[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