to read those

[48:02] cases. The courts looked at everything

[48:05] that that particular board did or those

[48:06] trustees and determined in some cases

[48:09] they do many other things besides

[48:11] managing the trusts and in those cases

[48:14] they were found to be covered and some

[48:16] of them were in different states that

[48:17] don't have the Massachusetts Tort Claims

[48:19] Act obviously but they had similar other

[48:21] statutes that if the court decided yes

[48:24] this board does all these other things

[48:26] then they were protected and and

[48:28] indemnified.

[48:30] So if if so and just to clarify, if we

[48:34] did want to become indemnified, we would

[48:35] basically as a board need to go seek out

[48:38] essentially private indemnification

[48:40] insurance. Correct. So as a board, we

[48:42] could choose to seek out indemnification

[48:44] insurance as a board on our own.

[48:47] Correct.

[48:47] >> Honestly, I'd have to look into that

[48:48] because you're still a municipality. You

[48:50] can have private insurance, but it's a different type of insurance,

[48:54] general liability for municipalities.

[48:56] It's a little bit different than just a

[48:58] private insurance policy. Um, there are

[49:00] like Maya though I forget what that even

[49:02] stands for. MIA is one of the big

[49:05] companies. It's it's Massachusetts

[49:07] something insurance is one of the eyes

[49:10] >> association.

[49:12] >> Yeah, it's MIA, but that Yeah, it's

[49:14] Massachusetts something insurance

[49:16] association. Uh, and there are other

[49:18] companies that do it, but that that

[49:20] might be an avenue.

[49:21] >> Okay,

[49:22] >> madame councel, thank you for coming. My

[49:24] name is Mike Hagen and I I was the one

[49:26] that originally brought it up at the

[49:28] open meeting and then uh all the way

[49:31] along here I'm on the retirement board

[49:33] and we manage over $18 million and you

[49:36] can imagine why somebody would be

[49:39] concerned about indemnification. M

[49:41] >> so then sitting here with 70 plus

[49:44] million I brought this up to the board

[49:47] itself

[49:48] >> 700,000

[49:49] >> uh thinking that maybe

[49:51] >> we should check into as to whether we

[49:53] are indemnified or not. It sounds like

[49:55] we aren't. Now is there any uh is there

[49:59] any possibility that uh the board could

[50:02] pass uh in our uh bylaws to identify

[50:09] ourselves? Is that possible?

[50:11] >> It wouldn't be something you could do

[50:12] under a local bylaw, it's covered by

[50:14] statute.

[50:15] >> Okay. I mean, one way that if it was

[50:17] that important to the board and if it

[50:19] fit with everything else, personnel

[50:21] rules that the town has, you might

[50:25] reorganize what you do and and develop

[50:28] other management responsibilities that

[50:30] >> I mean, I I've been on here almost 30

[50:32] years and only one or two instant like

[50:35] somebody run over on Silvin Street and

[50:37] they brought a suit and town council.

[50:40] No, no, no. You guys aren't even close.

[50:42] But I mean if it came to a personnel

[50:45] issue, a personnel issue where an

[50:48] employee

[50:50] uh decided to bring suit against the

[50:52] library for possible wrongdoing and here

[50:55] we are being

[50:57] in charge of the library and we could be

[50:59] named in that, right? personally

[51:02] if somebody say an employee felt they

[51:05] were wrong and they brought a suit

[51:06] against the director and the board.

[51:09] >> Well, first of all, you can't be sued

[51:12] personally when you're acting in your

[51:13] capacity as a municipal board member or

[51:16] any kind if you're acting in your role

[51:18] and you didn't go outside that role and

[51:21] do something criminal or something that

[51:22] just you did and the other board members

[51:24] didn't do. the whole board makes a

[51:26] decision on something. The reason I said

[51:28] that is uh in my many years experience

[51:30] uh I was of the DS police department and

[51:32] we had issues where

[51:34] people uh tried to source individually

[51:37] and collectively

[51:40] you know

[51:42] >> you can't

[51:42] >> that was that came from the towns we had

[51:45] an issue the town was going to sue us

[51:47] individually and collectively so now I'm

[51:50] trying to figure out

[51:51] >> it depends on every individual situation

[51:53] like you mentioned something about a car

[51:55] accident I have no idea what that would

[51:57] 30 years ago, somebody got run over on

[51:59] Silven Street and they were near the

[52:01] pond and they thought,

[52:03] >> we thought at one time we owned all the

[52:05] way down to the pond. Well,

[52:06] >> we don't.

[52:08] >> Yeah, I don't see how that would invoke

[52:10] any liability for the library trustees

[52:12] >> bringing those issues up.

[52:13] >> It would depend on what the issue was,

[52:16] but you typically, as I said, when

[52:18] you're acting as one member of a board,

[52:20] it's kind of like the zoning board of

[52:21] appeals because they get sued all the

[52:23] time. the zoning board of appeals, they

[52:25] sue the members and there's there's case

[52:26] law on this that you have to sue all of

[52:29] the named members even if somebody

[52:31] wasn't at the meeting that night because

[52:33] they're act and people board members get

[52:35] upset about that and they think oh no my

[52:37] name is on it I've been sued personally

[52:39] and some attorneys are really mean about

[52:41] it because they they serve them with

[52:43] their papers at home which they don't

[52:44] have to do. I always serve people if I'm I don't I'm on the side of

[52:49] municipal boards. I'm not suing them,

[52:50] but if I'm suing someone else, if I'm

[52:53] the plaintiff and my municipality wants

[52:55] to bring action against someone, um if

[52:57] they're a municipal employee, I serve

[52:59] them at the town hall. I don't send, you

[53:01] know, stuff to people's homes. But when

[53:04] those zoning board of appeals members

[53:05] get sued, even if their name is on

[53:07] there, they're not sued in their

[53:09] personal capacity. They're not going to

[53:11] lose their house. they're not going to

[53:12] have to pay any money even, you know, if

[53:13] the board loses. It's just the zoning

[53:16] decision. So, it's it's something that

[53:18] it it's nerve-wracking if you see your

[53:20] name on a complaint. But that's all the

[53:22] more reason why when when a court says

[53:24] no, even if you weren't at that meeting

[53:27] or you didn't you weren't even on the

[53:28] board, then you joined after, if the

[53:30] decision came out while you're a board

[53:32] member, you need to be named too. And

[53:33] that's good because that means you're

[53:35] only being named as a board member. So

[53:37] similar if this board were sued for

[53:40] something, it's it would really I don't

[53:42] can't even think of too many things that

[53:44] it could be other than mismanagement of

[53:45] the trust fund if that's the main thing

[53:47] the board does.

[53:48] >> May I may I ask you a question? Thank

[53:50] you. Um thank you for that

[53:51] clarification. I from my initial

[53:53] research I um concluded the same thing

[53:56] that in terms of like a workplace

[53:58] discrimination something like that that

[54:00] we would be protected that we wouldn't

[54:02] be the suit wouldn't be brought against

[54:04] us personally like a personal liability

[54:06] in terms of like coming out of our bank

[54:08] accounts. Um but the mismanagement of

[54:12] the trust is something that could be

[54:14] brought a suit could be theoretically

[54:16] brought against us by somebody who

[54:18] believed that we were grossly

[54:20] mismanaging the trust. The problem with

[54:22] trying to indemnify against that is that

[54:24] you can't I if you miss if we mismanage

[54:27] this trust then people have the right to

[54:30] sue us for that and saying like you know

[54:35] I want full protection to do anything

[54:40] we can't I don't think we can achieve

[54:42] that. I think we have to engage in by

[54:46] the rules and adhere to the to the open

[54:51] meeting law and make everything very

[54:53] transparent. And that is our

[54:56] indemnification is that we all

[55:00] serve faithfully and have no ulterior

[55:04] motives to steal from our community and

[55:07] hopefully nobody would randomly sue us.

