[0:08] Good evening. I'd like to call to order the meeting of the town council workshop meeting July 27, 2026. First order of business is planning and community economic development status report. We do not have one of those. No unfinished business. Why my voice sounds weird, doesn't it?

[0:34] New Business Council Award of the Edith Dyer Library Paving Contract to Hopkins Paving in the amount of $21,000.

[0:42] public comment.

[0:45] Go ahead.

[1:03] Just an observation. I was surprised two firms about the

[1:07] same scope and that regularly worked for the town and difference was 130% in

[1:12] between the two bids.

[1:16] So I was just curious is Hopkins already paving

[1:21] Avalon Village or what was that? Hopkins is the company that got good for our

[1:27] general paving around town. We had gotten the original quote from Wellman in

[1:34] order to form the budget when we were talking about paving the library

[1:39] so we did reach back out to them and ask for an update of quote and got the

[1:44] same amount.

[1:48] Anybody else?

[1:50] Paula, is there a difference in the quote, some detail we don't understand, like the thickness

[1:59] of the tarage, two inches in one situation and three inches in the other or something

[2:05] that's obvious for those of us who don't do paving there?

[2:10] No, they would have been given the same specs that they needed two millimeters or 12 millimeters

[2:17] or whatever that measurement is, I think it's more about the fact that Hopkins

[2:23] already has our paving bid and they were able to just piggyback the library on.

[2:35] I guess we've started council discussion.

[2:38] Anybody else?

[2:51] No, it was just John asked for quotes.

[2:57] Right.

[2:57] Is that normal procedure, or would this normally go out for?

[3:03] Well, we would have normally just added it to our paving bed, it would have been added.

[3:07] It would have been an added scope to the paving bid that already went out that you guys

[3:12] already awarded.

[3:13] So there might have been one less road that we did in town or whatever, however we worked

[3:19] that, but we had asked to during the budget process set aside 50,000 into library reserve

[3:26] for that.

[3:27] And so John was just trying to qualify what we had gone for a quote back then and what Hopkins

[3:33] would give us.

[3:34] Right.

[3:35] Right.

[3:35] I mean, I'm thrilled that it's so much less, and I just wanted to make sure that, you know,

[3:44] like one competitor isn't seeing the bit of the other person, and then, you know, then

[3:49] undercutting it or anything like that, okay.

[3:55] For clarification purposes, this, the library road, if you will, is it technically a road

[4:03] Is it more or less a long parking lot?

[4:05] Is it?

[4:07] It's more a parking lot slash driveway.

[4:10] Drive way.

[4:11] Yeah.

[4:11] Okay.

[4:12] Thank you.

[4:17] Happy to support the process and the result.

[4:20] I think we're fortunate.

[4:21] Yes.

[4:27] Thank you.

[4:29] New Business B Council.

[4:31] This is a discussion of Council authorization of an amount not to exceed $21,000 from library

[4:36] reserve.

[4:36] of 3-763-00 to pay Hopkins Paving to complete the Paving

[4:43] work at the ETA Tire Library.

[4:47] Public comment.

[4:50] Council of discussion, go ahead, go ahead, please.

[4:56] I'm sorry, I thought we was pointing to.

[4:58] I just wanted to, you know, we kind of all lumped it all

[5:01] together in the last discussion when we were talking

[5:05] about the pricing.

[5:06] But the point of this particular item

[5:11] would be just to remind everyone that we had set aside funds in the budget or the

[5:16] paving at the library.

[5:22] As far as the remaining funds, there would be 29,000 left over from

[5:31] the 50 that we set aside, is that going to just hang out and sit in limbo and the

[5:36] library reserve until we need paving again? Is that going to get reverted back to

[5:42] something or the designation be changed or what does that work?

[5:46] It will stay in library reserve if we needed to do some other type of small paving or sidewalk

[5:54] work or something. I'm not sure. We would try to allocate it for that. If a certain amount

[5:59] of time has gone by and we haven't used it for a paving project, we would unencumber it

[6:06] and make those funds available for any other project. But the funds would stay in reserve.

[6:12] or they would not roll into the general fund.

[6:15] That's right.

[6:16] Thank you.

[6:18] Anybody else?

[6:23] Good.

[6:25] Very good.

[6:29] Item C, Council discussion and proposed amendments

[6:31] to the town of Hamden Solid Waste Flow Control

[6:34] and Licensing Ordinance, public comment.

[7:00] Oh, it says push, huh?

[7:02] In English.

[7:08] My question is, and I don't know if you can even answer it

[7:13] because last week you went into an executive session

[7:16] over this thing. So how are we the public supposed to know anything about what went on

[7:25] in order to make a comment? We should be knowing the public should know what's going on

[7:32] instead of going into executive session.

[7:37] Oh,

[7:39] this is something different. This has to do

[7:42] with the transfer station no this is an ordinance that we adopted in I think we

[7:51] rewrote it 2018 I'm not exactly sure now 2017 which dictates where solid

[8:01] ways that is generated in the town of Hamden has to be delivered to so by

[8:08] By state law, we're allowed to direct where the trash from Hamden goes.

[8:14] And as members of the plant, the Iberite slash coastal slash now it's municipal waste

[8:21] solutions.

[8:23] We are a member, we're one of the 150 members of that, that is the chosen facility to accept

[8:30] our trash.

[8:31] Okay so thank you but it would have been nice to have that discussion between the council

[8:38] first instead of putting it out to public comments, because the public, like myself, had no

[8:44] idea.

[8:45] So until now.

[8:47] All right thank you.

[8:48] Thank you.

[8:58] Council discussion.

[9:00] I'd like to start, if the public's done,

[9:05] I'd like to start and ask this.

[9:07] This is the first time we've seen a red line version I heard you talk about before.

[9:13] Does this last, several sentences of your memo hold true, it should be noted that the

[9:20] substance of the ordinance is not being amended, the changes are mostly in merely to reflect

[9:24] the sequence of the facilities from the time that I know you know what it says because you

[9:30] wrote it.

[9:31] But from the time that he was leaving Perck and signed with the joint agreement with the

[9:34] right until now. So this red line version is basically just changing the names.

[9:41] Correct. And changing, you know, there's a few grammatical corrections on that sort of thing

[9:49] but also tenses, you know, like when the ordinance was written there were, there was language in there

[9:55] that stated that the coastal facility or the fiber-right facility will be constructed. And so that has

[10:03] has been put into past tense, the facility has been constructed or was constructed.

[10:08] I can't recall exactly how it's worded, but it's just very base corrections, and of course

[10:15] PERC is not in existence anymore, and coastal fiberite has gone through three different names,

[10:21] so those changes are being reflected in the amendments that are proposed.

[10:29] So that sentence that memo holds true that it's basically just changing, changing words and it's not changing the agreement any?

[10:38] No.

[10:39] Okay, thank you. Eric, do you look like you have something you want to say?

[10:42] Well, no, I see what you're going and it was our conclusion that really there's no substantive changes that it's really more the grammatical errors and the renaming that would have been required based on the existing agreements and names of the companies.

[10:58] So, I do think it truly is there's no substantive changes that we need to be concerned about.

[11:03] Mark, I read the non-red line one and I just saw this one tonight.

[11:09] So, I just wanted to make sure I didn't have a chance to look at it and see how much it had been changed.

[11:13] So, I was just checking on that.

[11:14] Well, I think let me address that.

[11:18] I think the reason we had the red line version is it was inadvertently excluded from our packet.

[11:24] Yeah, and so had we had it then I don't think there would have been any confusion at all, but I can see where

[11:30] Where it is a little bit confusing because we got one that wasn't red line and now we got one that is red line

[11:34] So at least it gives the impression perhaps that maybe we're saying changes that we didn't see before but that that's truly not the cave

[11:41] That's that's all I'm asking. I just didn't get a chance to read it before the meeting so go ahead, please

[11:54] I just wanted to also just remind everyone that this is going to a public hearing because

[12:01] it's an ordinance.

[12:02] So we can't make changes until it goes to public hearing.

[12:04] So there will be another night at which we could discuss any questions you might have.

[12:10] Right. So my point was, I read through this, it looks all fine. It was a quick, quick

[12:20] read, but I saw the medical errors that were done. I thought that was fine. The only

[12:26] question is that it seems very specific and I was just wondering, do ordinances have to

[12:34] to be written with specific, let's say, vendors put in there,

[12:40] or can they be written more generally

[12:42] so that we don't have to rewrite it

[12:44] when we have another change?

[12:49] I think normally you can try to write something

[12:52] as generally as possible so that it's more global.

[12:56] At the time this was written originally,

[12:59] We were in the process of signing the jointer agreement with Fibery and there were legal

[13:12] requirements that we had to meet in order to be a joining member and the flow control

[13:17] ordinance that we had back then was very, very outdated.

[13:21] So our attorney wrote this ordinance.

[13:24] He wrote the entire thing.

[13:26] That was not done by town staff.

[13:28] It was a repeal and a replace of the original ordinance, so he put it in there.

[13:35] So I left it in there and as a matter of fact this came up because this whole idea that

[13:41] it needed to be amended came up when we were notified of the plant that there was a

[13:47] local hauler that was not delivering generated municipal solid waste from Hamden to the

[13:56] plant, they were taking it to another facility because they could get a better rate and it

[14:03] goes against our ordinance.

[14:05] And so when that came to my attention along with Bangor, Brewer, and Orno, where all flow

[14:13] control communities, I sent it to the town's attorney again.

[14:19] And I said, do any of these name changes negate our rights under the ordinance, you know,

[14:25] the subsequent names of all those facilities and he said no, but we'll clean it up and he actually

[14:32] gave me the language to use. Okay. So.

[14:45] Exciting. Do you counsel review and update of town council

[14:52] of Rules of Procedure referred from the July 13th, 2026 Council Worship workshop, excuse

[14:59] me.

[15:00] Public comment?

[15:09] Terry McVoy, 103, carry drive. In, I think I saw this in the rules and procedures where anybody can request that an item be put before the town council simply by requesting it. Did I read that correctly? Does that also apply for these workshops?

[15:36] How do I go about asking to have something that

[15:39] to the agenda for that for this.

[15:42] I believe that is for workshops.

[15:46] I mean, I'm looking right now.

[15:52] It's under section six.

[16:04] That could be wrong.

[16:16] Mr. Vice Chair, I think we brought up

[16:20] an interesting inadvertent elimination

[16:23] because you are right under section 3.2.

