[0:15] So, it is uh Monday, August 31st, 2026. It is 6 pm. This is a special meeting of

[0:25] the Montgomery Select Board and Water Commission. Um, we'll call the meeting

[0:29] to order. Um, first, uh, item of business as always is to review and make

[0:35] any changes to the agenda. Do any board members have any, uh, additions or

[0:40] deletions to the agenda? >> No, I don't have anything.

[0:45] » No. >> All right. Uh, not hearing any additions

[0:49] or deletions to the agenda, we'll move on to the approval of the August 21st

[0:52] special meeting minutes. Um, is there a motion to approve the

[0:57] August 21st meet? Can we just Can we Can we Can we not talk?

[1:03] » Thank you. >> I make a motion to approve.

[1:08] » I'll second it. >> Okay. So, we have a motion from Dennis

[1:10] to approve the August 21st meeting minutes as written. We have a second

[1:13] from Mark. Is there any discussion on the minutes?

[1:23] Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I or raising your

[1:26] hand. I >> I

[1:29] » Any opposed? Any abstensions? All right. Motion

[1:34] carries and the minutes are approved. Um just as a point of information in case

[1:39] folks didn't catch it, Daniel is on the Zoom tonight. So that was the eye from

[1:43] the computer. All right. Third item here is to review

[1:48] uh a review and analysis of the latest complaints concerning violations of

[1:52] state of Vermont open meeting law and municipal conflict of interest policy.

[1:56] Um Chris was appointed the leazison to deal with these and [cough] so took

[2:01] [clears throat] it up to work through this new set. So I will turn it over to

[2:06] Chris. Um I just want to verify with you Chris that in preparing this you worked

[2:12] independently uh of other board members. um and just put this together by

[2:17] yourself. Correct. >> That's correct.

[2:19] » All right, that's enough. >> All righty,

[2:23] » Amy. It's not visitors. You'll have a chance to comment.

[2:26] » Yeah, but really I must be honest. >> All right. Thank you, Amy. You'll have a

[2:32] chance to comment during public comment. Uh so, Chris, I'm going to turn this

[2:36] over to you at this point [clears throat] to work us through item

[2:39] number four, item number three on the agenda.

[2:41] » Okay. So, we have uh we have two complaints that we're addressing and

[2:46] I've prepared a report for each. Um, so I'm just going to go over the I'm going

[2:51] to go over the report and then the board can discuss and decide whether they want

[2:54] to agree with the findings of the report.

[2:57] » I don't mean to interrupt. >> Amy, you're going to have a chance to

[2:59] comment during visitors. >> Copy of the agenda that I can have.

[3:03] » A copy of the agenda. There might be one on the board outside. You can grab it if

[3:06] you want.

[3:11] » Okay. So, we'll start with the August 23rd written complaint from Josh

[3:16] Howard. And that complaint contains two

[3:20] allegations. The first one is uh pursuant to Vermont's open meeting law 1

[3:25] VSA 312, meeting minutes must serve as a true indication of all public business,

[3:29] including a record of official documents received and any material public access

[3:33] disruption. Sorry.

[3:36] » The relevant law here is 1 VSA 312B1 and it requires that minutes shall be

[3:43] taken of all meetings of public bodies. The minutes shall cover all topics and

[3:47] motions that arise at the meeting and give a true indication of the business

[3:50] of the meeting. Minutes shall include at least the following minimal information.

[3:54] All members of the public body present. All other active participants in the

[3:58] meeting. All motions, proposals, and resolutions made, offered, and

[4:03] considered. and what disposition is made of same and the results of any votes

[4:07] with a record of the individual vote of each member if a roll call is taken.

[4:12] 1 VSA 312 sets a minimum standard of requirements for what must be included

[4:16] in the meeting minutes. This standard does not include a list of documents

[4:19] received and it does not require written comments submitted by the public to be

[4:23] included in the minutes in their entirety. The standard also does not

[4:27] specifically include public access disruptions. In this instance, the

[4:31] reference document was was included in the August 21st select board minutes and

[4:37] it's in the minutes pages 13 through 15. The recommendation is that no violation

[4:43] occurred.

[4:47] The second allegation is that the town's interactive public Zoom link failed to

[4:51] function, completely blocking remote citizen participation.

[4:55] This represents the second meeting where this spec specific technological failure

[4:59] has occurred. The select board has long-standing firsthand knowledge of the

[5:02] systemic defect as members of the select board personally tried to open the

[5:05] broken link a few weeks ago live during a public meeting. Because the board

[5:09] possessed clear advanced notice that remote public access was non-functional

[5:12] and failed to correct it, proceeding with official board deliberations

[5:15] constitutes a distinct and actionable open meeting law violation.

[5:20] In the 7 in the 7:20 uh July 20th select board meeting, Josh commented that the

[5:25] Zoom link was not working and that's on the meeting recording starting at 9:07.

[5:30] Several people in the room tried the link and the consensus seemed to be that

[5:33] the link was not clickable on some phones, but copy pasting the link

[5:36] worked. The meeting agenda for the August 21st select board meeting

[5:41] included a Zoom link as well as a Zoom meeting ID and passcode. Three members

[5:45] of the public, John Chamberlain, Alyssa Hardy, and Brent Goden, participated in

[5:50] the August 21st meeting via Zoom. They were offered an opportunity to make

[5:53] public comment, and that's on the meeting recording starting at 1:2428.

[5:58] All three participants responded when their names were called, mostly stating

[6:01] that they did not have any comments to add.

[6:04] Also at 5:01 p.m. on August 21st, a community member posted on the McGomery

[6:09] area ver Montgomery Vermont area community forum Facebook group

[6:13] encouraging people to join the select board meeting via Zoom. The post

[6:16] included an incorrect link to the Zoom meeting.

[6:20] » Can you slow down a little bit? >> Sure.

[6:24] Relevant law 1VSA 312A3

[6:28] requires state level public bodies to hold all special and regular meetings in

[6:33] a hybrid fashion. This requirement does not apply to local bodies such as the

[6:38] Montgomery Select Board. Local public bodies are required to

[6:43] provide electronic access to a meeting if they receive a written request for

[6:47] access. The Vermont Secretary of State provides

[6:51] an open meeting training video and there's a link to it in the report that

[6:55] provides more information about these requirements.

[7:00] The select board is not required by one VSA 312 to hold meetings in a hybrid

[7:04] format unless a written request for electronic access to that specific

[7:08] meeting has been received. No such request was received for the August 21st

[7:13] meeting. Nevertheless, the August 21st Select Board meeting was held as a

[7:17] hybrid meeting. Three members of the public participated in the meeting

[7:20] remotely via Zoom. Many factors can cause someone to have

[7:24] trouble connecting to a Zoom meeting. These factors can include internet

[7:28] connection issues, problems with the Zoom app, or user error. The select

[7:32] board has no control over any of these factors.

[7:36] In the July 20th meeting, Josh reported difficulty clicking on the Zoom link.

[7:40] Several people in the room tried the link and the consensus seemed to be that

[7:43] the link was not clickable on some phones but copyping the link worked. The

[7:48] URL for the Zoom link is generated by Zoom. Zoom support provides some

[7:53] troubleshooting steps to follow when having trouble connecting to a meeting

[7:57] which include manually entering the meeting ID and passcode.