[55:11] But I'm very glad for the clarification

[55:13] around

[55:15] finer decisions, you know, that where a

[55:18] suit might be brought against the

[55:20] municipality via our board. Right.

[55:23] >> So, if I might, Mr. Chairman, so we're

[55:25] protected for everything but the trust

[55:27] with you with the town council. You will

[55:29] you uh any action brought against the

[55:31] library other than the other than the

[55:33] trust, you represent us. Is that what

[55:37] I'm hearing?

[55:39] >> No. But what I'm saying is that the

[55:41] you're not covered under the town's

[55:42] general liability policy because the

[55:46] only

[55:46] >> on our own, right?

[55:48] >> If you're not doing anything wrong,

[55:49] there's nothing to worry about. But the

[55:51] main thing that this board does is

[55:54] manage the trust. So that's why the

[55:57] courts have found in interpreting the

[55:59] case law that the toy claims act doesn't

[56:02] apply to employees who are managing

[56:04] private funds. Even if it's a even if

[56:06] the library is owned by the town, if the

[56:08] main function of the trustees is to

[56:11] manage a private trust with private

[56:13] trust funds, it's not even town money,

[56:15] then no, you're not protected if there

[56:17] should be a valid lawsuit against you,

[56:20] against the board.

[56:22] >> But I mean, I'm just trying to clarify

[56:24] my mind. If an employee brings an action

[56:27] against the board for alleged

[56:30] wrongdoing, naming all of us, are we

[56:33] protected by town council?

[56:35] >> If an employee of the library,

[56:37] >> employee of the library feels wronged

[56:39] something. They It's possible today's

[56:41] society, somebody may feel they're

[56:43] discriminated against or something, they

[56:45] bring an action against they're gonna

[56:47] the director, the the board. Are we

[56:49] protected by the town council?

[56:52] depending on what the action is. You do

[56:56] have labor counsel that's my firm as

[56:58] well. So if an employer

[57:01] >> if an employee were to bring an action

[57:02] if you're talking about something like

[57:04] sexual harassment or gender

[57:06] discrimination or anything like that on

[57:09] anything right

[57:10] >> that would not be an action of the

[57:11] board. I've never heard of an entire

[57:13] board you know harassing someone or

[57:15] discriminating against someone. So that

[57:17] >> because we're not involved in personnel

[57:18] matters. So I

[57:20] >> I mean that's So like

[57:23] I I don't know. I don't know if it's

[57:24] productive to go down these

[57:25] hypotheticals because

[57:28] you can't really comment on

[57:29] hypotheticals. Um so I mean I think it's

[57:32] probably I think what we're hearing is

[57:35] we're not indemnified. If there's

[57:37] something we wanted to pursue, we'd have

[57:38] to do it on our own. But it sounds like

[57:39] our liability is quite narrow.

[57:42] >> Yes.

[57:42] >> Because it would basically involve us.

[57:45] We're likely only getting sued if we

[57:46] grossly mismanage the funds, right? And

[57:48] if we grossly mismanage the funds, we're

[57:50] all going to prison. So,

[57:51] >> well, and that's the thing. There's a big difference between

[57:55] >> You're clear.

[57:56] >> There's a big difference between a

[57:57] simple mistake like typographical error

[58:00] and intentional gross mismanagement. Um,

[58:04] I don't do labor law. my firm does, but

[58:07] we did prepare a memo and I I don't know

[58:09] if that was sent to you, Noel, if it was

[58:10] sent to the town manager, but it it

[58:13] talks about all of the possible

[58:15] personnel um issues that could occur and

[58:19] the various responsibilities of the

[58:22] library, the library director, the

[58:24] board, and it kind of sets out all of

[58:27] the legal ramifications and what would

[58:29] happen if, you know, sort of all these

[58:31] different scenarios. and I can check the

[58:33] status of that and see who that was sent

[58:35] to and if that's something that could be

[58:36] shared.

[58:37] >> So, the town manager does have that. And

[58:39] so, she we're going to hopefully meet

[58:41] within the next week. Noah and I will

[58:43] meet with her hopefully within the next

[58:45] week or so to go over the memo and then

[58:48] it'll

[58:50] be out in the wild, I guess.

[58:52] >> Okay.

[58:54] Shared.

[58:55] And on that note, she did want me to go

[58:57] over I know some of you, like I said,

[58:59] some of you were at the training, but

[59:01] she um we discussed just talking about

[59:04] some of the open meeting law things that

[59:05] we discussed at the training, and I know

[59:07] you have other things on your agenda, so

[59:09] I won't go through the whole

[59:10] presentation because it was on a number

[59:11] of topics, but um but the open meeting

[59:14] law changed a few years. Well, gosh,

[59:16] it's like 15 years ago now. and it came

[59:20] up with a definition of a meeting which

[59:23] is and this is important because if

[59:25] you're not meeting like right now is

[59:27] sort of a training I' I've just switched

[59:29] into from answering your indemnification

[59:31] question to kind of just going over some

[59:34] general things even if we have a quorum

[59:38] and if it was locked and the public

[59:39] couldn't come in it's not a violation of

[59:41] the open meeting law because a training

[59:43] is not subject to the open meeting law

[59:45] the definition is a meeting has to be a

[59:47] deliberation by a public body with

[59:49] respect to any matter within the body's

[59:52] jurisdiction. There has to be a quorum

[59:54] of the public body which we have here.

[59:57] Uh it must be related to any public

[59:59] business within the public body's

[1:00:01] jurisdiction and the deliber it has to

[1:00:04] involve deliberation and a vote.

[1:00:06] Deliberation is a communication either

[1:00:08] oral or written through any medium

[1:00:10] including email. And that's something

[1:00:12] that had to be clarified in the new open

[1:00:15] meeting law when it was because when

[1:00:17] email became a thing, people didn't seem

[1:00:19] to think that that was governed by the

[1:00:21] open meeting law. So people were board

[1:00:23] members were sending each other emails.