[16:26] Any subject may be placed on the agenda

[16:28] and it does specifically say council meeting.

[16:32] And I don't think that was ever the intent.

[16:33] So I think one of this, I'm going to write down that suggestion that quite frankly I think the same the same rules that apply to putting an agenda item in the council meeting should be available on a for the workshops as well, I would agree with that so my reading of it is that's probably an inadvertent slip, but I think you're absolutely right and pointing that up.

[16:54] I appreciate that because that aligns with my opinion that this is not a council meeting.

[17:00] So I'll make sure and I don't know who's going to be tracking the changes but I'll make sure that gets in.

[17:08] Thank you for consideration.

[17:10] One other issue is I don't recall seeing anything in the rules or the procedures or policy or anything like that.

[17:20] regarding councilor of communication with their constituents.

[17:28] One of the reasons I'm here tonight is because I sent my town councilor,

[17:35] Cumberley, three emails in the last four or five weeks and got zero response.

[17:41] Now, they were either ignored or I guess we can blame it on IT and

[17:47] saying that these, you know, just didn't show up. That was why I was asking for, you

[17:53] know, the boy at the other day. But I would rather ask you directly, did you get my emails?

[18:01] I responded to you today, did you read my response?

[18:05] I responded. Oh, you responded today.

[18:08] I responded why? I didn't respond before. Okay. I give you an explanation why. And pull

[18:15] I can confirm the fact that I was not attending the meeting on July 13.

[18:20] Can you explain the gentleman?

[18:22] I'm not, excuse me, I don't care why you were here.

[18:25] That's not the point.

[18:26] No, but you, in your email, you also accused me of not being professional because I was

[18:33] not attending that meeting, so this is why I'm asking Polar to explain why I couldn't attend

[18:38] the meeting remotely, because I was not in the country, I was abroad.

[18:42] Can you explain the gentleman why?

[18:44] So, Councillor Cumberley did try to remote in, even though she was in Paris and it was

[18:52] midnight, she was trying to remote in, but our system was not letting her in.

[18:56] That was a legitimate, verifiable IT issue that was not Councillor Cumberley's fault.

[19:04] She contacted me, the town clerk and Canisco, however, Jen Headart and Jen Headart had gone

[19:11] home. I was in the meeting and Kanishkodin, he didn't get the message because she didn't

[19:17] have his direct phone number. So she was trying to access the meeting and I think prior

[19:23] to that, I think the emails that you had sent to her, you spelled her name wrong.

[19:29] Right, in the beginning. Yes, weeks and weeks and weeks ago, and I

[19:33] corrected that. Yeah, so that's all I know. Okay, but I do know, I can verify that

[19:40] Councillor Coberley was trying to access the meeting?

[19:43] I appreciate that. That doesn't answer my question about the e-mails. And if you did respond

[19:48] to me, if you did send me one, I checked my e-mail at 4 o'clock this afternoon and there

[19:54] was nothing there. So maybe it was after I left. I don't know. I'll go back in a little.

[19:59] All of your worries are responded today.

[20:03] It was at 405 p.m. Okay. So it was after I looked.

[20:08] But Terry, also, as I know you've been a Councillor on the past, we have three Councillors at large too, so if you have any question you can call me, you know that anyways.

[20:21] No, I do know that, and I appreciate that, however, I would prefer that my Councillor be responsive, you know, then at large, that's why you're there, so I appreciate it.

[20:36] Thank you to Paul did you did you had your hand up before you you all said

[20:43] Anybody else anything?

[20:47] Well, they're still public. Is it still public? It is yes. I'm sorry. Go ahead

[20:55] Please totally

[20:59] got thrown for a loop Ron.

[21:06] Hi, do you summer street?

[21:07] Not questions, but we just observations I had four observations on this one which actually

[21:13] Another example came up tonight

[21:16] Under the Article 3 agenda, normally we have the public comment listed first, and I know a couple of times on fairly complex issues, and I know the council has modified this.

[21:30] We've taken the public comment period after a council discussion just so that people can make informed comments.

[21:35] So I don't know, is there flexibility in these rules to be able to, depending on sort of the tenor of the room to move the public comment period,

[21:44] either before or after council discussion on a topic, like Al stood up today.

[21:50] So I was like, I'll tell you why I didn't, I didn't change it.

[21:54] I haven't changed anything tonight is because this is a, this is just a, I assume you've read that you've, you've obviously read this.

[22:02] So you should you I would think that you'd have your comments ready to and and and if we if we do

[22:11] Public we do council discussion and then public comment afterwards

[22:15] We typically get more public comment based on the council discussion and we have to go back and forth on that

[22:21] So if as far as I'm as long as I'm doing this

[22:26] So I think this flexibility is I

[22:29] I could go with the rest of the council.

[22:31] And it seems like that's been the case in the meetings that I've been at.

[22:34] We've jumped them around and that's great.

[22:36] So second comment was on the executive session.

[22:40] And this came up just another week there with Councillor Jarvey.

[22:45] I know we had a discussion afterward about so a couple of councilors missed an executive session

[22:50] and couldn't talk about it in the public session and they didn't really have,

[22:55] feel like they had enough information to vote on something.

[22:57] And so, we kind of talked informally about can you call an executive session out of sequence

[23:03] out of agenda to kind of clarify with counselors who may have been absent from my previous executive

[23:10] session.

[23:11] And I think that's a great idea and we should try to keep that flexibility, but I don't

[23:15] know what Robert's rules allow us or what the council allows.

[23:18] But I assume that that item there on item, what is it, it's like J under Section 3,

[23:28] is that put in there specifically to allow that flexibility?

[23:32] We're trying to allow for the fact that the agenda can be modified to move an agenda item

[23:38] where it's more appropriate.

[23:39] Right.

[23:40] And what we face at that particular point is the agenda had already been improved

[23:44] with where the executive session was and we recognize the short coming in that and are

[23:50] trying to provide for the possibility that we need to make exceptions to that.

[23:55] Yes.

[23:56] And you had mentioned that there might be some obscure rule or something that would allow

[23:59] to revisit that halfway through the agenda to schedule an exact assessment.

[24:04] Correct.

[24:04] That's great.

[24:06] And for example, I might also respond to that.

[24:11] For example, there have been times where we've had the town attorney here, so we'll have an executive session at the beginning of the meeting to allow for him to travel back, same thing with town staff, so we don't make them sit through until the end for the purpose of an executive session.

[24:31] The third one pertains to, excuse me, Ryan I just wanted to, I think would be what you're

[24:39] getting at, sometimes like if you're in a court session and the judge notices that

[24:48] something's out of whack and he needs to talk to both lawyers, he'll stop the proceedings

[24:54] and ask council to come to the bench to have a private discussion,

[25:01] church, mist, and so forth.

[25:03] So it's essentially like an executive session.

[25:07] And so what I'm understanding is saying,

[25:10] which I think is an interesting idea

[25:12] if we get into a situation like we had at our last meeting,

[25:18] couldn't we buy boat of council stock?

[25:22] And amend the agenda and say we like to go into the executive session so to bring up the rest of the council members that are present up to speed on what we're talking about, come out of the executive session and then carry carry on.

[25:40] So that's my understanding of what you were.

[25:42] That's exactly what I'm saying.

[25:43] Okay.

[25:46] And, you know, I may have led to a different unanimous vote,

[25:50] or maybe it wouldn't have been any difference, but it would have,

[25:52] at least everybody could feel like they had the same information

[25:54] on the kind of concept.

[25:56] Well, I would suggest that when we review section 6.5,

[26:00] refresh my memory on that, because right now that would not be a permitted

[26:04] under our current rules or procedure, that would not be a permitted motion.

[26:08] But I see what you're going, and I think it makes sense in light of what we've

[26:12] heard here is to allow for that as a permitted motion because what's

[26:17] happening is you're interrupting a motion already on the floor and so what

[26:21] what are the permissible things and Roberts rules governs what is not

[26:26] defined in our rules of procedure so if we agree our in agreement to put

[26:30] something in our rules of procedure that would account for something like this

[26:35] then it is something we could act on certainly out of out of order as long as it

[26:39] is defined in section 6.5.

[26:41] Okay.

[26:44] Can I ask a question?

[26:46] Paula is executive sessions.

[26:50] Do they have to be announced in the,

[26:57] I'm wanting to call it the minutes,

[27:00] but the agenda, so thank you.

[27:03] Do they have to be announced in the agenda ahead of time

[27:06] so that we can proceed on it?

[27:08] Because Ron, you were noting, can we just go back into executive session and I was taking

[27:15] that as being from a previous meeting or whatever, is that are there rules on that or are

[27:23] we starting to trample on the timeline of things?

[27:28] I think in hand in because you have rules of procedure outline how you run your meetings

[27:35] and workshops and because you clearly delineate Robert's rules of order as you're guiding

[27:45] procedure type manual I think you would have to follow what your rules say. Now I've

[27:51] worked in other towns where they didn't have such a detailed rules of procedure and a

[27:59] Councilor or Sletman could call an executive session at any time during the

[28:04] meeting if they needed to to discuss something. So it but you guys are very

[28:12] guided by your rules of procedure. I will say this when we get the section 6.5

[28:20] it can't be called executive session because state statute dictates what an

[28:23] executive session is. So we're going to have to probably toy with the language a

[28:28] a little bit and stay away from an executive session

[28:31] because correct me if I'm wrong, Paula,

[28:33] but I think that is mandated by state statute.

[28:36] So when we get there, we'll have to tweak the language

[28:39] a little bit.

[28:40] We can't call it an executive session

[28:42] as where I'm going with that.

[28:43] Thank you.

[28:45] I've written a few notes too.

[28:47] And if maybe what solves this whole thing

[28:50] is you don't have an executive session without seven counselors

[28:53] if you're going to have to revisit what people that missed.

[28:57] You know what I mean?

[28:58] Like it feels like you're just backpedaling.

[29:00] For counselors were in attendance and made a decision

[29:04] to move something forward.

[29:06] But I feel like it's in some ways.

[29:10] And I don't mean this to be insulting,

[29:11] but it's being kind of revisited what was the point

[29:16] of having that executive session

[29:17] with those four counselors in the first place.

[29:19] Yes.

[29:22] Do you want to address him?

[29:26] If you want to put up with this just for a second.

[29:29] No.

[29:31] Gettling, John, you can't go back into an executive session.