[8:01] The Vermont the Montgomery Vermont area community forum Facebook post that

[8:05] contained an incorrect link may have also contributed to some members of the

[8:09] public having trouble connecting to the August 21st Zoom meeting. The select

[8:12] board has no control over the Facebook group or the account that posted the

[8:15] incorrect link. Recommendation, no violation of

[8:33] And then um the motion >> the motion that we should make would be

[8:39] » if we make I'll make a motion to accept. >> Okay. I had can

[8:43] » both. >> Okay. And uh the the wording um of the

[8:48] motion should be after reviewing the facts and applying the law as described

[8:51] in the report. I move that the select board find that no violation occurred

[8:55] and that no cure is necessary and that a copy of the report be attached to the

[8:58] minutes of this meeting. >> Yeah,

[9:01] » that's that's the motion. >> Uh so we have a motion from Mark.

[9:07] Is there a second?

[9:11] Second. We have a motion made and seconded. Is

[9:15] there any discussion? So um I've zoomed on twice. having an issue.

[9:22] So are there and this is this is just a

[9:28] question that probably might not be able to be answered but the people that are

[9:30] having problems is it consistently the same people is it they can get on one

[9:34] time and on another time I I mean I'm not something that we're going to be

[9:37] able to solve the problem now but um is this a an action to I mean because

[9:44] it is a hybrid form or um maybe in good faith are we I mean is this a contacting

[9:51] Zoom or is this more were you looking this specific at a user error?

[9:55] » Well, I think probably I think what I think the issue probably is is that when

[10:01] you click on the link, what what happens when you click on the link depends on

[10:05] what app you're using to display the document. So, that may be different if

[10:08] you're on a if you're on a computer versus a phone and the uh the agenda

[10:13] goes out as a PDF document. So depending on what PDF viewer you're using, it may

[10:18] behave differently and I think that's probably what's causing the issue.

[10:23] » Is this just for you guys right now? >> What I want to know.

[10:27] » So is when when we when we post this um on the website, can they click directly

[10:34] from the website with the link? >> Yeah. So, when you if you go to the

[10:39] website and you look up the the agenda on the drop-own menu, there's two

[10:44] options. You can download it or you can preview it. If you download it, you'll

[10:47] download the full PDF. If you preview it, the PDF will pop up in a window. Um,

[10:53] and in that window, if the PDF is in the right format, the link is live. That's

[10:58] what I used to get that computer on there. Um there was one posting of the

[11:02] agenda where somehow when the um when the PDF was transmitted to Liz or when

[11:11] Liz posted it, the link was a dead link. It like didn't go anywhere. Um and we

[11:16] didn't realize it until that meeting. That was when the the link was grayed

[11:20] out. It wasn't blue. >> Um I think we resolved that in terms of

[11:23] how things are set and how it gets posted. But I have been checking that

[11:26] when it gets posted to make sure that the link is live. So now that we're we

[11:31] offer a hybrid function for people um is there something that we can do um before

[11:39] the meeting starts that we're ensuring that the link is is viable or I mean and

[11:46] and I'm not saying it's possible. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just

[11:48] saying that to appease or to help um the people or the people. I mean I like I

[11:54] said I've done it twice. I haven't had an issue. I've done it on my computer. I

[11:57] haven't done it on my phone. Um, but I just I mean obviously I know an Android

[12:01] and Apple have a different operating system and the computer has a different

[12:04] operating system whether it's an a Mac or a

[12:07] » a regular computer. So um just saying that is there um you know when we when

[12:12] we pose this are we making sure I mean obviously it's a Zoom thing right this

[12:16] not we we they generates the link Zoom generates the link we don't generate the

[12:20] link >> and that link is generated and from what

[12:24] you said when it's blue it means it's live I think that's the

[12:27] » that's my non-technical way of phrasing that but

[12:32] » and I would say the other thing that we could do is just make sure that people

[12:35] know that if the link doesn't work they can you can go on Zoom, you can go to

[12:39] the Zoom website and you can click join a meeting and you can type in the

[12:42] meeting ID and passcode. >> Okay.

[12:46] » One thing I don't want to make a I do not want to make a friendly amendment um

[12:52] to to what was motioned, but something that my takeaway on this is that there

[12:57] is a concern about the Zoom and accessibility. Um, I what I'd like to

[13:03] do, you know, is with the board's kind of agreement, if you will, I think it

[13:08] might be helpful if I could uh go into the town office, maybe talk to Liz um

[13:12] and and better understand like what all of these processes are because I think

[13:17] we've been doing it the same way for a really long time. And as far as I know,

[13:20] it works, but some people have had issues. Uh, I wonder if there's um if it

[13:25] might be helpful for me to just go through and see if there are any

[13:28] accessibility improvements or recommendations that I can make like how

[13:31] links are posted, how meetings are posted. Um, looking at the user

[13:34] friendliness of the website, just maybe try to have a a comprehensive look at it

[13:39] and maybe solicit input from the community if they have, you know,

[13:43] requests something that might make it easier or make this hybrid system work

[13:47] better for them. understanding that none of this is a promise that anything will

[13:50] change, but just to see if there are improvements that we can do without

[13:54] detracting from, you know, the the requirements of the meeting.

[14:00] » Sure, Daniel. Yeah, by all means, if you want to dig [snorts] into it.

[14:04] » Yeah, I would I would say I think uh looking at the the usability of our

[14:09] website and those processes is a great idea. Um, in terms of the actual Zoom

[14:14] link, I don't think it's going to make much difference because a Zoom link is

[14:17] just the address of a web page. And so, it's either clickable or it's not. I

[14:22] mean, it's either it's either in the document as a link or it's in there as

[14:26] text >> and it's probably I think probably most

[14:30] of the issues are maybe specific to a particular platform like particular, you

[14:36] know, phone configuration in PDF viewer that's causing the link not to

[14:42] not to be active >> because it is active on when you open it

[14:47] from a computer. It is active and it works.

[14:52] » All right. Any other discussion on the motion?

[14:58] » Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I or raising your

[15:01] hand. I >> Any opposed?

[15:06] Any abstensions? I will abstain.

[15:11] Uh, the motion carries. Chris, back to you.

[15:17] » Okay, so the second complaint is an August 21st complaint from Carrie

[15:24] Quinton and it has several allegations. Uh,

[15:29] allegation one is that Charlie's 33125 email violated open meeting law. This is

[15:35] the wastewater email. Um, and this uh was actually I think maybe the complaint

[15:40] was written before um the result of our last meeting, but this uh open meeting

[15:48] law question was covered in last week's report.

[15:52] » Um, and the uh complaint says that um that

[16:00] it that the email constitutes a meeting under one VSA 312 and it is possible

[16:06] for emails to constitute a meeting under 1 VSA 312. But in this case, Charlie's

[16:11] email does not meet the definition of a meeting because it did not discuss

[16:14] business of the select board. It discussed a public election.

[16:19] So the recommendation there is that no violation occurred.