[1:00:25] What do you think about this? Or and

[1:00:26] sometimes they'd send it to the whole

[1:00:28] board and ask for people to comment

[1:00:29] back. No, that's a complete and direct

[1:00:32] violation of the open meeting law. So

[1:00:34] then people started doing what's

[1:00:36] considered serial communications. One

[1:00:39] member would send an email to another

[1:00:40] member. What do you think of this? I

[1:00:42] don't know. Let me ask. So, and and it

[1:00:43] would go from one board member to the

[1:00:45] next. And there's case law on that where

[1:00:47] people got sanctioned for intentionally

[1:00:50] violating the open meeting law by doing

[1:00:52] that. So, you have to be careful, you

[1:00:53] know, when you're emailing, you have to

[1:00:55] remember if you send something oops to

[1:00:58] the entire board, put on the bottom like

[1:01:01] if it's if you're giving something out

[1:01:02] for the next meeting, just put on the

[1:01:03] bottom, please do not reply. And then

[1:01:06] you're not going to have a violation of

[1:01:08] the open meeting law. Um, volunteers are

[1:01:11] subject to the open meeting law just

[1:01:13] like town board members which didn't

[1:01:15] used to be. Um, notice is important and

[1:01:19] I saw you guys did have an agenda for

[1:01:21] tonight. It was posted I believe I

[1:01:23] didn't check when it was posted but it's

[1:01:24] got to be posted within 48 hours. One of

[1:01:27] the changes to the open meeting law and

[1:01:30] I've been doing this for 33 years so I

[1:01:32] have seen how how things have changed in

[1:01:35] terms of posting. It used to be that

[1:01:37] weekends were counted and that ended up

[1:01:40] not really being fair a lot of the time

[1:01:42] because some you'd post something on a

[1:01:44] Friday afternoon for a Monday meeting

[1:01:47] and many people wouldn't know anything

[1:01:49] about it because they were away for the

[1:01:51] weekend or they just weren't checking

[1:01:53] anything. So now weekends don't count

[1:01:55] towards the posting. So if you post

[1:01:57] something on a Friday, you can't have

[1:01:59] that meeting until Wednesday and you've

[1:02:01] got to post it in many more places than

[1:02:04] used to be posted. Um, and every town's

[1:02:06] different. You can, if you have a

[1:02:07] website, fine. But there are still

[1:02:09] towns, mostly out in western

[1:02:10] Massachusetts, and I've represented many

[1:02:12] of them, where they have no website.

[1:02:16] They have no electronic means of

[1:02:19] publication of anything. Um, the town

[1:02:22] clerk takes the files home for the

[1:02:24] weekend. And, you know, some of these

[1:02:26] are just really small towns and they

[1:02:28] don't have this capacity. So the

[1:02:30] revisions to the open meeting law made

[1:02:32] it okay to have a notebook in a place

[1:02:36] that people could visit like the police

[1:02:37] department. So you could town hall

[1:02:39] business could be posted in a paper

[1:02:41] notebook at the police department and

[1:02:43] that would be that was considered

[1:02:44] sufficient. Um when you have your

[1:02:48] meeting you, as I said, you have to have

[1:02:49] an agenda. Put the public session items

[1:02:53] on the agenda. public comment, which I

[1:02:55] know a lot of towns like Danvers does

[1:02:57] have public comment and some towns have

[1:03:01] it at the very beginning of the meeting

[1:03:02] and that causes the meeting to go on and on because people come and speak

[1:03:07] early, you know, before everybody's

[1:03:08] tired. Um, what I've often recommended

[1:03:11] is because people don't really

[1:03:12] understand, if there's a matter on the

[1:03:14] agenda for later in the evening and you

[1:03:16] get up and speak and your whatever your

[1:03:18] position is on at the beginning of the

[1:03:20] meeting and then you go home, you're not

[1:03:22] going to be your testimony will not be

[1:03:23] counted as part of the record of

[1:03:26] whatever that discussion item was. And

[1:03:28] if it's you're at the select board and

[1:03:30] the select board vote on something and

[1:03:32] somebody doesn't like it and you want to

[1:03:33] appeal their decision, your testimony is

[1:03:36] not going to be part of it. If you made

[1:03:37] it in the beginning at public comment,

[1:03:39] you've got to talk at the time that

[1:03:41] they're having the particular discussion

[1:03:43] item. Um, executive session is something

[1:03:47] to be really careful about what you what

[1:03:50] you use executive session for. the

[1:03:53] reasons. There used to be eight and now

[1:03:55] there are 10, but a couple of them they

[1:03:56] just sort of moved around. Um, you can

[1:03:59] go into executive session to discuss

[1:04:01] litigation strategy. You can also go

[1:04:03] into it to discuss reputation,

[1:04:06] character, physical condition, or mental

[1:04:08] health of an individual, but not

[1:04:10] professional competence. So, you don't

[1:04:12] do like performance reviews. Um, real

[1:04:16] estate appraisals because that could

[1:04:18] affect the bargaining position of the

[1:04:19] town. That can be done in executive

[1:04:21] session. There's a there's a whole list

[1:04:23] on chapter 38 section 21. Um

[1:04:27] the chair

[1:04:29] handles the meeting and makes any rules

[1:04:31] as far as like how long people can

[1:04:33] speak. If you have the type of meeting

[1:04:35] where a lot of people want to come and

[1:04:36] talk, whether it's select board or one

[1:04:37] of the land use boards, you just have to

[1:04:39] be fair. So if you give three minutes

[1:04:41] for each person, don't give somebody 10

[1:04:44] minutes. Don't cut somebody else off.

[1:04:46] Some towns allow people to um yield

[1:04:49] their time to somebody else. sometimes

[1:04:51] say, "No, that's not fair. Everybody

[1:04:52] gets the same amount of time." And

[1:04:57] you shouldn't be this. You guys talked

[1:04:59] about this earlier tonight and you're

[1:05:00] absolutely correct that if people are

[1:05:02] putting things on your website that are

[1:05:05] rude and you want to respond to them,

[1:05:07] don't because you're going to get

[1:05:09] yourself into a constitutional issue.

[1:05:11] There was a there was a case um I'm

[1:05:14] forgetting the name of it now, but there

[1:05:15] was a case out in like Minnesota or

[1:05:17] somewhere in the Midwest where there was

[1:05:20] a person who I believe was a city

[1:05:22] councelor who got into a got into a

[1:05:25] fight basically on Facebook with one of

[1:05:28] his constituents and responded to things

[1:05:30] the person said. And there was a lawsuit

[1:05:32] brought and it was really it it kind of

[1:05:35] restricted what municipal officials can

[1:05:37] do because you've got to be clear when

[1:05:39] you have a Facebook page. If it's as an

[1:05:43] official then you got to make that clear

[1:05:45] and and that you're talking about town

[1:05:46] business. That's fine. But you can't One

[1:05:49] of the things that this person did was

[1:05:50] he blocked somebody. You can't do that.

[1:05:53] If you're going to have a Facebook page

[1:05:54] as in your official position, you got to

[1:05:56] let people speak. This individual also

[1:05:59] had pictures of his kids and talked

[1:06:01] about his hobbies and and argued that it

[1:06:03] was a personal Facebook page, but it

[1:06:05] blurred because he also had statements

[1:06:08] about things the municipality was doing.

[1:06:10] So, you just have to be really careful

[1:06:12] and and make sure that there's that

[1:06:13] clear line. If it's if it's yourself as

[1:06:16] a political official, you can't cut

[1:06:18] people off. Um and that's that's sim

[1:06:21] similar slightly different to a case

[1:06:23] that happened a few years ago in

[1:06:25] Southboro which um Baron versus Kenda

[1:06:28] and that was kind of scary because you

[1:06:31] want people to act civily

[1:06:34] but you have to allow people to speak um

[1:06:38] under constitutional law and in that

[1:06:40] situation the select board stifled

[1:06:43] somebody from talking and even if you

[1:06:46] know if you read the case and you see

[1:06:48] what the I believe it was a woman. There

[1:06:50] might have been more than one person,

[1:06:51] but um she said some offensive things

[1:06:55] and yet the court it went up to the

[1:06:58] Supreme Judicial Court found that the

[1:07:00] board should not have been um cutting

[1:07:03] off the meeting and having you know an

[1:07:06] adjournment right when they didn't like

[1:07:08] what somebody was saying. So, it's a

[1:07:10] fine line, but you can't. Unfortunately,

[1:07:14] now based on that case, we advise

[1:07:16] municipal officials to just be careful.

[1:07:18] If someone's speaking, let them speak.