[29:35] Just clarify that.

[29:37] That was my point in bringing that up.

[29:39] Right.

[29:39] I thought that was being suggested by Ron and we were starting to walk down that and I wanted

[29:47] the RFI, whether or not that was possible.

[29:51] The other thing I just want to share with you, because it's on my mind, is we all have

[29:57] responsibility to balance.

[30:02] What's appropriate for what we're calling an executive session versus not losing our responsibility

[30:09] and obligation to keep the public informed. So, I want to be cautious about these discussions

[30:15] where, you know, I don't want anyone to walk away from this thinking, well, they're thinking

[30:20] if things get a little contentious, they just call an executive session, clear the room

[30:23] and figure it out. We need to be doing just the opposite. If we're going to have disagreements

[30:29] about things and bring different facts here, they need to be done out in the open.

[30:33] Absolutely.

[30:34] I know no one was advocating for that, but I actually agree with that.

[30:39] It could be where this conversation was drifting, and I didn't want to go there.

[30:43] That's all.

[30:44] And let me be clear.

[30:45] I was advocating for higher flexibility.

[30:48] I just saw that issue at the last workshop, I guess it was, or it comes from me, and didn't

[30:54] know if there was an easy way out to resolve that and bring everybody up to speed that

[30:58] that felt like they needed to be up to speed.

[31:00] So if it's too complicated for that, then great.

[31:03] We did just going to have to get over it.

[31:06] The third one was this, where am I, F, Roman numeral I

[31:13] under section 3.7.

[31:15] And I think this is great.

[31:17] I just don't not really sure how it works.

[31:20] Council deliberation, a council member may yield to comments

[31:22] from the floor where additional information slash expertise

[31:25] may be relevant to the deliberations.

[31:26] So are we talking about an outside of a normal public comment period that we're going

[31:34] to engage in a discussion from the floor?

[31:36] I think that's great.

[31:37] I didn't know if you really want to entertain that or what.

[31:41] Do you see that as a workable?

[31:45] I think one of the reasons that is included is that very reason.

[31:50] We realize that in holding public comments before discussion that oftentimes

[31:55] oftentimes, particularly if ultimately we want to limit the amount of that original discussion that there's times where we need to essentially go back out to the public and ask for their expertise or input and we've never really provided for that Robert's rules does provide an opportunity to yield the floor council member can yield the floor and so it was my intent and at least suggesting that to make it an explicit part of our rules procedure.

[32:25] That when it's pretty apparent that we need to get some more information from the public, we now have an avenue to do that

[32:31] Okay, I applaud that that's great. Um, and then the final

[32:38] Yes

[32:52] Article 7 6.1

[32:55] Council members may serve no more than two consecutive full terms. I've never been a fan of term limits

[33:01] I'd rather vote somebody out who wasn't doing their job. Is there a reason?

[33:04] It was asked for by the public to at least discuss it.

[33:08] That's the only reason it's in there right now.

[33:10] The public has asked would you at least discuss this

[33:14] as a council, so I included it has another agenda item

[33:18] because it was asked after the meeting, by the way.

[33:21] It was not part of this meeting,

[33:23] but at least three people from the Hampton community

[33:26] says have you ever discussed that?

[33:28] I reached out to our town manager

[33:30] and she's not aware of any such thing

[33:33] in other communities, but again, because the public

[33:36] had asked for it, I thought it was worth a discussion.

[33:38] I'm not a big fan of it.

[33:40] Well, I think there's, I understand where you're going,

[33:44] but that's why it's in there.

[33:46] Great, thank you very much.

[33:48] Thank you.

[33:50] Thank you, Ross.

[33:52] Yep, go ahead.

[34:00] Linda Fallon for 205 in Monroe Road.

[34:04] This is interesting, but it would be better if it does.

[34:08] I do know that this documentation is verbiage online to read, and I did go through this information,

[34:14] but it would be more beneficial to the public if this was discussed among the counsel,

[34:20] prior to the public comment, and also, unless you want to do the public comment,

[34:25] and then have a comment afterwards, because sometimes the discussion brings up actual items

[34:29] that you need to address.

[34:31] There was something on, I think it is Article 3, said something about the limited time

[34:36] Delimited time for the individuals or public to speak. I think it's three minutes. I don't know why we should not have that go to five minutes and set a three.

[34:45] And the other comment I had was they said stated that comments while they are noted will not be answered at that meeting.

[34:55] Is there a time that something that is brought up at the meeting would be answered or how would you get an answer to any question you have what it have to go through an email.

[35:03] I mean, that would be the only way you would get a response

[35:06] and wouldn't be from the council at any time.

[35:09] Workshop or at the council meeting.

[35:13] Are my doesn't have to address that, too.

[35:16] Well, I think this is very timely.

[35:19] I mean, this is the first thing I was gonna bring up

[35:22] during council comments, but since Ron,

[35:25] we just were answering Ron's questions

[35:27] but we're not supposed to do underneath.

[35:30] This is written.

[35:31] But unfortunately, when people come to speak publicly,

[35:33] They want to know these answers and they don't get them I totally agree so I I'm going to address this further

[35:39] I think during council comments very good

[35:41] I

[35:44] I'll touch on a couple of those things like the the public comment portion of a town council meeting

[35:53] Mm-hmm is I think different than

[35:56] Public comments on these workshop agenda items such as tonight. That's why

[36:02] You can take something off topic at that time, right?

[36:05] In a council meeting.

[36:07] Yes, in a council meeting.

[36:09] Not on the agenda.

[36:10] But do you actually get a response?

[36:12] Typically, no, not during a meeting.

[36:15] It would be like, you could come in and say,

[36:18] I notice the stop sign is missing at the end of the Monroe Road.

[36:21] And it'd be okay, thank you for bringing that

[36:23] to our attention.

[36:24] But to have an actual question.

[36:26] As far as a discussion.

[36:27] Did you like to submit to the council?

[36:29] You'd actually have to do it through the council's

[36:32] per person on your personal email

[36:34] or their email to the council.

[36:38] I think typically if something like that were to happen,

[36:41] then either myself or the chair or vice chair

[36:44] would say to me after the meeting,

[36:47] can you get an answer to that question?

[36:51] And then it would be responded to.

[36:54] But no people ask it.

[36:56] The reason public comment is typically not

[36:59] not a back-and-forth exchange is because you're bringing up something that's not agenda.

[37:06] So the rest of the public has no notice of what that discussion is.

[37:11] And so they've been disenfranchised from the right to be here to hear that discussion.

[37:18] So if it was something that you really was really in depth, then it would need to come back

[37:23] can be put on an agenda to be discussed at a noticed,

[37:27] properly noticed meeting.

[37:29] If it was in depth, but if it was just a question,

[37:32] a general question, I would think

[37:34] that the public would also like to know.

[37:36] The same principle applies, though,

[37:38] because what is, that's subjective,

[37:41] what you consider simple and what might be a little bit more

[37:45] in depth because maybe there's more to it.

[37:47] OK, so.

[37:49] All right, thank you very much.

[37:50] Thank you.

[37:51] anybody else?

[37:58] Okay. Now, let's have council discussion.

[38:03] You sure can. So yeah, I think this, I think Linda's and Ron's comments are

[38:09] a point of order before we just globally jump into this. This is a pretty

[38:15] detailed involved document and I'm wondering rather than just globally jump

[38:20] to hit and miss because we've all got good points.

[38:24] Can we take this section by section?

[38:26] Yeah, it's my work down through it.

[38:29] I mean, I understand where we're going,

[38:31] but I'm fearful we're going to be bouncing back

[38:33] and forth across this document

[38:35] which is going to make note taking for me impossible

[38:39] and for Paula probably next to impossible.

[38:41] So I would just ask that we go, Mr. Vice Chair,

[38:44] if we could go a section by section.

[38:45] Sure, you seem to have authored this.

[38:49] So why don't you take what you want you leave the conversation?

[38:54] Well, if there's no objections from my colleagues, I don't I certainly don't mind leading it,

[39:00] but are we are we okay with that process?

[39:02] Yeah, I'll remember my comments.

[39:04] Okay, and your absence Dennis, we were we decide we're going to go section by section.

[39:09] Okay, are we done with public comments?

[39:11] Yeah, yeah, I think we are.

[39:14] Yeah, just just to be good point.

[39:18] Okay. Are there any suggestions from council relative to section 1.1

[39:27] basically is just

[39:29] defining when we start to do elections.

[39:36] That actually was changed probably three years

[39:40] ago because we used to do this in January instead of right after the elections and we realize

[39:46] that that created a, it's actually a lame duck period for those councilors who

[39:53] were outgoing and so we really re-elect the idea here was in changing that

[39:58] as to elect our leadership as soon after the election as possible.

[40:09] Section 1.2 is

[40:11] election of the vice chair.

[40:19] Section 1.3 generally governs how the chair and the

[40:24] vice chair so shall operate and deciding who wishes to speak and on motions and those

[40:30] kinds of things.

[40:36] Article 2, section 2.1 and Paula I just had a question here particularly

[40:44] relative to clerk and the Councillors will receive a copy. It seems to me I'm not sure this

[40:50] is so that's what that's about Paula and I guess you need to address that.

[40:54] So this is in charter that council shall act by order ordinance or resolve so this language echoes charter.

[41:05] But also every vote is a resolution and all your minutes are dated by date of the calendar year 2020.

[41:16] Oh no, we're on 2.1 now which is right.

[41:18] Okay. Yep. All right. So 2.2 is the forms of order. Right. But this is referring to it. Okay.

[41:28] Okay. So I'm sorry. That's okay. And it's referring to the should be dated numbered and signed by the town clerk.

[41:35] So your minutes are the resolutions in your in your minutes are dated 2026-01. Whatever vote number it is of the year.

[41:46] So it's dated and then the minutes are signed by the clerk typically.

[41:51] So it's a little bit loose, but I think the intent is there.

[41:56] You guys sign the council orders and then the clerk attests to them.

[42:01] So like every year, when we do our housekeeping measures about who signs a payroll

[42:05] want, whether or not we can pay certain vendors every week like Motor Vehicle and

[42:10] and state agencies. You guys sign the council orders. Now I don't believe the clerk has

[42:19] been sending a copy of all of those orders to every councilor, but we can certainly go back

[42:24] and-

[42:25] Well, and I guess that's the point in lieu of how they're documented. Does the language

[42:31] and the town councilors will receive a copy? Is that really necessary or is that in statute?