[16:23] The second allegation is that Charlie's

[16:28] 33125 email violated the public records act

[16:33] one v one VSA 316. Charlie's

[16:38] email was released in response to a July 27th public records request from Carrie

[16:44] Quinton. And the email is attached to the minutes of the August 3rd McGomery

[16:48] Select Board meeting. And the email includes and the the response to the

[16:54] public records request includes the list of BCC recipients.

[17:02] So the um the al the allegation here was that the use of the BCC function was

[17:11] a violation of the public records act. >> Are you going through the first letter

[17:17] or are you going through the one that I gave you recently?

[17:20] I'm going through I'm going through the um I'm going through your

[17:26] » the stuff that you submitted that was that was in the um minutes of the last

[17:31] meeting >> that you submitted on August 21st.

[17:36] » Okay. Thank you. >> The other the other email that you sent

[17:40] um was a list of questions and it did not appear to be a complaint. It was

[17:44] just a list of questions. >> Exactly. I was like wait.

[17:46] » Yeah. So I'm not going through that. All right. Um, so the BCC function is

[17:53] commonly used when sending a mass email in order to avoid sharing the email

[17:57] addresses of each recipient with all the other recipients. The email was released

[18:01] in response to a public records request on July 27th. The response to the public

[18:06] records request included the list of BCC recipients.

[18:10] Recommendation, no violation occurred. >> I just added all this to add to your

[18:16] meeting. It wasn't

[18:23] We'll have chance for public comment when we get to public comment. We're

[18:26] going to let Chris continue. We're going to let Chris continue with his report.

[18:30] » Allegation three, Charlie's 33125 email constituted abuse of town resources and

[18:36] impermissable impermissible electioning. The email was sent from mcgomery

[18:41] selectboard.charie@gmail.com. A free Gmail account created by Charlie.

[18:46] The email did not use any non-public or confidential town information. No town

[18:51] resources were used to send the email. The relevant law here uh is the

[18:56] municipal code of ethics uh misuse of position, misuse of information, and

[19:01] misuse of government resources. >> [snorts]

[19:05] » A common thread running through the recent complaints seems to be the

[19:08] misconception that select board members must remain neutral or impartial on

[19:12] public policy questions and that it is somehow improper for them to advocate

[19:16] for a policy position. This is not the case. Select board

[19:21] members are elected officials and it is entirely acceptable for them to hold and

[19:25] advocate for policy positions. see the report on investigation into

[19:30] ethics and OML complaints which is the report from last week's meeting.

[19:35] The 2022 article ask do select persons have to be impartial by VLCT municipal

[19:43] assistance center attorney Garrett Baxter also explains this common

[19:46] misconception. Do select persons have to be impartial?

[19:50] And this is this is a quote from the article. Do select persons have to be

[19:54] impartial? >> Not always. one article, correct?

[19:58] » It's from uh Vermont League of Cities and Towns Municipal Assistance Center.

[20:04] And there's a uh there's a link to it in the in this report. There's a link to

[20:10] the folder. >> So, where do I find that report though?

[20:12] » It'll be >> Will it be posted?

[20:15] » It'll be posted to the minutes. >> Yeah.

[20:17] » Okay. >> Do select persons have to be impartial?

[20:21] Not always. It depends on the context. Like all other elected officials at the

[20:26] local, state, or federal level, select persons are first and foremost

[20:30] politicians. Politicking involves finding common ground where it exists,

[20:35] engaging in horse trading, advocating for or against people, projects, and

[20:40] positions, and sometimes taking sides. There's a widespread misconception in

[20:45] local government that a select board must be impartial in all matters that

[20:48] come before it. This is simply not the case. Context is key.

[20:54] Many people run for office because of something they want to accomplish or

[20:58] because of a particular issue that sparked their spirit of civic

[21:00] engagement. Publicly taking a position on an issue will generally not

[21:05] disqualify a select person from participating in a legislative

[21:09] rulemaking or executive administrative context so long as some unique benefit

[21:15] is not conferred upon them that is not afforded to the rest of the general

[21:18] public. Bias, a preference or inclination that

[21:23] inhibits impartial judgment, typically only becomes a disqualifying factor when

[21:27] a select person acts in a quasi judicial context, i.e. when it is acting like a

[21:32] court. Examples of when a select board serves in this role include when it's

[21:37] hearing a dog bite complaint or when it's sitting in judgment of a tax appeal

[21:41] as a member of the board of civil authority.

[21:46] The email did not use any non-public or confidential town information.

[21:49] Therefore, there was no violation of 24 VSA 1993D.

[21:54] It did not use any town resources. Therefore, there was no violation of 24

[21:58] VSA 1993E. The email provided no personal or

[22:03] financial benefit for Charlie. Therefore, there was no violation of 24

[22:06] VSA 1993 C. Recommendation, no violation occurred.

[22:14] Allegation four, the August 17th special town meeting violated 1 VSA 312, which

[22:21] states the public must be able to hear the conduct of the meeting and be heard

[22:24] throughout

[22:28] Vermont opening law 1 VSA 310 item item five defines the term meeting

[22:35] and 5E explicitly excludes special town meetings. 5E says meeting does not mean

[22:41] a gathering of the voters at a municipality for the purposes of

[22:44] conducting an annual or special municipal meeting.

[22:51] the cited section of 1vsa 312 to be able to hear the conduct of the meeting and

[22:56] be heard throughout the meeting which is from 1vsa 312 part u section a part c2

[23:05] applies to meetings where a member of the body is attending remotely even if 1

[23:11] vsa 312 did apply to the special town meeting town meetings do not allow

[23:15] remote participation so this section would not apply

[23:19] recommendation No violation occurred.

[23:26] Allegation five, the August 17th special town meeting

[23:31] should be invalidated based on Charlie's conflict of interest, his failure to

[23:35] abstain, and failure to provide a legally audible forum. Charlie must

[23:40] abstain from participating in or presiding over any and all citizen

[23:44] petitions or special meetings in the future.

[23:48] So, facts. On June 15th, 2026, the select board adopted the short-term

[23:53] rental ordinance. On July 6th, the select board received a petition seeking

[23:57] a special meeting to disapprove the ordinance. On July 13th, the select

[24:02] board warned the August 17th special meeting to act on the following article

[24:06] of business. Shall the town of Montgomery disapprove the short-term

[24:10] rental ordinance adopted by the select board on June 15, 2026, thereby

[24:14] rendering said ordinance null, void, and of no legal effect via petition 24VSA

[24:20] 1973. The special town meeting was held on

[24:24] August 17th and was presided over by Jacob Rekusen, the moderator elected by

[24:29] the town. The audience microphones were not working during the first part of the

[24:33] meeting. The moderator encouraged everyone to speak loudly or come to the

[24:37] front of the room and use the moderator's microphone if needed and

[24:40] offered to repeat questions or comments as needed so that everyone could hear.

[24:44] The microphone issue was fixed during the meeting.

[24:49] Relevant law 17 VSA sections 2640 through 2667

[24:55] regulate the conduct of town meetings. 17 VSA 2641 requires that a town meeting

[25:01] be warned not less than 30 nor more than 40 days before the meeting.

[25:07] 17 VSA 2666 requires that neither the warning, the notice, the official voter

[25:13] information cards, nor the ballot itself shall include any opinion or comment by

[25:18] any town body or officer or other person on the matter to be voted on.