[1:07:19] Don't yell back and call them names just

[1:07:21] cuz they're calling you names. Um, have

[1:07:24] a police officer there so that things

[1:07:25] don't get physical. But unfortunately,

[1:07:28] you got to let people speak. Um, on the

[1:07:30] other side of that, I've seen many towns

[1:07:33] start their meetings with an explanation

[1:07:36] that, and I'm pretty sure Danver does

[1:07:38] this as well, a town meeting, um, that

[1:07:41] let's be civil, let's conduct our

[1:07:43] business tonight, and let's all be kind

[1:07:44] to each other and not make this

[1:07:46] personal. And I think those are really

[1:07:47] helpful to start the meeting out that

[1:07:49] way because then it kind of reminds

[1:07:51] everybody why you're really there.

[1:07:52] You're there to do whatever your mission

[1:07:54] is on the board that you're on.

[1:07:57] Um, oh, and the chair, you guys are

[1:08:00] probably not typically, I mean, this I

[1:08:02] should say this board, you're not in a

[1:08:04] position where you're voting on

[1:08:05] applications and that sort of thing, but

[1:08:07] I've heard many municipal boards say

[1:08:10] that they thought the chair was not

[1:08:12] allowed to vote except in the case of

[1:08:13] breaking a tie. And a lot of towns think

[1:08:16] that. A lot of towns up in this area

[1:08:18] that I've represented, and I've

[1:08:19] explained to them, no, that's not the

[1:08:20] case. Sometimes it's a good idea for the

[1:08:22] chair to wait and vote last because

[1:08:25] especially if it's someone who's been on

[1:08:26] the chair, like a few of you have

[1:08:27] mentioned, you've been on this board for

[1:08:28] 30 years. So other newer members might

[1:08:30] look to you and want to copy how you

[1:08:33] vote or just might, you know, sort of

[1:08:35] listen to what you say and want to sort

[1:08:36] of support what you say. So a lot of

[1:08:39] times the chairs will wait. Chairs

[1:08:41] who've been doing it for a while might

[1:08:43] wait and vote at the end, but you're not

[1:08:45] prohibited from v voting. You're just,

[1:08:48] you know, you're not there just to break

[1:08:49] a tie. Um,

[1:08:53] so rather than go through the whole rest

[1:08:54] of this, were there specific

[1:08:57] topics that you all had questions about

[1:09:00] or I I don't think so and I think the executive session one was timely

[1:09:05] just because we were going to the next

[1:09:07] item was the director's review and so

[1:09:09] that was a very helpful explanation

[1:09:11] about why we're doing that as an open

[1:09:13] meeting and what the parameters are for

[1:09:14] that discussion. So I thought that was

[1:09:16] really helpful.

[1:09:16] >> Yeah, I saw that on the agenda. Yep.

[1:09:18] >> Um,

[1:09:19] >> I have one, Mr. Chairman, uh discussion

[1:09:22] by uh this board about employees by name

[1:09:27] or medical conditions

[1:09:30] or when they're going to be back to

[1:09:32] work, things like that.

[1:09:35] What's the question?

[1:09:37] >> We can't do that, right? Discuss people,

[1:09:40] personnel,

[1:09:41] >> you HIPPA made that um

[1:09:44] yeah, you you got to be really careful

[1:09:46] what you talk about. I mean, the HIPPA

[1:09:48] law really it applies to insurance

[1:09:51] companies and medical providers.

[1:09:54] So, nobody else can be liable for

[1:09:56] talking. It's just it's not appropriate.

[1:09:58] It's personal information. And that's

[1:10:00] one of the things under the public

[1:10:01] records law. Medical information as well

[1:10:04] as social security numbers, birth dates,

[1:10:07] um cell phone numbers even and addresses

[1:10:10] are not something to be made public. But

[1:10:13] it's not a good practice to talk about

[1:10:15] th this board first of all isn't in

[1:10:18] charge of you pick the director but

[1:10:21] other than that you're not in charge of

[1:10:22] the other employees. So you should not

[1:10:25] be talking about um medical situations

[1:10:28] and if somebody is on a leave you could

[1:10:31] inquire as to when that person if that

[1:10:33] person will be back and when in case

[1:10:36] you're in a position where you need to

[1:10:37] hire somebody. But my understanding is

[1:10:39] that's not a role of this board but

[1:10:41] correct me if I'm wrong. Okay,

[1:10:44] >> I have a clarifying question. Um, I

[1:10:48] totally understand like speaking about

[1:10:50] private personal information about um,

[1:10:52] employees in a board meeting is against

[1:10:55] law. Um, but there has been it has been

[1:10:58] suggested that

[1:11:00] so much as speaking an employees name

[1:11:03] could be a violation somehow of open

[1:11:06] meeting law. Um, which I think

[1:11:08] unfortunately we just need to clarify

[1:11:10] that a little bit. In our normal course

[1:11:13] of business, we mention employees by

[1:11:16] name. Um, your director's report

[1:11:18] frequently has specific employees,

[1:11:20] recognitions that they've earned,

[1:11:22] sometimes even things that are not like

[1:11:24] it's like an outside recognition from

[1:11:26] another

[1:11:27] >> right operational

[1:11:28] >> organization. Yes. So

[1:11:30] >> we we do as part and parcel of our

[1:11:34] normal function, normal duties,

[1:11:36] occasionally mention employees by name.

[1:11:38] And I can think of other situations

[1:11:40] where

[1:11:41] using a name, for example, if an

[1:11:44] employee went to the press and spoke

[1:11:48] about her experience or their experience

[1:11:51] as a li as an employee of this library.

[1:11:56] My understanding is that it wouldn't be

[1:11:57] against the law for us to in this

[1:12:00] meeting say we need to respond to the

[1:12:03] comments that were made by this person

[1:12:06] publicly.

[1:12:07] We need to or like um you know there's a

[1:12:11] question of are you know is this

[1:12:14] affecting the reputation of the library?

[1:12:15] certain things like that where we would

[1:12:18] perhaps deliberate

[1:12:20] on

[1:12:22] some aspect that's not personal health

[1:12:25] information or anything of that nature.

[1:12:29] >> Can you speak at all to the

[1:12:32] >> the first situation you were talking

[1:12:34] about sounded more to me like

[1:12:35] commendations for people talking about

[1:12:37] good things that um people have done and

[1:12:41] that's fine. That's that's never a

[1:12:43] problem. But negative things about

[1:12:45] people um it kind of comes back to what

[1:12:48] is the role of the library board? Do you

[1:12:50] hire and fire the staff? And my

[1:12:52] understanding was that that's all up to

[1:12:53] the library director. So no, you don't

[1:12:56] have a role.

[1:12:57] >> Yeah. No, I think um

[1:12:58] >> but your example of

[1:12:59] >> I think to clarify my example, I would

[1:13:03] suggest that the conversation would not

[1:13:05] be about that the person the cat like

[1:13:08] whatever it was the um the actual

[1:13:12] employee but more about

[1:13:13] >> the reputation. Yeah, that's what I was

[1:13:15] about to address. So like can we if it's affected by something that's

[1:13:19] happened where we have to just at least

[1:13:20] acknowledge the thing that happened and

[1:13:23] then move on to discussing our duties

[1:13:26] which is the reputation of the library

[1:13:29] is one of them

[1:13:29] >> and policies Exactly. Thank you. But

[1:13:34] again correct me if I'm wrong on my

[1:13:36] understanding of what the trustees do

[1:13:38] versus what the library director does.