[42:38] I think the suggestion is there because of the way we can do things right now, the best approach might be consideration that it's all a matter of public record through the minutes and everything already, and it would just to implement that is just another task that the clerk would have to be, so that a specific suggestion is simply to strike the Councillors receiving the copy.

[43:05] I might... Mark Eric, I'm not sure who... Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry. It just says receive a copy.

[43:14] It doesn't say whether it's a written copy or electronic copy. So he might be reading

[43:19] too much into that my suggestion. Well, I suspected because of when this was originally

[43:27] that that was a hard copy. Yeah, but it doesn't say that. You're right, it doesn't say that.

[43:31] So, if we left it in there, then the electronic version would be suffice under there.

[43:37] So, I think there's reason to keep that language there.

[43:40] And I might suggest, rather than the word will, just leave it in, change the word will

[43:47] to may, and that would leave it, the ability to request it from the clerk, and I think cover

[44:00] both.

[44:02] Okay.

[44:02] Thank you.

[44:03] anything else on section 2.1 okay and then you've addressed 2.2 thank you all

[44:12] I is is there any other questions from counselors on what on 2.2 and that was

[44:18] just a clarification of why that has to be in there and I think you address

[44:22] that so that's gonna stay yes okay under agenda section 3.1 we're we're

[44:33] We're pretty detailed in our agenda for our council business meetings, after tonight I think we might have to add a section here on the development of the agenda for the workshops.

[44:47] But the biggest thing was a clarification of what public comments was about and this is just language that had been floated around or

[44:59] are either or

[45:02] I think our council chair does a good job of making it apparent that this section is provided for the members of the public to speak on items not covered on the agenda. It's not specific in our rules of procedure, and all I'm suggesting is maybe it should be. We are not very good about this. And given electronic media right now, I think we must insist that anybody speaking in the public states their name and address.

[45:29] Yes and sometimes we've been lax on that.

[45:33] There's a comment tonight about the time limit and I think that's where the discussion.

[45:40] I put three minutes in there primarily because that's what the school board used and I think

[45:45] at one point we had a discussion about three minutes but we really have never tightly controlled

[45:50] that in any fashion but related to that the comments need to be directed at the council chair

[45:59] and follow rules of decorum, and then this is just again how things should be done relative

[46:04] to receiving any comment and Councillor's interaction.

[46:10] Comments are a matter of public record, and questions from Council will not be answered

[46:15] at the meeting.

[46:15] There's been some question as to what we want to do with that tonight, so and then I think

[46:20] the other thing is whenever possible supplemental material should be provided, and I certainly

[46:27] Members of the public have utilized this to our advantage and provided us with detailed supplemental material materials.

[46:34] And I think that's very important that we allow that and encourage that on behalf of the public.

[46:40] So, again, I guess this is one of the things that I really wanted to have a discussion about.

[46:50] Not so much I needed to make a particular point.

[46:53] But I really feel that we're always trying to encourage the public to come to these meetings.

[47:01] We want public participation in there.

[47:04] I've stood in front of Council before and presented lengthy testimonies and

[47:10] handed out a page of what written testimony.

[47:15] and I think as Linda was saying earlier that there's some type of response, the public needs some type of response, and to say that we're not going to answer the question during the meeting, that may be because I understand why we want to do that because we want to limit time, but perhaps we can offer some type of comment after the meeting.

[47:44] perhaps we can, you know, provide some type of written comment

[47:49] after, you know, directly after the meeting.

[47:54] I'm not really sure what the best solution to that is,

[47:58] but I really feel that when somebody takes the trouble

[48:01] to come up and provide a testimony,

[48:04] and they're raising a number of questions

[48:05] that they deserve some type of response.

[48:08] Just as a point of clarification there,

[48:11] I appreciate all of what you just said, but as Paula clearly stated, the intention

[48:21] is not to necessarily limit time, but to afford other members of the public who weren't

[48:27] made aware previously if somebody stands up here and brings up a point to council, then

[48:34] And they aren't afforded that opportunity to have their two cents heard during county council discussion.

[48:41] Right, but the rest of the public will have plenty of time once the opinion or

[48:48] the answer is given to come back at subsequent meetings and offer a comment.

[48:57] I think different

[49:00] types of public comments can engender very different types of responses.

[49:07] I think it's hard to put all of these comments in one basket and assume we're going to be able to produce and I know no one's espousing this but it's going to be hard to produce a one-size-fits-all response.

[49:26] some a simple point of clarification might take care of things others, the person is going to be imploring the council to do something or act on something or asking to consider some piece of legislation.

[49:46] I don't think that during the public comments when we're hearing things extensively for the first time.

[49:55] that you're going to be able to commit to an answer at that point.

[50:02] I think it's supposed to be understood that we're going to hear it.

[50:06] We're going to try and understand that we're going to take it under consideration and

[50:11] we'll move it through our process, including whatever we can do at that point in time.

[50:15] But we're going to move it through our process going forward.

[50:19] it. But do you feel that the public, you know, after we move through our process, they

[50:26] still need to get some type of answer to that? Well, that may be a week or two weeks or

[50:34] a month down the road as we go through stuff. And hopefully our process is as part of doing

[50:42] I mean, what we have to do, need to do, want to do, we'll answer it.

[50:47] I mean, that's how I see it.

[50:49] Dennis?

[50:52] I'm in agreement with a lot of what John's saying.

[50:55] I don't want to add that a lot of this is speaking to the role of the chair, facilitating a meeting.

[51:03] And one of the binds you don't want to put anyone on the council end is to suddenly find,

[51:08] especially with hindsight the next day that they didn't have all the information to make a comment.

[51:13] They were out of line with three of their peers or whatever. So they're illegitimate reasons

[51:18] to not rush a town response to a question. Okay.

[51:27] The other thing I want to mention is two. I don't particularly care if it's three minutes or five.

[51:33] I think everybody knows we're trying to balance. We're trying to manage

[51:38] what can get out of hand at a very contentious meeting with too many people going on too long,

[51:44] versus giving people the time they may need to ask a question or make a presentation of information.

[51:51] And what I would suggest is back to the role of the Chair, I would support a Chair looking at the fellow

[51:57] Councillors in saying in this case, I'd like to award this person another five minutes.

[52:04] If we saw there was cause, we would agree with that.

[52:06] So that's another route that could be taken, the final thing I want to say because I hadn't

[52:13] thought about it until very recently was public needs to talk directly to the chair.

[52:22] I think the phrase in here is out of order otherwise and I just want to underline that for

[52:30] people to remember.

[52:31] Thank you very much.

[52:37] I also just want to remind you that the reason that we are hearing that we are discussed

[52:47] the flow control ordinance tonight is because the meeting that it was originally on, there

[52:53] was so much public comment that you didn't get to it and you asked to postpone it.

[52:58] So if you have excessive public comment on items that are not on the agenda already, you are going to potentially slow down the workings of what you already have in motion.

[53:14] So I just wanted to remind you of that.

[53:17] I think we've had some good discussion here, but I would also like to remind council that Paul, the town manager is a spokesperson for council.

[53:28] And I think one of the things that we probably need to do in revisiting this is essentially

[53:34] when we receive these questions is then task, town, staff, then with responding on behalf

[53:43] of the council to the public comments in a timely fashion once the, because I think the

[53:49] point is has been well brought up. Should we expect an answer? I think we agree. But the

[53:55] The individual council members, as we've talked about, are really not the spokesperson for neither the council or the town and should not be placed in a position to have to answer that directly.

[54:05] But I think it would be reasonable to expect us to ask town staff to respond to those questions once they have the information.

[54:13] So I think we'll look at rewriting that to perhaps indicate how we'll process questions from the public so that they can expect a response.

[54:23] I got to interject here, I think I understand what you're trying to say as far as a response, and in some questions from public that may be the appropriate avenue to take, but I feel like in reality, the chair of the council would be the spokesperson of the council.

[54:46] And if somebody stands up with a public comment to, say, their district representative,

[54:58] and then we don't respond as a council during that public comment, then maybe it would

[55:05] be incumbent on the chair and that particular district representative, whether it's 1, 2,

[55:11] for your for whoever is addressed by the public to formulate a response I'm

[55:20] going to disagree with that perspective respectfully okay public needs

[55:26] consistency and they need perspective and I think the primary role of the

[55:32] chairs to conduct a meeting first section or the presection 1.3 there are other

[55:37] responsibilities as well, but in conducting a good meeting, those answers will eventually

[55:46] come, but I don't think they should come that way, in my opinion.

[55:53] Just a little bit, yeah, I would agree with Dennis's comment and yours that Paul really

[56:00] should be the spoke spokesperson.

[56:03] I would just request that when the town provides the answer that the council has made

[56:12] aware of what that answer is, you know, maybe it's my oversight, but I know that some

[56:17] questions, some testimony and questions have come up and presented to us, and I'm not quite

[56:24] sure how they were ever resolved.

[56:27] So yeah, just so you get a note of what what actually was the answer would be great.

[56:33] And I suspect that one venue for that might be the town manager's report but we can we can

[56:40] address those kinds of things.

[56:41] Right.

[56:41] Going forward.

[56:42] Okay.

[56:43] Good good discussion.

[56:45] I have a comment.

[56:46] Back to the.

[56:48] And it can't wait.

[56:51] Sure.

[56:51] I don't know,

[56:58] actually, too, but the primary one is Paula is not my primary contact

[57:05] for information or responses from this town, from the town council or specifically my town

[57:12] councilor. I didn't elect her, no offense, but her opinion about anything really is irrelevant

[57:19] to me. What is important is my town councilor's opinion, their position.

[57:27] That's what's important to me.

[57:29] So if I ask a question to my town councilor or even

[57:33] to the council in general, I'm sure it'll be getting an answer

[57:37] from a town councilor.

[57:39] Now whether it's the chair or whoever volunteers to do it,

[57:43] but I expect an answer from my elected officials.

[57:46] Second one is just briefly, as far as people coming up here

[57:50] and identify themselves, we talked about this years and years ago,

[57:55] Well, I don't think it's a wise position to have somebody come up here and necessarily

[57:59] give their address.

[58:02] That's kind of an sanctioned doxing type of thing, especially if it's an opinion that

[58:07] is not widely supported elsewhere.

[58:12] So anyway, thank you.

[58:23] Any other comments on this section?

[58:26] Yeah.

[58:27] The three minutes.