[25:23] 17 VSA 2667 requires that the legislative body of the municipality

[25:29] shall take reasonable measures to ensure that voters who are elders or have a

[25:33] disability may conveniently attend annual or special meetings, provided,

[25:37] however, that such measures need not be taken if doing so would impose undue

[25:40] hardship on the town. Measures may include location of meetings on the

[25:44] ground floor of buildings or providing ramps or other devices for access to

[25:48] meetings. 24 VSA1973

[25:52] allows voters to petition to disapprove an ordinance by submitting a petition

[25:56] signed by at least 5% of the voters within 44 days of the adoption of the

[26:00] ordinance. 24VSA1973 then requires the select board to call a

[26:05] special meeting within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the petition.

[26:10] The select board received petition calling for a vote to disapprove the

[26:13] short-term rental ordinance. The select board warned the meeting as required by

[26:18] 17 VSA 2641. The warned article warned article did

[26:24] not contain any opinion or comment. So there was no violation of 17 VSA 2666.

[26:31] This is the only action the select board takes with respect to a petition. The

[26:35] question then goes to the voters of the town at the special town meeting.

[26:40] 17 VSA 2667 requires reasonable measures to ensure

[26:45] that voters who are elders or have a disability may conveniently attend

[26:49] unless doing so causes undue hardship. The town hall where the special meeting

[26:53] was held has ramps and an elevator to ensure wheelchair accessibility. There

[26:58] is no specific requirement that microphones be provided.

[27:02] The audience microphones were not working at the beginning of the meeting.

[27:06] The moderator made reasonable efforts to ensure that everyone could hear the

[27:09] proceedings. He encouraged everyone to speak loudly or come to the front of the

[27:13] room and use the moderator's microphone if needed and offered to repeat

[27:17] questions or comments as needed so that everyone could hear.

[27:22] The complaint also claims that Charlie has a conflict of interest, but does not

[27:26] identify a specific conflict. This conflict of interest claim has already

[27:31] been addressed in the report from last week.

[27:35] Charlie's affiliations with VLCT, Vermont Land Trust, Working Lands

[27:39] Enterprise Board, etc. do not create a conflict. Not because these are

[27:44] reputable organizations whose missions benefit Vermont communities, but because

[27:49] none of these organizations have any stake in the outcome of Montgomery's

[27:53] wastewater project or short-term rental ordinance.

[27:57] A conflict of interest does not exist in a vacuum. It must be tied to a

[28:02] particular issue. In order for one of Charlie's

[28:05] affiliations to cause a conflict on a particular issue, there would need to be

[28:10] evidence that Charlie through his affiliation with the organization stands

[28:14] to gain or lose something based on the outcome of the select board decision.

[28:19] The complaint does not identify which organization is involved or what

[28:23] interest that organization might have in the wastewater or short-term rental

[28:26] issues. The complaint also claims that Charlie

[28:31] was not impartial. There is no requirement that select board members be

[28:35] impartial on questions of public policy. The job of the select board is to

[28:40] supervise the affairs of the town 24 VSA872.

[28:45] When a proposal such as the wastewater project or short-term rental ordinance

[28:49] comes before the select board, each select board member studies the issue,

[28:53] asks questions, listens to public comment on the issue, and discusses the

[28:57] issue with other members in open meetings. Each member forms their own

[29:01] opinion as to whether they are in favor or opposed to the measure at issue.

[29:05] Having an opinion on a public policy issue is not evidence of a conflict. In

[29:11] many cases, as in the case of the short-term rental ordinance, petitions

[29:15] are brought for the purpose of reversing or undoing an action taken by the select

[29:19] board. Therefore, it should not be surprising for a select board member to

[29:24] be opposed to an article that is brought by petition. The fact that a select

[29:28] board member disagrees with the petitioner's policy position does not

[29:32] indicate that there must be some hidden conflict of interest.

[29:37] At the town meeting, voters ask questions, share their opinions, and

[29:41] hear perspectives from both sides of the issue, and the voters make a decision.

[29:46] There is no requirement that select board members remain silent during this

[29:49] process. As the elected representatives of the voters, it is entirely

[29:54] appropriate for select board members to explain the select board's actions and

[29:58] the reasoning behind them to the voters. The special town meeting is not a select

[30:03] board meeting. It is a meeting of the voters of the town of Montgomery.

[30:07] Charlie did not preside over the meeting. The presiding officer of the

[30:11] meeting was Jacob Racusen, the moderator elected by the town. Charlie's actions

[30:16] during the special town meeting included participating in floor debate when

[30:19] recognized by the moderator and voting. These are actions that are available to

[30:24] every voter at the meeting. Recommendation.

[30:28] The petition to disapprove the short-term rental ordinance was handled

[30:32] properly by the select board. There is no cause to invalidate the result of the

[30:36] August 17th special town meeting. Charlie has no obligation to abstain

[30:41] from future special meetings or select board action on voter petitions.

[30:50] » I'll make a motion. >> Okay.

[30:52] » Did you have >> same motion as before?

[30:53] » Yeah. >> After reviewing the facts and applying

[30:55] the law as described in the report, >> I move that the select board find that

[30:59] no violation occurred and that no cure is necessary and that a copy of the

[31:02] report be attached to the minutes of this.

[31:04] » Yeah, that's the motion. We have a motion from Mark. Is there a

[31:09] second? >> Second.

[31:12] » Thank you, Dennis. Is there any discussion on the motion?

[31:19] Not hearing any. All those in favor, please signify by saying I or raising

[31:23] your hand. >> I.

[31:25] » Any opposed? Any abstensions? I will abstain. And the

[31:30] motion carries. That brings us through item three.

[31:35] Uh moving on to item four. So this is um board process for receiving written

[31:40] comments and communications. Um so I'm looking for guidance from the board on

[31:44] this. We only started accepting written comments back in July. Um

[31:51] since then given the volume and timing of the material that we've received um

[31:55] you know the minutes from August 3rd were 24 pages long. The minutes from

[31:59] August 21st were 19 19 pages long. for the comments. Um, timing wise, we

[32:05] sometimes get stuff given to us at the meetings, stuff comes in the Monday

[32:09] following. We also get stuff submitted Thursday with a request to put them on

[32:14] the following minutes. So, so timing is kind of unclear. Um, and there's also

[32:19] some questions about the content. Um, specifically, if we receive written

[32:24] comments that include profanity, how do we handle that? Um, and so, uh, I'm

[32:29] looking for some guidance from the board as to how to handle written

[32:34] communications or written comments the board receives. Again, when we started

[32:38] receiving them and recording them in July, I did that on my own. I didn't ask

[32:43] the board. I just said, "Sure." Um, but now I am looking for the board to

[32:48] provide some guidance on how we how we handle this. Um, again just given the

[32:54] volume, the timing, the content, and then the physical requirements of having

[32:58] to actually record all this stuff on archival paper.

[33:00] » Is there any um guidance from like the state of how to handle

[33:05] » So according to state law, the minutes cover uh basically just three things.

[33:10] Who was there, the motions that were made, and then the result of any votes.