[1:13:41] My understanding with the information

[1:13:43] I've been provided is that she does the

[1:13:45] hiring, supervising of all personnel and

[1:13:48] implementation of policies. So it would

[1:13:51] be appropriate to have a very brief

[1:13:53] mention that oh I saw this person

[1:13:55] commenting on the library and it gave a

[1:13:57] negative impact or impression to people.

[1:14:01] So could you do something about that

[1:14:03] library director?

[1:14:04] >> She implements the she implements the

[1:14:06] policies but we we have to approve them,

[1:14:08] right? Is that the

[1:14:09] >> Yeah. We have

[1:14:11] >> so without talking about a person just

[1:14:14] there have been negative comments made

[1:14:16] about the library and we don't like that

[1:14:17] and we need to somehow get control over

[1:14:20] that and have that stop. So we'd like to

[1:14:22] implement these policies and

[1:14:25] have a general discussion about that.

[1:14:27] But you can't talk about people.

[1:14:29] >> So can I just clarify? Well just

[1:14:32] >> so basically this employee

[1:14:35] felt disgruntled went to other boards

[1:14:38] and and made a thing about it. I and I

[1:14:40] what I saw before Mike if you don't mind

[1:14:43] Mike's concern was and my understanding

[1:14:45] was the fact that they actually said her

[1:14:47] name out loud though her name was

[1:14:50] everyone was aware of and she outed

[1:14:51] herself was against the public meeting

[1:14:54] laws. It's not against the public

[1:14:55] meeting laws for us to mention her name,

[1:15:00] especially since she she was out talking

[1:15:03] to other groups about and in and the

[1:15:05] town and and the reality is the staff

[1:15:07] and how the staff feels and the policies

[1:15:09] about the staff and the reputation is

[1:15:12] something that we have to address.

[1:15:13] >> The open meeting law is what you're

[1:15:14] talking about.

[1:15:15] >> Well, with the open meeting laws. Yes.

[1:15:16] So, obviously we want to address there's

[1:15:19] a disgruntled reason

[1:15:21] >> went through the town process. It was a

[1:15:23] struggle. Everybody knows her what her

[1:15:25] name is when it happens. She wants

[1:15:27] people to know. She's inviting the town

[1:15:30] community in to see her struggle and for

[1:15:34] how it was or was not addressed

[1:15:36] appropriately.

[1:15:38] It does fall in our lap basically and to

[1:15:42] actually just mention her name is not

[1:15:44] against the public meeting laws. It's

[1:15:46] the obeying law

[1:15:48] speaking negatively about anybody,

[1:15:50] >> but it may not be appropriate or

[1:15:51] professional to say that there was a

[1:15:54] negative thing. And it wasn't that

[1:15:56] anyone was saying anything negative

[1:15:57] about it was basically this is what

[1:16:00] happened to her.

[1:16:01] >> It didn't go well. As a as the trustees,

[1:16:04] we need to do better. And how do we do

[1:16:06] better? The fact that her name was

[1:16:09] mentioned, it's not against the public

[1:16:10] meeting law.

[1:16:11] >> Open meeting law.

[1:16:12] That's it. is public

[1:16:15] records law, open meeting law. The whole

[1:16:17] point of it is transparency. That's why

[1:16:19] they call it open.

[1:16:20] >> Correct. So the open meeting law does

[1:16:22] not say you cannot mention their names.

[1:16:25] >> It just

[1:16:26] >> it doesn't specifically say that, but

[1:16:27] you could get in trouble for other

[1:16:29] reasons for talking about people.

[1:16:31] Correct.

[1:16:31] >> For mentioning people's names

[1:16:32] negatively. And you got to look at what

[1:16:34] your role is and if it's if

[1:16:37] >> it's not to hire and fire or

[1:16:41] >> um it was it had to do with that. It had

[1:16:43] nothing to do with that. The I just want

[1:16:45] to clarify it's not against the open

[1:16:47] public

[1:16:48] >> open meeting law to say someone's name

[1:16:52] >> and how you say it and how you use it

[1:16:55] >> may or may matters.

[1:16:57] >> Another thing to look at though as far

[1:16:59] as the open meeting law the item has to

[1:17:01] be on your agenda. You can't talk about

[1:17:03] things that aren't on the agenda unless

[1:17:05] there's something that the chair

[1:17:07] >> old business

[1:17:08] >> didn't reasonably foresee.

[1:17:09] >> We always have a little old business or

[1:17:11] there generally a reason, but in the big

[1:17:14] scheme of things. I just want to clarify

[1:17:17] that it's not against the open meeting.

[1:17:20] >> It's not a specific thing outlined in

[1:17:22] the open meeting law that you can't talk

[1:17:24] about, but it does there is a limited um

[1:17:28] description of what you're allowed to

[1:17:30] talk about. And that's basically

[1:17:32] employee evaluations if that's your

[1:17:34] role.

[1:17:34] >> That was not it.

[1:17:35] >> But no, I know. But I'm just saying the

[1:17:36] open meeting law doesn't they're not

[1:17:38] going to say something like you can't

[1:17:39] mention a person's name. But there are

[1:17:41] many other statutes that govern if you

[1:17:44] mention a person's name, depending on

[1:17:45] what you're mentioning it for. Agreed.

[1:17:47] You could be in trouble. But the open

[1:17:49] meeting law just says the only re the

[1:17:51] only thing you can talk about um public

[1:17:54] session is an employee evaluation.

[1:17:56] Everything else has to be done in

[1:17:58] executive session. But beyond that and by everything else I mean the things

[1:18:02] I said you know the the reputation

[1:18:04] character somebody's done something

[1:18:07] wrong the physical condition mental

[1:18:08] health of an individual um all of that

[1:18:11] >> in in the honest

[1:18:12] >> and if you do that in executive session

[1:18:14] you have to give the person notice and

[1:18:16] they have to have an opportunity to be

[1:18:18] present with counsel if they want

[1:18:20] >> obviously and I'm gonna say it wasn't

[1:18:22] really about her

[1:18:24] >> I know I know it was about

[1:18:25] >> it wasn't about her

[1:18:26] >> information that was getting out there

[1:18:28] >> it was about what happened.

[1:18:29] >> Yeah.

[1:18:30] >> So that that's the that's the the the

[1:18:32] slice of we have to kind of

[1:18:34] >> Yeah. And again, look at the open

[1:18:35] meeting law, but you also have to look

[1:18:36] at what your role is and what the role

[1:18:38] of the library director is.

[1:18:40] >> Yeah. I think I think we should

[1:18:41] probably, unless there's any more

[1:18:43] questions, I do want to make sure we

[1:18:44] have time to get to the evaluation.

[1:18:46] >> Um so I want to thank town council for

[1:18:49] coming and answering all of our

[1:18:50] questions. Pleas overview.

[1:18:53] >> Thank you very much.

[1:18:54] >> My pleasure. Good night all.

[1:18:56] Um, so now we are going to move on to

[1:18:58] the director's review. Um, which and I

[1:19:02] think some folks had a chance to look at

[1:19:03] it beforehand. Has everyone

[1:19:05] >> had a chance to look at it?

[1:19:10] » Yes. Okay.

[1:19:10] >> Did you get one?

[1:19:12] >> So, and again, you know, just as town

[1:19:14] council was mentioning, you know,

[1:19:16] >> we are able to do this meeting. We're

[1:19:18] going to keep it focused on the um

[1:19:20] content of the of the review. So, we

[1:19:22] want to give folks a chance. And just as

[1:19:24] a reminder, this was completed um with

[1:19:27] Donna and Jess um completed the review.