[58:33] That's something that I, where I, I completely understand the reason for it.

[58:41] In a, in a venue where we are trying to invite people to come in to share their thoughts.

[58:48] If it's not clearly stated that they may be allowed more time at the discretion of the chair

[58:54] Maybe we should bump that to five minutes as to not

[59:00] Well the the notes I've taken were to amend that already. Okay, that it can be extended at the discretion of the chair meeting chair

[59:08] Okay, and that's what I said section D2

[59:13] name and address maybe

[59:15] the name and town of residents rather than physical address?

[59:23] Absolutely correct.

[59:25] And I think the way it's been done is your town of residents because we don't want people

[59:28] from Boston in here taking up our time.

[59:32] I think what people from where?

[59:36] Well, the fact that what address is absolute, we shouldn't be asking for the address.

[59:42] I absolutely agree with that.

[59:43] Thanks.

[59:43] That's a valiant, valiant, sincere thing.

[59:47] And that's been noted in the notes, okay?

[59:50] Anything else?

[59:54] Yeah, I'm sorry.

[59:56] I was thinking about Terry's and Paul's.

[1:00:00] Comments, you know, combined. And, you know, I, I agree that individual counselors, if

[1:00:10] they're asking a question, they should be responding to their constituents, but at the

[1:00:15] same time, we're not really speaking for the whole, our opinion is not speaking for

[1:00:20] the whole council. So, I'm, I'm just wondering, you know, just, you know, going forward, if

[1:00:26] There might be some type of hybrid or maybe just an understanding that let's say my opinion

[1:00:35] is this, but the rest of the council may be providing a slightly or completely different

[1:00:47] opinion.

[1:00:49] So I think it's a fair comment, but I can't speak for the rest of the council.

[1:00:58] I think you brought up a valid point.

[1:01:00] How long does that go?

[1:01:03] What do you mean?

[1:01:03] We sat here and received questions from the public that have extended on ad infinitum

[1:01:10] and then there's a risk of it becoming a back and forth between the member of the public

[1:01:15] and the council member, correct?

[1:01:19] That's why I ask that the public address the chair and not direct comments and councillors.

[1:01:25] I'm talking about the final answer that that the council gives to a particular question.

[1:01:32] Okay.

[1:01:32] So which may not be given at the meeting at all, so.

[1:01:36] Okay.

[1:01:36] All right.

[1:01:37] So there, so we do need to potentially debate and I would invite my council colleagues to

[1:01:44] supply language at any time.

[1:01:47] I'm more than happy to include it to help address some of these things because you've all brought

[1:01:53] I brought up some very valid points and I suspect that after tonight this is going to go through another workshop before it's original timeline was hopefully to get this on a council meeting but I think we're going to have to have another workshop to still fine tune it but I think I think you brought up a valid point what is the mechanism responding to comments either through town staff or individually council and I would I would I would ask for some help in writing that language. Okay. Thank you.

[1:02:28] The new business G was to address the idea that no originally the language is no new business will be acted on at its first reading and will automatically be tabled, except by a majority vote of counsel to suspend this rule.

[1:02:43] So the way it was originally written, Council could act by a vote to consider something at its first reading.

[1:02:53] And when I talk to Paula about this, there are special circumstances and time sensitive items where it does come before Council at that meeting.

[1:03:03] And just by virtue of rules of procedure, when staff says that this is a time sensitive issue,

[1:03:09] maybe that should be something that should be considered at that time, even though in theory constitutes the first reading.

[1:03:20] There was some discussion last time about that next bullet item in there.

[1:03:24] Discussion at a previous workshop is analogous to the first reading and therefore emotion is in order for action.

[1:03:31] The public comment was that is not true and we ask for a potential legal opinion on that.

[1:03:36] So Paula, if you could check in on that for a legal opinion, because at least in other

[1:03:44] things that I have looked at, it has been considered that that was not analogous to the first

[1:03:51] reading if it had been previously discussed before.

[1:03:57] New business, G item two, essentially, is how do we handle public comments related to new

[1:04:08] business. And I suggest it as a framework that we go back to how we handled public

[1:04:14] comments as a regular agenda item when it was non-agenda item related material. We may

[1:04:21] have to tweak that now because it is under new business as opposed to non-agenda items.

[1:04:31] And so if there's some specific changes that we need to think about in there, again I would

[1:04:36] I would ask maybe for some guidance on what kind of language that you might want to have in there because we have had discussions tonight about what that might look like.

[1:04:45] So I would hopefully, you'd be willing to send that to Paul, I'm not, I'm going to suggest that comments come to me and CCDU.

[1:05:00] Is that, would that be appropriate at this point in moving forward with this?

[1:05:05] A couple of comments that they want to answer for?

[1:05:07] Well, any comments from counselors,

[1:05:10] for changes in this rules of procedure,

[1:05:12] submit to me and CCU.

[1:05:14] Because you're the one drafting.

[1:05:16] Because I'm the one that's trying to keep track of it, okay?

[1:05:20] So before you open on to section three,

[1:05:24] council deliberation there.

[1:05:28] Where

[1:05:31] the guidelines of the way this is written

[1:05:36] to revert back to 3-D-3-3, subsection 3, or whatever, I-I-I, some of that, you know, this

[1:05:48] nation was founded on the idea of spirited debate, and there's been a lot of, in recent

[1:05:55] years, especially since COVID, First Amendment violations by boards like this and by school

[1:06:02] boards of trying to stifle people's public comment, so I would just caution the council

[1:06:11] against laying out too many

[1:06:18] guidelines or out-of-balance boundaries of how the public

[1:06:24] is able to come in and interact with their elected officials, whether through the use

[1:06:30] of profanity or any other type of somebody wants to come in and speak their mind, they

[1:06:36] should be entitled to come in and speak their mind.

[1:06:39] Now granted, we have etiquette and rules that we need to follow, but I don't know that

[1:06:47] it's our place to try to limit first amendment protected speech.

[1:06:54] Opinion noted.

[1:06:55] Do you want to provide some language?

[1:06:57] Yep.

[1:06:57] Okay. Any other comments?

[1:07:04] Okay. Council deliberation.

[1:07:09] We don't often, well, by default this may happen, but too often it doesn't happen. Quite frankly, this is a fallacy in the way we currently do our motions. Now, I will just be upfront about you.

[1:07:23] So we say the chair of the meeting essentially reads the motion, and I so move, and there's a second.

[1:07:34] Now that's rules, I mean, that's how we've done this as long as I've been on council, and I get why it's done.

[1:07:40] But quite frankly, if we were strictly following Robert's rules, that would not be the way it happens.

[1:07:46] And oftentimes I have to ask the forgiveness of the chair to alter what's written in the agenda

[1:07:52] to include language that absolutely needs to be in there,

[1:07:56] like no greater than, you know, and those kinds of things.

[1:08:00] That's a huge demand on us as counselors

[1:08:02] to actually recite the motion as we intend it,

[1:08:05] but that quite frankly, that's the way

[1:08:08] if council wishes to move that direction it should be.

[1:08:12] The thing that really needs to be done is if you're willing

[1:08:15] to make the motion, you have the opportunity

[1:08:19] to speak to that motion first,

[1:08:21] And that was the original intent of you making the motion as you actually had the opportunity to do to defend your motion.

[1:08:29] And I think whether we continue with our current procedure or we choose to go some other direction, whoever sits in that and the chair position should always allow the maker of the motion to speak.

[1:08:40] I have the privilege to speak to that motion first.

[1:08:44] question on other boards that have been then on usually the chair actually requests for

[1:08:51] emotion isn't that they were entertain emotion and that it's actually illegal for the the

[1:08:56] chair to be making emotion that that has come from from others or quite frankly for the

[1:09:02] chair to make emotion they have to yield again yes yes that's absolutely right the way

[1:09:09] If we were doing it correctly, our agenda item would be more global in nature and then the chair would ask, is there a motion?

[1:09:18] To which time the Councillor would state the specific language of that motion and then there would be a second.

[1:09:24] This is also where I think we need to allow for the fact that we've already discussed that there's probably an appropriate time where a council member may yield to comments from the floor

[1:09:37] to help clear something up or clarify a situation particularly when they're

[1:09:43] providing information and expertise which may not be relative to any

[1:09:47] information we have and so that's what's in there right now and so I think we

[1:09:54] need to think about how we want to approach this as a council moving forward and

[1:09:59] how in fact we we act on motions and ultimately then that impacts what our

[1:10:06] agenda. Now I'm not saying we necessarily have to change the agenda item but a chair

[1:10:10] might be more global in just saying what the agenda is and quite frankly that the council

[1:10:15] member could probably use that language then as their template for developing their motion.

[1:10:21] Right. So I'm not so Paula. I think that's how it was intended originally. I mean I've

[1:10:32] I never worked in a town that wanted the agenda item so exact in order to help make the motion.

[1:10:42] As when I came here and I'm not that's not a slight but it's I'm just saying that sometimes it's very hard to write the agenda item to capture what it is that somebody might make for a motion.

[1:10:57] And it's really, this should be a guide, and the motion should come from you.

[1:11:03] Right.

[1:11:04] Right.

[1:11:06] I was just, I like where this is going, and I don't have the perfect verbiage yet, and

[1:11:12] I'm probably never will, but if the agenda came to us, night of the meeting, with the substantive

[1:11:20] content of what needs to be acted on, with appropriate reference, if there's one to a town

[1:11:26] ordinance of one to a state law or something that none of us is going to have off the top of our head.

[1:11:31] Then we should be able to word that in such a way to make a coherent motion that can be acted on.

[1:11:38] My only detailed question has to do with amending things.

[1:11:43] So if it says agenda one is A, and I made a motion that changed the wording a little bit,

[1:11:49] would I have to seek permission to amend the agenda before I made a motion?

[1:11:54] The under this process, the agenda is actually just a suggested topic reference.

[1:12:08] And the council members should probably would use that as their template and crafting

[1:12:13] their language.

[1:12:13] It would not require an amendment in the agenda.

[1:12:16] And once the motion is on the floor, an amendment is always in order to clarify that or to change

[1:12:24] it in some fashion.

[1:12:27] Just an observation, you know, the way that we've been doing it for the chair actually

[1:12:33] presents the motion is really efficient.

[1:12:37] It's very efficient.