[33:14] Um, so the requirements for the minutes in one VSA 312 are are limited. It's who

[33:20] was there, motions, proposals, resolutions made, and the outcome of the

[33:23] votes,

[33:28] » but there's nothing anywhere saying when you do get a written request, what you

[33:32] have to do. >> No, there isn't. Uh, the towns handle

[33:35] this differently. Um, there are towns that have uh written board policies,

[33:39] which we've talked about in the past, that talk about uh taking written

[33:44] communications and putting them in a file. It's available on public record.

[33:48] Um, I haven't found any board or city council that actually accepts written

[33:53] comments and records them with the meeting minutes. Um,

[33:58] but there's no there's no formal guidance other than that. Um, if you

[34:02] read things that are out there about minutes, um, some of the stuff that

[34:06] you'll find it is statements like the minutes exist to record the board's

[34:10] business. It's not a forum for public discussion. Um, but there's no other

[34:15] guidance beyond what's in state law from the state.

[34:18] What was it about the profanity? >> Uh my question related to profanity was

[34:23] what do you do if there's profanity in written comments? Um I don't feel

[34:28] comfortable censoring someone's written comments or editing them. Um,

[34:33] » well, because >> um, so, uh,

[34:39] » board members, >> if you can't be quiet and act

[34:42] respectfully, >> I asked you because sometimes

[34:45] » you'll get a chance during public comment to talk. So, when you're

[34:48] recognized, you'll have a chance. Thank you, Amy.

[34:51] » And, she just turned around and told me. >> Thank you, Amy. Okay, let's all try to

[34:55] behave like third graders and kind of keep their hands to oursel and stay

[34:59] quiet and and not be mean to other people. We're just going to, you know,

[35:04] be ourselves. So, >> all right, board members,

[35:09] what do you want to do with written communications that are received either

[35:14] at a meeting or between minute meetings? H how do you want to handle this?

[35:20] So, have we always accepted written?

[35:25] » No, we we only started really doing it back in July. It was at the request of a

[35:30] member of the community that didn't feel comfortable speaking publicly and I

[35:34] said, "Just give me your comments and I'll record them with the meeting

[35:36] minutes." >> Um,

[35:39] following that seemed to kind of >> open the floodgates to that. Um, and so

[35:45] again, given the timing, the volume, the content,

[35:49] » I'd like to figure out something that, you know, we can do to receive these,

[35:54] um, but also make the minutes manageable and, you know, in the in the format

[35:59] that's appropriate given what they're there to do.

[36:08] » Yeah. I I feel like the minutes aren't really the right place for those. I

[36:13] wouldn't be opposed to posting them somewhere else

[36:18] if there if there's another place to do that.

[36:21] » So like you mean physically post a copy? >> Well, I was thinking on the website is

[36:25] what I was thinking. But >> yeah, my only concern with that is that

[36:30] then we end up with a part of our website that really looks a lot like a

[36:34] comment section on the Facebook post. Um, and we all know what happens in the

[36:38] comment section of the Facebook posts. >> That's a that's a good point. And then

[36:41] it it becomes an there's an onus on the board to either moderate that or respond

[36:46] to it which kind of creates a separate dialogue from what's happening.

[36:53] I mean I'll offer that the and I have not done an exhaustive survey of other

[36:57] boards policies but the policies that I have looked up the ones that I have read

[37:01] that have policies [clears throat] related to this seem to say that they

[37:05] accept the comment. um they'll record it received and they'll keep it on a file

[37:09] that's available for public inspection. Um they don't record it with the

[37:13] minutes. If it is a comment that gets at a specific policy um such as conflict of

[37:20] interest policy, complaint policy, dog policy, then that policy governs what

[37:24] happens with uh the comments beyond that.

[37:37] There's there's kind of a distinction between maybe there's a distinction also

[37:40] between a comment and versus a versus a written complaint because complaints

[37:45] would ideally have a policy for how to handle those depending on what type of

[37:50] complaint. So in the case of that if a complaint

[37:54] was received in writing at a meeting it would be taken stamped as received filed

[38:00] and then the complaint policy would govern the next steps associated with

[38:04] that >> similar to if a written complaint about

[38:07] a dog was handed to us. Um if it was just written comment related to

[38:13] someone's opinion on the color of the new trucks uh that would be stamped as

[38:18] received and it would go into the file and retained. uh that's available for

[38:22] public inspection, but it would not get posted with the minutes or anything

[38:26] happen beyond right.

[38:32] » So, we're talking about people are just writing an opinion that can't be here.

[38:37] Is that or because they don't? >> So, what we're getting now is we're

[38:42] getting things handed to us at meetings. We're getting communications emailed to

[38:46] us before and after meetings with requests that they be recorded with the

[38:50] minutes. [snorts] Um, we're getting stuff all sorts of ways

[38:54] » and the the law states that we're not required

[38:58] to >> one VSA 312 simply states that the

[39:02] minutes cover who was there, the motions, proposals, resolutions made,

[39:05] and the result of the votes. Our minutes tend to be a little bit more

[39:10] than that just to give a little bit more color into like so for example when Mark

[39:15] provides an update on public works we tend to give a short synopsis of the

[39:19] guys are working here they're finishing that up so we try to add a little color

[39:23] I mean if you go back into the town records and look at minutes from like

[39:26] the 70s some of these are less than onethird of a page long for a meeting

[39:31] that lasted six and a half hours >> so um we've gotten a little bit more

[39:38] verose with our minutes over the years. Um, but state law, three things, who was

[39:43] there, motions, proposals made, and the result of the votes.

[39:47] » Larry had a question. >> Can it wait until public comment?

[39:50] » I'm okay. >> Thanks, Larry.

[39:52] » Just trying to help you out. >> I just I don't want to start selectively

[39:56] letting people talk whenever. So, we're going to handle everything during public

[39:59] comment. Um

[40:04] » um >> I'd like I'd like to just look into it

[40:09] more and then see what you know. >> Okay.

[40:12] » If you want to table it, that's fine. I just as as the person who currently is

[40:16] taking the minutes. >> I don't feel comfortable making a

[40:19] unilateral decision about this one way or the other just as I don't feel

[40:22] comfortable censoring something that comes.

[40:24] » I'm hoping hoping this is going to slow down.

[40:26] » Okay. >> All right. If if that's fine, if folks

[40:29] are comfortable tableabling this, we can. Um, it also brings up the broader

[40:34] question that came up at a couple meetings around board policy related to

[40:37] things like if we are doing a hybrid meeting and the meeting glitches, what's

[40:42] the process for addressing it? So, we can look at a a board policy about

[40:46] meetings too if we want to. >> Yeah.

[40:48] » Um, so we can certainly look at that, but if

[40:50] » maybe that's >> if the consensus is that we want to

[40:52] table it for this evening, that's >> totally fine with me.

[40:58] Yeah. >> Okay.

[41:00] » Sounds like the consensus is to table it. So, we'll carry that item forward

[41:03] while folks can think on it and um do a little bit more digging if they want to.