[1:19:30] I don't know if either of you wanted to

[1:19:31] say anything before we just kind of open

[1:19:33] it up to to questions or comments.

[1:19:38] » Um sorry, also um no, just you know, we

[1:19:43] just recognize how much work Noel has

[1:19:47] done this past year in general and she's

[1:19:50] done a great job. Um and that's sort of

[1:19:53] reflected on what we have here. Um not

[1:19:56] as much not much has changed from the

[1:19:58] year before. Um we did add the

[1:20:00] additional comments from board trustees

[1:20:02] at the end of this so that we can add

[1:20:03] any comments that you guys have to be

[1:20:06] part of this um this review of her. So

[1:20:11] um if there's any questions, comments,

[1:20:14] additions that you want to add, please

[1:20:16] feel free.

[1:20:19] >> Um

[1:20:21] I well managing the staff

[1:20:25] um we've given a positive management

[1:20:28] staff relations

[1:20:30] I maintain and we've given a three and

[1:20:32] it's to the best of my knowledge it's

[1:20:35] been that every year if I'm not correct

[1:20:39] feel free to but is there any has the

[1:20:43] director been given any way that she

[1:20:46] could make that a four next year.

[1:20:52] » Well, what what would it take to be a

[1:20:54] four next year?

[1:20:56] >> I mean, I don't know if Donna or

[1:20:58] Desalation

[1:21:00] would want to comment on that.

[1:21:01] >> So, I think

[1:21:04] you want So, I think

[1:21:07] with everything that's happened this

[1:21:09] year, I think it's just been a a sort of

[1:21:12] a learning curve year for for us as well

[1:21:14] as Noel. And I think that, you know, the

[1:21:19] path that's going on currently with HR

[1:21:22] and stuff like that, I think that next

[1:21:24] year,

[1:21:26] this coming year, I think if she stays

[1:21:28] the course, that that will be bumped up

[1:21:30] to a four. Um it's just there's there's

[1:21:34] been unforeseen things this past year

[1:21:36] that I think that has been a challenge

[1:21:39] and um she's work working towards the

[1:21:43] improvement of that. So, um, and if

[1:21:48] people disagree with that, that's fine,

[1:21:50] too.

[1:21:50] >> Did you want to add anything, Donna?

[1:21:52] >> No, not really. Except that a three is

[1:21:54] not bad. Um, it's that they consistently

[1:21:57] meet performance expectations and they

[1:21:59] perform in a professional and competent

[1:22:01] manner, which he does. Um,

[1:22:05] >> I just would like to see it a four next

[1:22:07] year.

[1:22:08] >> I'll work on it.

[1:22:10] And and I know towards the

[1:22:14] sort of earlier this year there were

[1:22:16] some trainings done that were staffwide

[1:22:17] that were I think you know

[1:22:21] uh focused on morale inclusivity etc.

[1:22:24] And I assume more of those trainings

[1:22:26] will be coming through this in

[1:22:28] throughout the rest of this year.

[1:22:30] >> Yes.

[1:22:31] >> Okay.

[1:22:32] >> And we did recognize that many of those

[1:22:34] trainings Noel brought up on her own.

[1:22:36] She was not told by town council to do

[1:22:39] them. Mhm.

[1:22:40] >> So they were her initiative. So there's

[1:22:44] other things in there too under managing

[1:22:46] the staff and we gave her four for the

[1:22:48] um

[1:22:49] >> for the policies.

[1:22:50] >> Yeah. Just just a clarification for

[1:22:53] people at home, you know, three is three

[1:22:55] means effective. The director

[1:22:57] consistently meets performing

[1:22:58] expectations and perform in a

[1:23:00] professional and competent manner. Four

[1:23:02] is highly effective. The director always

[1:23:05] meets and frequently exceeds performance

[1:23:07] expectations. So that's that's the the

[1:23:10] next step,

[1:23:10] >> but I still I would like to see a four.

[1:23:18] » Um,

[1:23:20] well, I guess you prepared this, so I

[1:23:21] don't know if you have any additional

[1:23:22] questions or comments. I just want to

[1:23:24] make sure each person has a chance to

[1:23:25] either comment or ask a question just

[1:23:27] sort of in the spirit of equity. So I

[1:23:29] don't know if you had anything else

[1:23:30] you'd wanted to add, Donna.

[1:23:32] >> No, I I mean Jess and I spent time and

[1:23:36] went over each of these. we had less

[1:23:38] years to base it on. But um

[1:23:42] no, I thought it was a pretty fair

[1:23:43] review. Um the only problem is we needed

[1:23:47] to do this earlier because I think with

[1:23:49] her numbers being as high as they are.

[1:23:53] Um I want to recommend her for a higher

[1:23:56] rate. I would have liked to have

[1:23:57] recommended her for a higher raise, but

[1:23:58] with the budget

[1:24:00] constraints that the town has this year,

[1:24:03] um it was too late to do it by the time

[1:24:05] we got it to them. Okay.

[1:24:07] >> Um that that would probably be the only

[1:24:09] thing. I think she does an excellent

[1:24:11] job. I think we're lucky to have her and

[1:24:14] um most of the people I talk with at the

[1:24:16] library are really happy to be here. So,

[1:24:19] um no, I don't I don't unless somebody

[1:24:23] else has a specific question.

[1:24:25] >> Yeah, I think we'll just go around just

[1:24:26] kind of go around the table. So, Alan,

[1:24:27] if you have any questions or comments

[1:24:32] » Corey, do you have anything?

[1:24:34] Um, no. I think it's a fair evaluation.

[1:24:38] I think, um, you know, I'll continue to

[1:24:41] harp on my, um,

[1:24:44] just encouragement toward

[1:24:48] staff retention and, um, making sure

[1:24:52] that when folks leave their employment

[1:24:56] at our library that they go out and

[1:24:58] speak well of us. Um,

[1:25:02] and

[1:25:03] that hasn't always been the case, but I

[1:25:05] think we're ready for a clean page. And

[1:25:11] >> yeah, and I think on that note, I like

[1:25:13] one of the things that in the report, I

[1:25:14] think it's helpful for us to be able to

[1:25:16] see what trainings are happening, what's

[1:25:18] being scheduled, just so we can sort of

[1:25:20] have that sense of what's in the queue,

[1:25:23] but also just an opportunity to, you

[1:25:25] know, offer insight or reaction to that.

[1:25:27] So I think that transparency in terms of

[1:25:29] what's being done around morale and

[1:25:31] retention and training I think is really

[1:25:33] important.

[1:25:34] >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:25:36] >> Thanks, Mike.

[1:25:38] >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh

[1:25:41] >> I I I've always made it no secret that

[1:25:43] I'm one of our biggest supporters

[1:25:46] uh a lot of the time. Um and and looking

[1:25:49] at this the 20 minutes I had before the

[1:25:52] meeting to look at it, even though I had

[1:25:54] the opportunity I saw on line to review

[1:25:57] it. Um,

[1:26:00] I was evaluated for 42 years uh down

[1:26:04] there around 120 street in the police

[1:26:06] department and um evaluations uh subjective in my opinion.

[1:26:14] Um

[1:26:16] who evaluates the evaluator?