[1:12:38] It moves it along and when you start having individuals make the motion, in my experience,

[1:12:46] you know, most people kind of fumble around for a while to get the wording right and it really

[1:12:52] kind of drags the process and that's why I want to and that's why I want to

[1:12:57] caution us about changing but if you go back and review all of our council

[1:13:01] minutes for the past nine years but I'm going to go we've specifically to when

[1:13:06] I've come back on that council in general there's three people that I'm three

[1:13:12] counselors who who make the motion and second it and if I was out in the

[1:13:20] The public, you know, I would say, well, okay, what's going on here?

[1:13:23] I know I have to laugh because when I first came on, you know, I was watching this where

[1:13:29] Kiki would second it and then I go, wait a minute, anybody could second this, so I offered

[1:13:36] it and I got this strange look from Kiki, what are you doing?

[1:13:42] So yeah, yeah.

[1:13:44] The all third procedure will definitely impact the smooth flow of the meeting.

[1:13:49] There's no doubt about it, and I'm willing to suggest that we continue with that if

[1:13:53] council is willing to, and that's where we're at.

[1:13:56] But even if we do that, the councilor who makes the motion should still be in a position

[1:14:02] to defend it.

[1:14:03] The other thing that we don't do is the public never knows whether we support a motion

[1:14:12] or we are not in favor of the motion.

[1:14:14] And I think as much as possible, I always try to say I rise in support of the motion or

[1:14:22] I rise in opposition to the motion.

[1:14:24] So it's pretty clear to the public where me as an at large council member stand on

[1:14:30] a motion.

[1:14:30] And I would encourage my council colleagues, again, when you speak to something, is I rise

[1:14:36] in support or I rise in opposition for the following reasons.

[1:14:41] And that provides some information to the public that they need in transparency is to

[1:14:47] where the individual council members sit and the reasons why.

[1:14:51] Where do you have a made up your mind yet?

[1:14:53] And you don't have to do that.

[1:14:55] But if you made up your mind, I think we certainly need to express that.

[1:15:00] Any other things, Matt? I don't think so. Okay.

[1:15:07] The next, uh, Jay is the whole issue of the executive session. And I think we're going to have to go back and look at this in a little bit more detail. But in essence, the executive session was always at the end of the agenda because we didn't want to have to disrupt the public's attendance. We didn't, we oftentimes we have our lawyer here, so it was intuitively. It doesn't make sense to have it at the end.

[1:15:31] And when we need those people to provide that executive session business and then leave.

[1:15:37] So, and again, before the agenda is approved, any council member can amend the agenda.

[1:15:43] And that's essentially pointing that out.

[1:15:49] And it is simply by a majority of council members present during the meeting to move an agenda item.

[1:16:00] I meant to bring up something. It's not even here, but it fits better with where we were

[1:16:04] a minute ago. It struck me that we're always putting John on the hot seat when we vote.

[1:16:15] It always goes down there. And he's all alone out in left field having to make a decision.

[1:16:22] When we get to sit back and think, what's he going to say, and do I want it, you know,

[1:16:27] I would just suggest, I don't have any huge issue about this, but I would suggest that

[1:16:34] when the chair calls for vote, he does so in or she does so in a sort of random way, and

[1:16:43] does it by, you know, almost a polling method.

[1:16:46] Councilor Coveley, you know, Councilor Swallick said it said rather than always going, well

[1:16:53] John, prove or disprove.

[1:16:55] And then we all just jump on.

[1:16:57] But anyway.

[1:16:59] Julie noted, and I think that should become a part of our rules of procedure that it is

[1:17:05] randomized.

[1:17:08] It does make good sense for the reason you talked about it.

[1:17:12] So, in John Evoche, for what it's worth, I follow the conversations pretty closely.

[1:17:21] I've been very comfortable.

[1:17:23] And I have to admit, there was one time we called for a vote, and this was only a month or two ago.

[1:17:30] And I had drifted and was thinking about something previously.

[1:17:35] and I just asked, you know, I forget how I said it.

[1:17:41] Remind me where were we, whatever.

[1:17:43] But other than that one time, I felt very comfortable.

[1:17:47] I knew what I wanted to do.

[1:17:49] So I appreciate it, but I wasn't really feeling any pressure.

[1:17:54] For the record, I was not trying to insinuate anything

[1:17:56] like that either.

[1:17:57] No, no, Will, if you had insinuated it for one time,

[1:18:00] you would have been exactly right.

[1:18:03] Okay, Section 3.2, we've already received the input that we have to address the opportunity

[1:18:10] for the public to add agenda items to workshops.

[1:18:14] I think that's the major change that will be included there.

[1:18:18] And in an analogous fashion, when a member of the public asks for something on the workshop,

[1:18:25] then who recommends it would be on there as a matter of process as well?

[1:18:31] As far as the member of the public or the councilor at which they've sent the request

[1:18:35] through?

[1:18:36] Because they can request directly, too.

[1:18:38] Well, in that case, it comes from you.

[1:18:42] That doesn't change anything if the recommendation for the agenda item comes from the councilor,

[1:18:48] even if it's passed through from one of your constituents.

[1:18:53] What I think was intended, if an agenda item directly goes to the town manager or the chair

[1:18:59] from the public that now we would allow for that,

[1:19:03] but it does include who it comes from is what I'm asking.

[1:19:07] Yeah, so we have, I'm sorry, I jumped right in,

[1:19:10] but we have done that before,

[1:19:12] where members of the public have asked us to recognize

[1:19:15] a person for something,

[1:19:18] or would you consider assigning a proclamation or a resolve

[1:19:23] and that's come directly to me from a member of the public

[1:19:26] and I've included their name as requested by...

[1:19:28] Correct, and that's that's particularly appropriate under news presentations and awards, but this it actually pertains specifically to

[1:19:36] I guess new business kind of thing like this all right. I was just wondering you know about the process sort of that and

[1:19:44] The purpose of a district councilor is supposed to be representing your district so certain fees requests come to the district

[1:19:51] Councilor it's kind of like to do in the legislature and and just a

[1:19:56] counselor then we'll bring that up in the in the next next rather than just

[1:20:02] that's an interesting that's an interesting approach is that any

[1:20:05] recommendations from the public should come true your respective either

[1:20:10] district council member or at large member right that way that is suggesting

[1:20:14] yeah because that way we'd have a little maybe some time to to discuss the

[1:20:18] matter, understand it. That probably is an appropriate approach to address.

[1:20:23] I guess I just keep circling back in my mind to the softball field request that the

[1:20:34] coaches requested town's participation in that whole project that we did.

[1:20:43] The location

[1:20:44] of that project might have been different district

[1:20:48] than where that coach lived or coaches.

[1:20:55] I guess in an attempt to keep it simple

[1:21:00] but without over complicating it

[1:21:02] by building too tight of a framework

[1:21:05] that wouldn't allow for a more question.

[1:21:06] If I wanted something done in district four,

[1:21:11] could I not go through that large council member

[1:21:13] to introduce that agenda?

[1:21:14] Absolutely.

[1:21:15] So I guess that's what's being suggested here is that either through your respective

[1:21:20] district council member or an at large council member, that you ask that this agenda item

[1:21:28] be specifically placed on the workshop agenda.

[1:21:30] Yes.

[1:21:31] Yes.

[1:21:32] Right.

[1:21:32] Yep.

[1:21:33] Okay.

[1:21:37] 3.3.

[1:21:43] We'll go back to the legal opinion on the first reading, and we'll, we got to wait

[1:21:50] for a legal opinion on that.

[1:21:54] 3.5 and this council has exercised this setting aside for an individual discussion.

[1:22:02] the consent agenda is intended to act on business which is really pretty much

[1:22:07] pro forma as a rubber stem. However there are going to be instances where

[1:22:12] a council member wants to discuss something specifically and you've always

[1:22:17] provided them the opportunity to pull that out of the consent agenda and

[1:22:21] discuss it individually so I don't see any changes necessary there. Any

[1:22:26] agenda item can be taken up out of order by consent of councilors present. The

[1:22:31] workshop agenda, how we conduct that.

[1:22:36] The way our agenda is done right now

[1:22:39] is really not in our rules of procedure at all.

[1:22:43] So basically what I did there is I took how we currently do.

[1:22:47] For example, we never taught in the current planning rules

[1:22:50] of procedure, there's no mechanism for planning

[1:22:54] and CEO status report.

[1:22:55] So I just simply lifted what we're doing there

[1:22:57] and put it in section 3.7.

[1:23:03] 4.1 simply talks about when council meetings are

[1:23:07] conducted 4.2 is when workshops are conducted. Let's see 4.2 B we

[1:23:23] did not

[1:23:24] allow basically for votes in workshop and we now know that we have to

[1:23:31] I just also want to question whether or not there needs to be a definition of I know we've loosely touched on it meetings special meetings and workshops.

[1:23:45] Okay, you're probably right. I don't definitions of meetings special meetings and workshops section 3.7.

[1:23:57] Okay, I'll go back and we'll look at that because I don't think I even talked about that.

[1:24:05] However, deep in my mind should be struck in its entirety because we've never specified

[1:24:13] the 4th Monday as to the specific agenda and I'm looking to Paula's.

[1:24:18] I don't even know why I think I know why it ended up in there but it's not.

[1:24:23] Our workshops have always been open to whatever subject

[1:24:27] we're important to address it.

[1:24:29] Correct. I think when we very first went to the workshop

[1:24:33] structure, we were trying to alleviate that

[1:24:37] always having a fourth meeting of the month.

[1:24:41] Okay.

[1:24:41] So that's where that came from. Do you recall that?

[1:24:45] And so we said, well, let's limit it to matters

[1:24:49] that retain to infrastructure or economic development that type of thing, and might need more discussion, but I think to your point, as time wore on, and items came to me or staff that we needed or felt that we needed to bring to you before an actual meeting in the interest of time, we've just included other items besides infrastructure and...

[1:25:14] And frankly, now Amy's reports are always on it no matter what workshop.

[1:25:19] She's always on the agenda item.

[1:25:21] Right.

[1:25:21] Okay, so right now, I would support the idea of just striking that set.

[1:25:25] Okay.

[1:25:26] John.

[1:25:28] I'm sorry, John.

[1:25:29] I agree.

[1:25:31] I think limiting it to Mondays is just the limitation.

[1:25:35] It actually could result in a time delay.

[1:25:39] I think you could do it the second Monday or the fourth Monday.

[1:25:43] I think we're all here, we're all capable of doing all those things, any of those Mondays

[1:25:50] and so in an effort to move things along.