[41:08] That brings us to item five. This is the Northwest Fiberworks lease agreement. Um

[41:13] so, I will point out that this is one area where if the board does want to go

[41:17] into executive session, we can because it's essentially a contract. And so

[41:22] premature public knowledge of our positions related to a contract during a

[41:25] contract negotiation is a mechanism whereby we can go into executive session

[41:31] because the premature knowledge of our discussions could put us at a

[41:34] disadvantage. Um I'm not saying we have to do that. Um I don't think there's a

[41:39] lot in here that's proprietary or or secretive. Um I'll walk through. So, was

[41:46] there anybody else >> interested in doing a lease with us for

[41:49] » So, we do have So, we have two we have two uh two entities looking to enter

[41:54] into an agreement with us. The first is Northwest Fiberworks. This is the one

[41:57] that we've got before us tonight. They're the ones that want to put the

[42:00] equipment in the firebase um storage area in the back. Doug is working with

[42:05] them very closely on that. Doug has reviewed all this and is okay with it. I

[42:09] will say um the other entity is north is uh NEK broadband or NEKCU.

[42:17] Um they're also looking to enter into an agreement with us that would be to house

[42:21] equipment outside of the building uh on a separate

[42:25] thing that they would have access to out there. Um they have not gotten back to

[42:30] me with detailed responses some of the questions I posed. So we don't have

[42:34] something to act on by them tonight. But those are the two groups that are

[42:38] looking to utilize space here. >> Oh, okay.

[42:42] » Are we are we looking at So, we're not we're we're in the position to pick one

[42:47] or the other. >> No. No. So, this So, so this is Sounds

[42:49] like >> uh NEK broadband is coming over the hill

[42:52] down 242 and Fiberworks is coming in from the west. So, Montgomery is going

[42:58] to be served by two different communication districts. Yeah. Um, and

[43:02] because essentially both of their lines terminate in Montgomery, they're both

[43:06] looking to house equipment here to assist with the operations of their

[43:10] systems. So, North House Fiber Works, um, the

[43:15] response to some of the things that were raised in the last uh, draft that we

[43:19] reviewed. Um, so the this agreement should be between the town of Montgomery

[43:22] and the fire department. That's been corrected here. Um, article three, um,

[43:28] there was some conversations around, uh, the free service at the subject

[43:32] property, this ser this property. So, um, in consideration for the lease

[43:37] agreement, they would give free service to the town. Um, they're also providing

[43:40] a generator out back that will then be in our ownership. So, in addition to the

[43:44] generator, they're looking to provide free service. I did go back and forth.

[43:48] » So, the current cost of the service is 250 a month. So, then they're going to

[43:52] wave that. Uh yes, that would be the idea. Dennis, you got a question.

[43:55] » They are paying for the generator. >> Yes.

[43:57] » Yeah. >> So the generator is being furnished and

[43:59] then that reverts the ownership of that uh reverts to the town.

[44:03] » Um it will be hooked into their system so that should power fail that generator

[44:07] will work for them but it will also work for this building.

[44:11] » So this building is okay. >> Yep.

[44:13] » Um so I did ask about other places in town and free service other locations.

[44:19] The response I got in writing here is that um the free service only pertains

[44:23] to the premise in which the equipment is being housed.

[44:27] Um >> so let me ask this question. So if we're

[44:30] looking at two different >> companies coming in here, does it have

[44:33] to be >> one's coming from the west,

[44:37] one's coming from whatever, east, north, south, whatever. So does it have to be

[44:42] this building? Can one be at a different building and one what I'm getting at is

[44:46] that this one's offering free internet service for here like we got you know

[44:52] other public spaces is that is it availability to

[44:56] » Yeah. So um so I think the location here is what makes the most sense for where

[45:02] their service is going to kind of be divided like any K is going to come down

[45:06] the hill basically to here. Northwest works is going to come from the west up

[45:11] to here. So this location just makes sense in terms of where their service

[45:14] lines end. Um I have talked to them a little bit more about where they are

[45:19] proposing to offer service in the community um and where we would have

[45:23] access to it. So they are going to have service on Main Street. To your broader

[45:27] point, if NEK broadband terminates here, um my question to NEK broadband would be

[45:34] can you provide us free service here? thinking any uh Northwest Fiberworks

[45:39] could provide us free service at some other location on Main Street like the

[45:42] town hall. >> Um

[45:44] » I have not gotten a definitive answer like on that from either one other than

[45:50] that's something that we can do. Um, so my my recommendation once I run through

[45:55] the questions is going to be that within this we amend uh we we approve it with

[46:01] an amendment to um the third article in here that instead

[46:08] of saying >> third

[46:09] » um town of Montgomery future fire

[46:13] department 86 Mountain Road that we amend that to at one municipally owned

[46:17] property. >> Yeah.

[46:18] » Yeah. I guess my thing too is that if we don't have the proposal from another

[46:23] place, what are their what are they offering? Yeah. For the town, are they

[46:26] more amunable to saying all public, you know, all the spaces or

[46:31] » Yeah. So, I don't think that would work for them because they're not going to

[46:33] the only they're not going to have service that extends to any other of our

[46:37] buildings. >> We're just coming to here.

[46:38] » So, just so it's going to stop here and it's not going to go that way.

[46:41] » That's my understanding. So, NEK would be basically the ones that we'd want to

[46:44] provide here. Yeah. and and they have said in principle in an email like

[46:48] that's something that they would be amicable to as consideration for the

[46:51] agreement. Um but they haven't gotten that to us in in writing yet.

[46:56] » So this 250 is what they're saying what like what what's what's our service?

[46:59] What are we paying now? >> It's through uh we have a few different

[47:04] services here. I talked to Liz about it today. We've got a consolidated account.

[47:08] We also have a Comcast business account. Um, I think when you combine all these

[47:13] things, it's over 250 a month. >> Yeah.

[47:16] » Um, I don't know the exact number we're paying.

[47:19] » This building has two different carriers.

[47:21] » Yeah, we have an account through uh through Comcast Business. We also have

[47:25] an account through Consolidated. I don't quite understand this, but the

[47:28] consolidated one I think we have because of the package that they offer. They

[47:34] don't I mean I dropped consolidated a while ago, so I don't really know, but I

[47:37] guess it's like you you you can't just tease out the phone service the way that

[47:41] they were basically pitching it to us. I'm not sure.

[47:45] » So our phone services was consolidated. Okay.

[47:48] » And my preference would be longterm to figure out some voiceover IP thing so

[47:51] that we can just go straight internet and drop the phone altogether. But

[47:56] there's some details that have to get worked out there.

[47:57] » My yeah concern with that would be is if the internet goes down I mean I guess

[48:03] one or the other. If the internet goes down I would think the phone lines are

[48:06] going down anyway. So >> um

[48:11] okay. >> So

[48:15] the generator not only u covers their panel but it it it covers

[48:22] this building right that it runs his building. Yep.

[48:27] » And who and who's responsible for the update of the generator?

[48:30] » Uh we maintain the generator. >> So it's our responsibility. It's a free

[48:33] generator, but we're we're we're taking care of it.

[48:36] » Okay. >> And and and who's doing that? Obviously,

[48:40] it's the whoever's installing it or >> I'd be the company we use to do all of

[48:43] our generator maintenance. >> Yeah, we use Milton Cat.

[48:47] » Milton Cat does our generator. >> All right. So, oh, sorry. Do you have

[48:53] another question? Is that the generators going on in here as Milton Cat?