[1:26:19] Um

[1:26:22] how do you uh when you when you look at

[1:26:25] this uh like uh the process

[1:26:29] the board of selecting uh who evaluates

[1:26:32] the town manager

[1:26:35] five select members

[1:26:38] five

[1:26:40] not two five

[1:26:42] >> I think they have a subcom

[1:26:43] >> I'm looking at what's that

[1:26:45] >> they do a subcommittee just like you we

[1:26:47] did Okay. When when I'm done here, you

[1:26:49] can help me out here.

[1:26:50] >> Just saying.

[1:26:51] >> But so my even a subcommittee. Well, but

[1:26:57] everybody on the select board has a has

[1:27:00] an opportunity to evaluate

[1:27:03] the manager and I would guess that the

[1:27:05] numbers, you know, year four, year

[1:27:08] three, something like that. They come to

[1:27:10] a consensus.

[1:27:13] looking at her evaluation. I mean, she

[1:27:15] does a great job. Out of uh

[1:27:19] out of 50 58 categories,

[1:27:24] she got 14 fives. That's pretty good.

[1:27:27] That sound good.

[1:27:29] And then looking at looking at u uh

[1:27:33] something like

[1:27:35] I I think it needs to be looked at. The

[1:27:36] process need to be looked at. Uh

[1:27:39] establishing uh priorities. Under number

[1:27:42] 14,

[1:27:44] it says director's accomplishments

[1:27:45] reflect and

[1:27:48] relate to the short and long range

[1:27:50] plans. You got a three and then plans

[1:27:54] are updated on a continuous basis to

[1:27:57] reflect change in circumstances. You got

[1:28:00] a a four. I mean it doesn't to me that

[1:28:02] doesn't make sense like uh the ground

[1:28:05] maintenance and construction of physical

[1:28:08] plants you know she's a director the

[1:28:11] town owns the property

[1:28:13] she she contacts build and maintenance

[1:28:16] some need to be fixed some like that she

[1:28:18] does a great job of that but I mean I'm

[1:28:21] not sure that has to be a category for a

[1:28:24] director's eye evaluation but

[1:28:28] u looking at the The last part, staff

[1:28:32] selection.

[1:28:34] The last one down, selection processes

[1:28:36] designed to ensure the selection of the

[1:28:40] best person for the job.

[1:28:43] Comments with the limitations of the

[1:28:46] union contract, Noel is doing a great

[1:28:49] job.

[1:28:51] I dare say sitting here, how many

[1:28:54] trustees know anything about this

[1:28:55] contract?

[1:28:57] In this contract right here, it talks

[1:29:00] about

[1:29:01] seniority procedure for filling a

[1:29:04] vacancy.

[1:29:09] » She's not limited. She signed the

[1:29:11] contract with the town.

[1:29:13] >> The town that they agreed on this. She's

[1:29:15] not limited. This is this is this is the

[1:29:18] >> What it what it means is that just that

[1:29:20] >> what does limitation mean?

[1:29:21] >> Meaning that she has to abide by the

[1:29:23] contract.

[1:29:24] >> That's not a limitation. That's she

[1:29:26] signed the deal.

[1:29:28] >> That's not I think it's limitation in a

[1:29:30] negative sense. She's saying that this

[1:29:31] is what the contract lays

[1:29:32] >> out. Anyway, I think the process in my

[1:29:34] opinion she does a great job.

[1:29:37] >> Um I think the process needs to be

[1:29:39] looked at.

[1:29:40] >> Yeah. I mean, Mike, we're definitely

[1:29:42] open. So if we want, we can talk after

[1:29:44] too.

[1:29:45] >> Changing the process. Yeah.

[1:29:46] >> Okay.

[1:29:46] We can

[1:29:49] >> I'm sorry, but Mike, how many years were

[1:29:50] you chair?

[1:29:52] >> Almost 30.

[1:29:53] You were chair. How many

[1:29:55] times

[1:29:56] I chair?

[1:29:57] >> How many times did you Yes, I asked how

[1:29:59] many times you were.

[1:29:59] >> Mr. Chairman, I'm not here to debate.

[1:30:01] I'm just saying my being.

[1:30:02] >> No. Well,

[1:30:03] >> personal personal you can chair.

[1:30:05] >> All right. Well, Donna, why don't you finish your comment and

[1:30:07] then we'll move on.

[1:30:10] >> You never presented.

[1:30:12] >> Mr.

[1:30:13] >> I have the war.

[1:30:14] >> You just have to say no. I might never.

[1:30:16] >> Just finish your comment. Don't direct

[1:30:18] Mike directly. Just finish your comment,

[1:30:20] please.

[1:30:20] um you never presented the evaluations

[1:30:24] to the

[1:30:25] >> Okay, let's let's not make this about an

[1:30:27] individual member.

[1:30:27] >> I'm just saying we are trying to make

[1:30:30] this more inclusive for the board to

[1:30:32] have an opportunity.

[1:30:34] >> That's what this session is right now.

[1:30:35] So, if some one of the trustees has a

[1:30:40] recommendation or has an opinion or

[1:30:42] thinks something should be changed, now

[1:30:44] is the time to bring it up. Yes,

[1:30:46] >> we listen to the suggestions that were

[1:30:47] made earlier and we're doing our best to

[1:30:50] include everyone in it, but we cannot

[1:30:52] sit with nine people and do this

[1:30:54] >> right. I think we need to have a

[1:30:56] separate more robust conversation about

[1:30:57] the evaluation process well in advance

[1:30:59] of that process starting the next time.

[1:31:01] So, I don't think I think it's good to

[1:31:02] get the feedback now. I don't think this

[1:31:04] is the time to come up with a new

[1:31:06] evaluation process. So, I think the

[1:31:09] feedback is warranted. I think we can

[1:31:11] that'll be a future agenda item

[1:31:13] >> and if there's specific things that's

[1:31:15] what I understand we're doing now. So

[1:31:19] >> after all that Charles

[1:31:28] » it's okay.

[1:31:28] >> No I think it's very difficult to do

[1:31:31] evaluations in the environment that

[1:31:33] we're in right now. Let me just say that

[1:31:35] for a fact.

[1:31:36] >> Charles I'm sorry. Can you speak?

[1:31:38] >> I'm sorry. Yes. I said I think It's

[1:31:40] difficult speaking to the mic.

[1:31:41] >> Oh, speaking to the mic. Okay. Yeah.

[1:31:43] It's not uh exactly easy to u go about

[1:31:46] the whole process of staff oversight and

[1:31:48] staff review is a very complicated

[1:31:50] matter at this time. Um here recently in

[1:31:54] the let's just basically put the cards

[1:31:56] on the table here. I feel it's very

[1:31:58] important for us to do that. We've had a

[1:32:00] number of issues um with regards to the

[1:32:04] very aggressive effort that Danvers has

[1:32:07] been made been making and continuing to

[1:32:09] make to diversify, bring people from

[1:32:12] different backgrounds and different

[1:32:13] experiences into the professional um

[1:32:17] sector here in Danvers. This is a

[1:32:19] relatively new phenomenon and it is not

[1:32:22] something that we walk into with

[1:32:25] complete expertise on every dimension of

[1:32:28] that task being done. Um I think that

[1:32:33] this review reflects the fact that this

[1:32:35] is an ongoing effort that we are working

[1:32:38] on in DNA. Sometimes things have worked

[1:32:41] out perfectly and sometimes there have

[1:32:43] been tensions and we deal with the

[1:32:45] aftermath of those tensions that this

[1:32:48] review in my opinion reflects that. Um

[1:32:50] we all collectively need to u work on

[1:32:55] better understanding how we as a as a as

[1:32:58] a organization can reflect the society

[1:33:02] of which we're all a part and I think

[1:33:04] that this review reflects that as well.