[1:25:53] I would strike the fourth one day idea, you know, we just got to be cognizant when you're

[1:26:00] blowing up the schedule and you're on the fifth page of the schedule, you know, having to be

[1:26:06] Okay. Section 4.3, to my knowledge, workshops have always been optional in attendance. We

[1:26:14] certainly encourage everybody to attend, but right now in rules and procedure, workshops

[1:26:19] are optional but will be counted towards attendance for those who are in attendance. Any suggestions

[1:26:27] And this is what Paul is referring to section 4.4 and probably even 4.5 as we need some

[1:26:37] clarification on definitions of what constitutes a special meeting and what constitutes a workshop.

[1:26:45] I think the ad hoc in my time that I only remember an ad hoc committee being put together

[1:26:52] at once. But I think we should still keep it in there just in the off chance we need it.

[1:27:00] Anything on? Okay. Section 5 is meeting decorum. As a matter of courtesy, it's just keep

[1:27:10] our cell phones off, those kinds of things. I personally believe that 5.2 should stay in

[1:27:21] And our rules are procedure on the off chance that we haven't thought of something, but

[1:27:26] it's covered in Robert's rules, and it will allow us to handle that, agree.

[1:27:33] 5.3, the only thing there is, I say, as a point of emphasis is we need to remind both

[1:27:40] members of the public and council members that we address the chair.

[1:27:44] We don't get in verbal debates with each other.

[1:27:50] and everybody's in disagreement with that.

[1:27:53] And this is just meeting not workshop.

[1:27:59] I would say, what are your thoughts?

[1:28:08] I guess my thoughts are workshops are intended

[1:28:11] for the free flow of ideas back and forth.

[1:28:15] OK, so meeting's only doesn't apply to workshop.

[1:28:19] What you're suggesting.

[1:28:20] Yes.

[1:28:29] I guess it's a little bit confusing.

[1:28:33] I agree that we should address the chair, but if I'm trying to address something question

[1:28:40] or statement that another individual counselor raised that I can ask the chair for permission

[1:28:49] I don't know, do we really need to talk and like the third person to the chair and not directly?

[1:28:59] If you want to strike, I think there's some merit in open communication and open debate and first amendment and all that kind of good stuff.

[1:29:09] So if I'm just saying that that probably came out of Robert's rules originally, is that you address the chair?

[1:29:17] And I think maybe if the verbiage was in a way just to draw

[1:29:27] blank, address the chair

[1:29:31] to open,

[1:29:36] you know, to be recognized, to be recognized, for speaking, and then once

[1:29:40] you're recognized by the chair that the microphone is yours, you can address any and all

[1:29:46] Councillors if you wish or Paula or a department head if they're standing up to but rather than just addressing

[1:30:00] The department head at the podium, you would be recognized by the chair first before engaging in. The only thing I would add to that, I like where it's headed. But we would each basically get sanctioned to speak by, in essence, getting permission from the chair. And I think when we do that, it would be helpful at times to specify what's coming next. In other words, Mr. Chair, I would like to address the point.

[1:30:29] point, a council of chance made earlier, you know, something other than just my turn to

[1:30:37] go when I go.

[1:30:37] Yep.

[1:30:38] You know what I mean?

[1:30:39] Yeah.

[1:30:40] Yeah.

[1:30:43] Yeah.

[1:30:44] So it sounds like we don't need to change anything here, other than just how perhaps how the

[1:30:49] chair recognizes council members.

[1:30:52] The one thing that's a little bit more difficult in a small body like this and particularly

[1:30:56] because of the way we hold the liberations is that technically the chair should try to

[1:31:00] balance deliberations between those in favor and those against.

[1:31:04] Yes.

[1:31:05] I know that's difficult sometimes, but I would certainly encourage whoever's sitting in the

[1:31:10] council chair to try to provide for balanced deliberations on any motion on the floor,

[1:31:18] which is why, and again, it's not always evident or maybe you're undecided, but you've got

[1:31:26] to get your opinion out there, I agree.

[1:31:30] Let's see John I'm sorry John is I'm a little ignorant is that a requirement

[1:31:38] for a suggestion from Robert's rules of orders but where does that come from the

[1:31:46] Robert's rules is the one that suggests to try to have a balance in deliberations

[1:31:51] Okay, I think that the fear is, and we see this in a guest on committee meetings, the

[1:32:00] last people to speak are oftentimes in the position to really drive the vote.

[1:32:07] There's no balance between pros and cons.

[1:32:10] It's chair sets who the speaking order, and if you've ever participated in one of those

[1:32:15] you go, well, what the heck is going on here?

[1:32:17] I was 72 minutes ago, and the last speaker is diametrically, the last 10 speakers are

[1:32:23] diametrically opposed.

[1:32:25] So, it went possible there should be some balance as I was suggesting.

[1:32:28] Okay.

[1:32:29] I just, yeah.

[1:32:30] Historically, I just didn't know that, so I learned something, thank you.

[1:32:37] Five point four is just basically how we speak to staff, and there's only been one time

[1:32:43] where this was really in my estimation abused and I would just remind counselors that we

[1:32:52] speak to staff and everybody appropriately. No business can be conducted without a

[1:32:58] quorum. Now this is an important one and I haven't suggested any changes but in our

[1:33:04] current rules of procedure it's the number of the quorum is defined as a simple majority

[1:33:12] the council and so a simple majority of this council is for that's a

[1:33:17] quorum okay now and I think we discussed this earlier if we only have for

[1:33:25] here in a council meeting and particularly for an agenda item that might be

[1:33:33] controversial it be who's the council members to suggest that that be

[1:33:38] table until more of Council is present.

[1:33:42] But quite frankly, we can conduct business with four with the caveat that Dennis brought

[1:33:48] up about all the variations of how you vote, and I'm going to point this out.

[1:33:54] If we only have four Council members present and what abstains, and two vote yes, and one

[1:34:00] votes no, two Council members have passed the vote.

[1:34:07] So we have to be very careful about how we conduct business because right now our rules

[1:34:13] say that we can conduct business with a quorum, but you can see where it could get very,

[1:34:19] very challenging in the eyes of the public because a two-to-one vote would enact an ordinance

[1:34:28] because of the one abstention or whatever happened.

[1:34:31] So now the

[1:34:38] way that the way we might handle this is if the chair sees that we're down the

[1:34:44] four council members with the consent of council we may not even make the motion we should

[1:34:49] automatically just move it to the next council council meeting and not even approach this but

[1:34:56] in the course of debate it may become apparent that it needs to be tabled and that would

[1:35:03] to provide that venue, but I'm open to thoughts on anything.

[1:35:11] Bring up a recent situation.

[1:35:14] It was an executive session, so I'm not

[1:35:16] going to mention anything specific.

[1:35:20] We had four council members present,

[1:35:27] and there was a motion.

[1:35:29] It was presented as time sensitive and listening to the discussion it was.

[1:35:42] So after discussion there was a vote, it was four to zero, nobody abstained.

[1:35:48] We all heard what had to be said and it was passed.

[1:35:52] I was personally comfortable about it.

[1:35:54] I didn't talk to any of the other council members who were there that evening.

[1:35:59] But is that something you may have clarified for the benefit of the public?

[1:36:05] Thank you.

[1:36:06] There never was a motion because we can't vote in executive session.

[1:36:10] Oh.

[1:36:10] What there was was a request is what how does the council members present wish

[1:36:19] to proceed in this time-sensitive issue?

[1:36:21] Okay.

[1:36:22] There was never a formal motion.

[1:36:23] Right.

[1:36:24] Because you're right.

[1:36:25] Yeah.

[1:36:25] OK, so for the members of the public, we didn't violate our rules because there never

[1:36:30] was a motion.

[1:36:31] Yeah, yeah.

[1:36:32] So, but the four who were here agreed that the time-sensitive nature of this dictated

[1:36:40] that a portion of that discussion did need to be considered at the next council meeting

[1:36:45] which led to the challenges we had there incorrectly.

[1:36:49] I understand that, but that was what came out of that.

[1:36:52] But we did not.

[1:36:54] It was not a formal motion because we couldn't do that.

[1:36:56] Yeah.

[1:36:57] So any other thoughts, Dennis?

[1:37:00] I just want to offer support for what you were saying about how to conduct this in the

[1:37:04] different votes, postponing, tabling things for reasons that if you wrote that all down,

[1:37:10] I would go yes.

[1:37:12] Thank you.

[1:37:21] Okay.

[1:37:25] Okay.

[1:37:26] 5.6 basically goes into how we vote.

[1:37:30] No vote can be taken without a motion on the floor.

[1:37:33] Matter of fact, no business can be conducted without a motion on the floor, which for

[1:37:38] the benefit of the public means we can't even open discussion until we've had a motion

[1:37:42] on the floor, which is why we're having this whole discussion about how, in fact, we need

[1:37:46] to do motion so that we can begin to have the discussions that we need to have.

[1:37:52] In the past, the chair asked all in favor, all opposed, but there's been, and then the

[1:38:00] The current rules of procedure allow for those present.

[1:38:04] And the modified language is actually to strike that and go to an alternate form which is

[1:38:15] abstention, recusal, or present as the last choice.

[1:38:23] Now I will remind council that I came on here under a special election.

[1:38:30] in February, and you had a very significant discussion on a very, very important issue,

[1:38:35] which had voted on it, my very first meeting.

[1:38:39] There was no way I could have been privy to that discussion, because I wasn't on council.

[1:38:44] And in fact, I voted present, and I remember some of you looked at me and said, what's

[1:38:50] going on here?

[1:38:51] There is a provision for you simply to vote present when you are not in a position to essentially

[1:38:58] the vote either in favor or opposed.

[1:39:01] But what's more important is that there are other things

[1:39:05] that can, other ways you can vote.

[1:39:08] Abstention is when the council member is present

[1:39:11] and is counted towards the quorum,

[1:39:13] but you opt out as selecting yes or no.

[1:39:17] Now you can see very quickly where if somebody voted

[1:39:20] in this case to be abstention

[1:39:22] and there was only four members in the quorum

[1:39:25] were down to three voting members.

[1:39:26] So you can see how this kind of impacts it.

[1:39:28] But anyway, that's what an extension is about.

[1:39:31] Basically, it's employed when you lack sufficient information

[1:39:34] or wish to avoid being the loan to center.

[1:39:37] That's possible.