[48:56] » I I haven't walked up to see I don't know what it is, but Milton's Cat is the

[49:00] company we use to service the generators.

[49:03] » Uh so going again going through our punch list that we sent back to them.

[49:06] Article five, exhibit A needs amending. They've corrected that.

[49:11] » Yeah. >> Article six, landlord agrees to provide

[49:14] electricity electricity. Tenant pays amounts of usage based on monitoring

[49:18] equipment. So, um, we can figure out with them whether we want to invoice

[49:22] them monthly or quarterly. Um, they're fine with either. Quarterly is probably

[49:27] more efficient. >> Um, article seven,

[49:31] uh, the generator is a Generrack 30 kilowatt singlephase LP liquid cooled

[49:36] transfer switch is a gener 400 amp singlephase automatic transfer switch.

[49:42] » Uh, article nine.

[49:46] Uh so they have clarified the generators being supplied by Northwest Fiberworks.

[49:50] Article 9 is to ensure that any upgrades to the backup battery equipment that may

[49:53] be needed in the future is accounted for. Um

[49:58] so they addressed the question that we had with article 9. So that should be

[50:02] fine. Now uh article 17 the question was

[50:06] clarifying the gen the owners the ownership of the generator and they have

[50:09] clarified yes the generator will remain with the town of Montgomery.

[50:14] Uh, and they fixed the stuff in exhibit A. The header is no longer Alberg. It's

[50:20] Montgomery. The address has been fixed. The location has been clarified. And

[50:24] which door they're talking about in exhibit A has also been clarified.

[50:28] So, uh, they've addressed all the concerns. Um, again, I went over this,

[50:34] Doug has gone over this, um, since he has a better understanding of the

[50:38] electrical needs plus on the part of the fire department. Um, so my

[50:42] recommendation to the board tonight would be to sign this, but that we amend

[50:47] article three. Um, >> so that it reads as such service

[50:53] delivered to the town of Montgomery for use at and then instead of it saying the

[50:58] Montgomery Fire Department, 86 Mountain Road, etc., etc., [clears throat] um, we

[51:02] just say at a municipal property of our choosing. [cough]

[51:10] » [clears throat]

[51:13] » So, this this one here is going to service more of the town

[51:18] » than the other one coming in. Is that what you're saying? I

[51:20] » I believe that um this this [clears throat] one's going to serve

[51:24] more uh residences >> and more of our infrastructure, more

[51:29] Yeah. more the town buildings. [clears throat]

[51:33] » And Charlie, just to confirm that uh generator backup is going to be for all

[51:36] components of the public service building. That's the fire department,

[51:39] the town office, and the library. >> Yeah.

[51:41] » Yeah. I So, just to clear be clear, I don't think it's it means that we can

[51:45] run everything all at once off of it. I think what it means is that should we

[51:48] have a power outage that gener that generator will allow the building to be

[51:52] used in the capacity of a fire department and an emergency shelter. Um,

[51:58] so I don't think we could all be in here at once with all the lights on doing

[52:00] stuff like we're doing right now. Um, but it would be a backup so that EMS

[52:05] could be served out of that bay and that um, if we needed to make this a a

[52:11] shelter, we could do that.

[52:19] » So, what I'd be looking for, if folks are game, is a motion to um, adopt the

[52:24] lease agreement as amended. And again, the amendment would be article three,

[52:28] changing the Montgomery Fire Department, 86 Mountain Road, Montgomery,

[52:31] Vermont,05470 to at a municipal property of the town's

[52:35] choosing, and then we can work out with them which property you want that to be.

[52:40] » So, I'll I'll make that motion through. >> All right. Thanks, Mark.

[52:44] » Going to lease. Yeah. Yeah, >> I'll second.

[52:47] » All right. We have a a motion from Mark to adopt a lease agreement with

[52:50] Northwest Fiberworks. [snorts] We have a second from Chris.

[52:54] Is there any further discussion? >> The only the 25-y year lease.

[53:00] » Yep. >> That's the only I mean that's

[53:03] it's all on lease. >> It is. Um NEK is angling for a permanent

[53:07] easement. Um and I'm trying to work on them to figure out like

[53:14] why they need that because permanent is a lot longer than 25 years.

[53:18] » Uh I think 25 years is probably the lifespan of their equipment. I'm not

[53:24] quite sure, but yeah. [clears throat]

[53:32] » And again, the it's going to [snorts] be housed in the fire department with

[53:35] access through the fire department. Um, and like I said, the fire department

[53:40] through Doug, the chief has um reviewed this and they're okay with all that.

[53:44] » So, if something goes down the equipment, they're going to get access

[53:46] to the building. Yep. >> Whereas the other company would be

[53:49] outside. >> Outside. Yep. And so NEK is going to or

[53:52] Northwest Fiberworks is going to have a punch code to that outdoor outside door

[53:56] to get into the fire bay to get back to their equipment.

[54:04] » Any other discussion on the uh on the agreement?

[54:13] All right. Not hearing any. All those in favor, please signify by saying I or

[54:16] raising your hand. >> I

[54:18] » I. Any opposed? >> Any abstensions?

[54:23] » Abstain. >> Okay. So, I think what I heard I heard

[54:28] three eyes, one abstension. I didn't catch your

[54:32] vote, Daniel. >> Oh, I was for it.

[54:36] » For it. Okay. >> All right. Um, so motion carries. 401.

[54:41] Dennis abstaining. All right. Uh, that brings us to article

[54:47] six. Article six. Item six, um, bridge rental agreement with the town of

[54:51] Georgia. So, um, as folks should already be aware or if you're not already aware,

[54:56] for full disclosure, my day job is the Franklin and Grandal County Forester

[55:00] with the Department of Forest Parks and Recreation. I'm bringing this to the

[55:04] town to the board for your take on it with that hat on. Um, in my capacity of

[55:12] county forester, I work with towns to develop management plans and execute

[55:16] work on town forests. Um, I'm working with the town of Georgia to do a timber

[55:20] sale on their Silver Lake Town Forest. Um, in order to access that, we need a

[55:25] temporary bridge to get over a small stream on the truck road to get to the

[55:29] property. Um, I thought we had a bridge secured through the department. Uh, but

[55:34] it turned out that it is not available this winter. Um, the town of Montgomery

[55:38] has a portable temporary bridge that is sitting up at the water plant. It's been

[55:43] sitting in there for >> I'm not sure how much is left of it

[55:47] because we used some of it on Brady Road and then some of it on Cotch. So,

[55:50] » yeah, I did. So, I did stop and talk to Scott. Uh

[55:54] » Randy might say might know how much is left, how many feet. Um, and so what

[56:01] what I what I would like what I'm asking from the board tonight is um I guess

[56:08] verbal approval [clears throat] to pursue putting together uh some sort of

[56:12] an agreement to loan them this bridge. It's going to take going and actually

[56:17] figuring out how many pieces are there, the span, getting the stuff. I have

[56:21] talked to Scott and he's okay with it. >> Yeah. Um, I will point out that like in

[56:25] my capacity as county forester, I have no stake in this timber sale. I don't

[56:30] get paid one way or the other from it. None of the proceeds come through me. I

[56:35] am a facilitator working on behalf of the department. Um, but I have no

[56:39] personal financial or other interest in this timber sale. I'm just trying to

[56:43] help another town in Franklin County get work done. So the history of this bridge

[56:48] is this [snorts] was a temporary bridge we got when the Lonely Bridge was

[56:52] [clears throat] before the Long Lonely Bridge got

[56:54] repaired. So we got this bridge through the grant through a grant this temporary

[56:59] bridge. Um so we've used two sections of it. We've used one section on Brady

[57:04] Road, another section on Cotay. So there's still some of the bridge left.