[1:33:07] I think that the the the variable that

[1:33:09] says that this is an issue that we need

[1:33:12] continuing work needs to be done,

[1:33:14] continuing training needs to be done,

[1:33:16] continuing effort needs to be done,

[1:33:18] that's reflected in this review in my

[1:33:20] personal opinion. Um so um I I think

[1:33:23] that um relative to the ongoing concern

[1:33:27] that folks have about this issue, myself

[1:33:29] included, um I think that we just

[1:33:32] continue have to continue to work at

[1:33:35] that with with the clear understanding

[1:33:38] that if there's an issue around

[1:33:43] what what the around the variables that

[1:33:46] caused the concern with this evaluation

[1:33:48] in the first place. If there are

[1:33:50] continuing concerns about that, the

[1:33:53] answer to that is not to not not to

[1:33:56] recommmit ourselves to the fact that we

[1:33:58] want to diversify our staff in all the

[1:34:01] dimensions that are possible and that we

[1:34:03] want to be able to have the skills and

[1:34:04] resources and support for that to

[1:34:06] happen. And so I think that um again as

[1:34:09] I looked at the variables that were in

[1:34:12] section four, section seven, section 8,

[1:34:16] uh section 14, all of those point to

[1:34:19] issues that say that this organization,

[1:34:22] our director is taking seriously the

[1:34:25] concerns that have been raised about the

[1:34:27] tensions that have raised around

[1:34:29] personnel issues at the library. We

[1:34:31] can't go into the details of that today

[1:34:33] for the very reasons that we just heard

[1:34:35] a minute ago. Um however I think um

[1:34:39] what what does need to happen Mr.

[1:34:42] chairman is that um more individual

[1:34:45] conversations need to happen in the year

[1:34:48] ahead

[1:34:49] >> with regards to these variables about

[1:34:51] what are the inputs, supports, advice,

[1:34:55] counsel, suggestions, uh experiential um

[1:35:01] background variables that might be

[1:35:02] helpful for us to grow and to further

[1:35:05] develop as an organization can possibly

[1:35:09] happen by talking with all the people at

[1:35:11] the

[1:35:11] There's brilliant people at this table.

[1:35:14] I've sat here a long time and I know

[1:35:17] that there are people sitting at this

[1:35:19] table who have lots of insights, lots of

[1:35:21] experience and and very clear opinions

[1:35:23] about this stuff. And I think

[1:35:25] collectively when we share our thoughts

[1:35:27] together, we're only going to come out a

[1:35:29] stronger, more effective organization.

[1:35:31] But as far as we're going, I think the

[1:35:33] world has killed ourselves trying to do

[1:35:35] a great job at this. It's not easy to do

[1:35:37] this. It's uh it's difficult. Uh

[1:35:40] sometimes you And then sometimes you

[1:35:41] lose and the the consequences are what

[1:35:44] they are. But we have to go on.

[1:35:46] >> Thank you, Charles. Ken,

[1:35:53] » that was great. That was

[1:35:53] >> no notes.

[1:35:56] >> Uh but that was great. But thank you,

[1:35:57] Charles. And I, you know, I think that,

[1:35:59] um, just, you know, sort of as coming in

[1:36:01] as chair, I would also personally like

[1:36:04] to have a robust discussion about what

[1:36:05] the evaluation process looks like

[1:36:07] because I do think it's important that

[1:36:09] we all feel like we have input in the

[1:36:10] process and that we feel like it's as

[1:36:12] open and transparent as possible within

[1:36:14] the constraints that we have. So, I do

[1:36:16] think, like I said, I don't think we're

[1:36:17] going to hash this out tonight, but I

[1:36:18] think that's a worthy discussion. Um,

[1:36:21] you know, when we reconvene in the fall.

[1:36:23] Um and the time to do it is now so that

[1:36:25] when the next evaluation cycle comes

[1:36:27] through we can be proactive um and again

[1:36:30] make sure that everyone has that that

[1:36:31] input um you know throughout the

[1:36:34] process. Um and again that could look at

[1:36:36] what the evaluation looks like but it

[1:36:38] might you know it might also be other

[1:36:40] things that we want added to the

[1:36:41] evaluation etc. So I think it's a it's a

[1:36:43] good discussion to have.

[1:36:44] >> Um

[1:36:45] >> so any other um anything to add on?

[1:36:49] >> Do we have to vote to accept it or

[1:36:51] >> Yeah. Do that's a good question. We have

[1:36:52] to vote to accept the evaluation or is

[1:36:54] it already been submitted to the town

[1:36:55] manager?

[1:36:56] >> It's already been you you submitted it

[1:36:58] already, right?

[1:36:59] >> Right.

[1:37:00] >> Did you sub you submitted it, right?

[1:37:02] >> No, because we

[1:37:03] >> Oh, because you were waiting to

[1:37:04] >> We're waiting to see what other people

[1:37:06] wanted to add if

[1:37:09] >> Okay. So, um so we will vote to submit

[1:37:13] the evaluation to the town manager. Um

[1:37:16] so, do I have a motion to submit the

[1:37:18] evaluation?

[1:37:20] >> Second.

[1:37:20] >> Okay.

[1:37:20] I'm sorry. Who did the first?

[1:37:22] >> Mike.

[1:37:23] >> Me.

[1:37:24] >> And Donna, you did the second.

[1:37:26] >> Ellen.

[1:37:28] >> Um, any any further discussion?

[1:37:33] >> Okay. Okay. Um, so all um all in favor

[1:37:37] of submitting the evaluation as written

[1:37:39] to the town managers?

[1:37:40] >> I I.

[1:37:41] >> Any opposed?

[1:37:43] >> Nope.

[1:37:43] >> Okay.

[1:37:44] >> All right. And I'll just make the note

[1:37:46] um when I did talk to I'm trying to

[1:37:49] remember when I talked to them the town

[1:37:50] manager and the finance director um they

[1:37:53] did suggest moving the evaluation to

[1:37:56] January uh because the um that's

[1:38:00] basically when we start doing all the

[1:38:02] budgeting right so like if if we do want

[1:38:03] to do if we not you all want to do

[1:38:07] something like you know give me a raise

[1:38:08] or something like that if this money is

[1:38:10] going to be different um then like that

[1:38:13] the very beginning of the year is when

[1:38:15] to do it so that they can make it part

[1:38:17] of the budget season. So just putting

[1:38:19] that in your little calendars.

[1:38:21] >> Yes. Because we were told to do it now

[1:38:23] and turns out that was bad information.

[1:38:25] >> Oh, you want

[1:38:27] >> Okay.

[1:38:27] >> Oh yeah. So

[1:38:30] the evaluations are now

[1:38:34] >> Yeah, we'll collect those back.

[1:38:35] >> Um any new business before we

[1:38:39] >> adjourn? Can I get a motion to adjourn?

[1:38:43] Ellen, can I have a second?

[1:38:45] >> Okay, Campbell second.

[1:38:46] >> I'm sorry. Ellen and who was

[1:38:48] >> Ken.

[1:38:49] >> And can you tell me what time it is?

[1:38:51] >> 8:29.

[1:38:53] >> I'm sorry, what?

[1:38:53] >> 82.

[1:38:54] >> 829.

[1:38:55] >> All those in favor of adjourning?

[1:38:57] >> I.

[1:38:58] >> Any opposed? You're

Peabody Institute Library of Danvers Trustees Meeting: 6/10/26

Transcript