[1:39:39] Or have a minor division of interest

[1:39:41] without rising to a strict conflict of interest.

[1:39:45] The next one is recusal, which is the highest standard

[1:39:48] of non-participation.

[1:39:50] You are removing yourself from debate and deliberation.

[1:39:56] recusals should be declared at the time the motion is made and you should

[1:40:01] excuse yourself from the day is no why do we have to excuse ourselves from the

[1:40:07] day it seems like I'm just saying how it would normally be done okay all right

[1:40:12] and I've had to do that believe me but a chair who's pointing me down there and said

[1:40:19] you're off the day so if we have used this in the past but normally that's how it would

[1:40:24] be done. Obviously, you can't vote. It tends to pertain to conflict of interest, but there

[1:40:30] could be other reasons. But quite frankly, when I usually see it views, it's when there's

[1:40:36] a direct financial conflict of interest. In my case, it was a personal conflict of interest.

[1:40:45] And so you're essentially avoiding any appearances of bias. And I think excusing you from the

[1:40:53] the day is just eliminating that perception is what I think is meant by

[1:40:57] excusing you from the day and we don't have to do that. I'm just I'm just

[1:41:00] chairs. Well, we have to leave the room. No, no, no, no, no, no, just join the

[1:41:06] general public. I don't see anything about the chair or the council voting to

[1:41:16] make that determination. This is kind of the honor system. I see this one.

[1:41:22] We

[1:41:23] You're right. At this point in the proposed language, Council doesn't approve or disapprove

[1:41:28] that. It is an honor system. I think we're in a little bit of a difficult situation for

[1:41:33] Council to make a decision when there's a conflict of interest. But we could do that if you wanted.

[1:41:39] But you're putting that Council member in a very difficult position to say, you must go.

[1:41:43] It is my opinion.

[1:41:46] If there's a conflict.

[1:41:46] No, no, no. Wait a minute. What I'm saying is there may be in time when another

[1:41:52] Councillor or a majority of the Councillor or multiple Councillors feel that another

[1:41:58] Councillor has a conflict of interest. That other Councillor has not recuse

[1:42:05] themselves. They're sitting here. Yeah. And I don't see any language addressing

[1:42:10] that. We had an instance years ago and this is, I won't make the names, but I'll tell you

[1:42:15] what happened because it's minor but it's indicative where there was discussion

[1:42:20] by counsel about whether or not to enter into kind of a contract with a private vendor.

[1:42:29] And one of the counselors involved had a close family member who was a part of that

[1:42:35] initiative.

[1:42:36] And we discussed that and reached a vote that that person did in fact have a conflict

[1:42:42] with the interest. I'm just saying for tonight, I don't see language addressing that in here, and I think it should be.

[1:42:50] Well, you know, to address Dennis's point, wouldn't that just come up as a point of order if someone on council

[1:42:58] felt that the other councilor had a conflict of interest, and then that would be discussed. Do we need something other than that?

[1:43:07] So

[1:43:12] I may I don't I don't know all the details of the maneuverings, but what you're

[1:43:16] suggesting is the mechanism may already be there. You just take advantage of

[1:43:19] something that exists and say, right, this is what a point of order. Okay, I'm

[1:43:24] going to I'll let the rabbits rule the guy who's gone to that.

[1:43:31] John. Yeah, if you told

[1:43:33] another consular, I believe you have a conflict of interest. You then have to put

[1:43:39] into place a mechanism to address that if the person did not agree with you or

[1:43:48] really wanted to fight that perception or judgment, so and I think that's

[1:43:56] another layer of a can of words. I'm not sure why wouldn't that be debate and

[1:44:05] a vote. Right. Or I guess it could be. Well, but it's not something I've experienced

[1:44:12] in this kind. Okay. My, my, my, Robert's rules side of me says that's a huge conflict

[1:44:19] because you've already got a motion on the floor that you have to act on. So you couldn't

[1:44:24] take a separate vote on conflict of interest with a, with a motion on the floor. Could it

[1:44:29] be tabled until we could be table until that was resolved. But, but because those in, in

[1:44:35] essence are two separate distinct topics you couldn't you couldn't do a vote

[1:44:39] outside the current motion on the floor unless it was table I think I came

[1:44:43] off the table. I will look into that quite frankly in my experience it's

[1:44:49] always been left up to the individual but I see where you're going and calling

[1:44:53] a point of order as to whether there is a potential conflict of interest is

[1:44:58] Certainly, I'll look into it.

[1:45:13] Okay. And we do a good job of the chair announcing the outcome and the voting results. For the benefit of the public, you'll notice that we now do a roll call vote. And we don't simply raise hands. And that was an outcome of COVID. Because when we were strictly televising the outcome, we didn't have any.

[1:45:29] audience never knew when we raised our hands who was voting how and so this

[1:45:33] council went to a roll call vote and so it's a matter of record then for the

[1:45:38] public how council votes and a motion will only be judged to pass when a

[1:45:45] majority of those vote in favor. So again a two one vote could essentially

[1:45:50] result in emotion passing.

[1:45:54] Section 5.8. I love your suggestion. I don't know why I can't

[1:46:01] name PM. But that is cruel to our staff. I think I know there was a time when they probably

[1:46:09] went to 10 p.m. But essentially council meeting shall not extend beyond 8 p.m. without unanimous

[1:46:16] of council president and at least in my conversations about what's going on

[1:46:22] recently there's only one instance where council even went beyond 8 p.m.

[1:46:27] so quite frankly I think we're doing a good job of getting our business done

[1:46:31] in a timely fashion so we can get staff out the door a lot to change our bathroom

[1:46:34] breakdown no no for me to clock oh six point two is alternating between someone in

[1:46:45] favor someone opposed and we talked about that. Let's see.

[1:46:51] And then, well, let's go to Article 7. And again, I know this was brought up. I think

[1:46:56] it's, and again, I have no vested interest in this except we solicited input on the public.

[1:47:04] And this is the one thing that clearly, at least three members of the public said, have you

[1:47:10] ever thought about council members being limited to no more than two consecutive terms.

[1:47:17] And I wanted some explanation at least what they gave me is that well if you sit out

[1:47:21] a term then you can come back on the council again.

[1:47:24] And I at least at the time said well I'm willing to put it on but let me give you my opinion

[1:47:29] we can have a tough time getting council members to even run but it's worth the discussion

[1:47:36] and because the public's asked for this.

[1:47:39] So I'm, well, hey, go ahead.

[1:47:41] Yeah, well, I would speak in opposition to it

[1:47:43] for some of the reasons you just said.

[1:47:44] I think it's difficult enough to get people to step up,

[1:47:48] you know, and serve on council.

[1:47:50] And the other reason is that there is a bit

[1:47:54] of a learning curve here, you know.

[1:47:56] I'm still struggling on things

[1:47:58] and what I can do and what I can't do.

[1:48:01] What's in my, what's in my, my peer review.

[1:48:04] So it takes a while to get to get going.

[1:48:08] And I think if you have a really good counselor

[1:48:13] and they're serving the public,

[1:48:16] they should be able to continue to serve the public.

[1:48:19] And I agree with the statement that John made earlier.

[1:48:24] He's doing a lot of his job.

[1:48:24] People can vote him off.

[1:48:28] What is that?

[1:48:30] Dennis?

[1:48:31] I've always felt we always have had term limits

[1:48:33] and that's called voting.

[1:48:38] This is just a, I don't know what you call it, a point of order, but I'm not sure this

[1:48:43] should be Article 7 in the town council rules of procedure.

[1:48:50] You know, everything else, Article 1 through 6 is, how do you conduct the council meeting,

[1:48:58] will you address, so that's a good point.

[1:49:02] This is probably going to be a charter.

[1:49:04] Yeah, you're right, this is like, you know, I'm reading this and it's like cat, cat, cat, dog, you know, this is just a totally different animal.

[1:49:15] If we even wanted to consider this, you're absolutely right, this would even be a child.

[1:49:20] It would even be in rules of procedure, so that essentially kills it in rules of procedure anyway.

[1:49:25] It is interesting to your point and I believe me, I understand that we struggle.

[1:49:32] So, but at least one of the public comments was, well, if, and I'll pick a district, if

[1:49:39] District 3 had no candidates, because of term limits, it isn't somebody going to step

[1:49:45] up, as opposed to just letting the incumbent stay there.

[1:49:48] And I had no response to that.

[1:49:50] It was their counter to my argument about we struggle to get candidates to run, as all

[1:49:54] I'm saying.

[1:49:55] Right.

[1:49:55] Well, as a District 3 representative, nobody stepped up.

[1:49:59] Well, I'm sorry I chose that.

[1:50:01] No, that's okay, but no, I'm just saying you're, you know, nobody is necessarily step up.

[1:50:06] And I think that's, and we need to be very, very encouraging to reach out to the public

[1:50:13] and encourage them to run for office, you know, because we do need Kennedy.

[1:50:20] So, okay, so that's where we're at right now.

[1:50:23] Some of you are going to provide input to me and copy Paula.

[1:50:30] And with what we've done tonight, I'm going to suggest to our Vice Chair that this be

[1:50:37] recommended as another workshop agenda item at our first workshop in August.

[1:50:45] Then we, I think, attend as for continued discussion on the updated language.

[1:50:50] I do think, from a timeline perspective, for the counselors that are present, I think

[1:50:57] I think we owe it to whoever is elected in November

[1:51:01] that we brought these rules for seizures to closure.

[1:51:04] I don't think this is something that we should be hanging on.

[1:51:09] But I think we're on a good timeline.

[1:51:11] We've got a good start on it, and I think we can accomplish that.

[1:51:14] So with that, I'll turn it back over to the right.

[1:51:16] Thank you, sir.

[1:51:18] This time I would entertain a motion to enter into executive session

[1:51:24] in person to one MRS, MSRA, Subsection 4, 5, 6, C, Economic Development to include the

[1:51:30] town manager requested by Chair LaChance.

[1:51:35] So moved.

[1:51:40] Roll call vote, please.

[1:51:41] Approved.

[1:51:43] Aye.

[1:51:47] Aye.

[1:51:48] We're five minutes.

[1:51:49] Let's do it in five minutes.

[1:51:51] We're still in the 10th.

[1:51:52] 10th.

[1:51:53] Yeah, yeah.

[1:51:54] Yeah.

[1:51:55] Yeah.

Town Council Workshop 7272026

Transcript