[57:07] So that's what we're talking about. >> Yeah. And I believe the span they'd be

[57:10] looking for is like 30 to 40 feet. So I think I think we have enough there, but

[57:16] » we can clarify. We have to cut out some of the sumac that's grow through it.

[57:19] » Randy might know you know [snorts] how much is left

[57:23] » and what would the length of the rental be and the also the revenue from it? How

[57:28] much would we charge? What's like a reasonable fee or

[57:31] » Yeah. So so the length of time would be this fall through the spring. It would

[57:35] be just used for this one winter to execute the timber sale. The uh the

[57:39] rental agreement would be up to the town. Um, we could mirror uh the kind of

[57:44] rental agreement that the Department of Forest Parks and Recreation uses and the

[57:48] fee structure there. Um, at a minimum, I'm going to put on my slugboard hat

[57:53] again for a second. At a minimum, I would want us to have at least a bond in

[57:57] place so that if the bridge was damaged or destroyed, we get covered.

[58:01] » Uh, as to the fee that we charge, that's up to the board. Um,

[58:07] so again, tonight I'm looking for the board basically to say we're cool

[58:12] looking into that. Um, from this I can work with Scott to figure out exactly

[58:16] the pieces that would be needed. Um, I can put together a uh like a rental

[58:22] agreement mirroring what the department uses and bring that back to the board

[58:25] and we can talk about the the fee structure, too.

[58:28] » Yeah. >> But tonight was just kind of a this is

[58:31] an idea I've got. Is this something that I can pursue and come back to the board

[58:34] with or is this a No, no, no, no, no. We're not renting our bridge to anybody.

[58:39] » I don't I don't see a problem with it. I mean, the bridge is sitting there. So,

[58:42] » if we have an asset we're not using and we can get some money renting it out to

[58:46] a local town in need. That seems perfectly reasonable. I don't have a

[58:50] problem with that. >> Okay. All right. Well, if there's no

[58:54] objection, I will work with Scott to get the details on this and then at our next

[58:59] uh meeting, I'll bring back uh a draft agreement for the board to look at. Um

[59:04] and then we can talk about the particulars. But that's great. I

[59:07] appreciate that. Um I think anytime towns in Franklin County can work

[59:11] together to help each other, it's a good thing. So,

[59:14] » I appreciate that. All right. No formal action on that, but

[59:19] we'll keep that uh moving. The uh item seven here is the town hall committee

[59:24] charter. Um so this was brought at a request of the chair of the town hall

[59:28] committee. The request was to amend the composition of the board from seven

[59:32] members to five members. Currently their charter speaks of a seven member board.

[59:37] They want to drop it to five. So the action would be to amend the town hall

[59:40] committee charter to state that the composition of the board is five members

[59:44] not seven members. >> What is the reasoning for that? just

[59:50] » so yeah. So Tosska, since you're the chair of the committee and this is

[59:53] subject to the charter, you're recognized to give whatever background

[59:57] you want. >> It's essentially that we have three

[59:59] people that show up. So in order to have a consistent quorum,

[1:00:03] » okay, >> we would rather have a five member

[1:00:04] board. Two of the other members are come and go.

[1:00:09] » Um but they're not consistent. So right now we have three solid people that show

[1:00:14] up at every meeting and with seven members.

[1:00:19] So five is five is work.

[1:00:23] » So I make a motion to amend the town hall committee charter to five members.

[1:00:29] » Okay, we have a motion from Mark. Is there a second?

[1:00:31] » Second. >> Thanks Chris.

[1:00:34] Uh is there any discussion on the motion?

[1:00:41] Not hearing any. All those in favor, please signify by saying I or raising

[1:00:44] your hand. I >> I.

[1:00:46] » Any opposed? Any abstensions? You are unanimous by zero. Motion carries. So

[1:00:51] that brings us through our agenda to public comment. And so we will go to

[1:00:55] public comment now. Um I think I have everybody already here.

[1:01:00] We don't have a sign in tonight, but I think I have everybody listed. Um so

[1:01:04] we're going to start. We're going to go left to right. Um we're not going to put

[1:01:08] a clock on folks, but I would ask that you try to be um concise and uh so we're

[1:01:14] not here until late. Um, dope. We're going to start on the left. So, my left,

[1:01:19] Cliff, you're up. >> Oh, I just got a quick question. Uh,

[1:01:23] [clears throat] what is the status of the updated policies and procedures on

[1:01:26] why the my two voicemail messages were uh not given to the town assessor in

[1:01:35] order to get to why I had somebody trespass,

[1:01:38] not trespass, but walk onto my property without after I warned the town.

[1:01:43] » I was like, know where we're at, please. Yeah. So, um, so we don't have a formal

[1:01:48] written process or procedure for that. Um, I have spoken with Liz about it and

[1:01:52] she has, uh, worked with our tech folks to see what happened as far as where the

[1:01:57] gap showed up and she believes it's addressed. Um,

[1:02:01] » here's the I would like to know because the next step I want to do is is

[1:02:05] probably fight the assessment since it was in violation the law.

[1:02:09] » Okay. I mean, I can ask Liz. Uh, >> I don't want to do that. It's just

[1:02:13] because I was like all I want is somebody to tell me it's fixed and it's

[1:02:17] never going to happen. >> Yeah. So I I believe

[1:02:19] » I said show me not say yeah I think it's fixed.

[1:02:21] » Okay. So I believe it has been fixed. Um I what what sort of evidence

[1:02:26] » is not >> So let me ask you this. Uh you said show

[1:02:28] me what what kind of evidence would you like?

[1:02:30] » Well just show me what you're doing for procedures and policy that won't happen

[1:02:34] again >> because obviously they slipped through.

[1:02:38] » Okay. So a written >> please help me out here.

[1:02:40] » Yeah. No no. So, I'm just asking what you would like as far as the

[1:02:43] » just give me some kind of policy or procedure that this is not going to

[1:02:46] happen to anybody else. >> Okay. Looking for the for us to write up

[1:02:48] a a procedure that says that this is >> I asked the town. They said, "Hey, call

[1:02:52] this number appointment." >> I did it. I did it twice. Left messages.

[1:02:56] Okay. >> And still had to show up. So,

[1:02:57] » when you say left messages with the town or the assessor?

[1:03:00] » The assessor. [snorts] You're supposed to make it over cross over the

[1:03:02] electronic stuff. Again, >> my point is I would like to have some

[1:03:08] kind of resolve. >> Okay. written resolution. Okay. We I

[1:03:11] will >> otherwise I don't want to go down the

[1:03:13] other route. >> Heard. So I will work with Liz to get

[1:03:16] you something in writing that addresses how it was addressed and then what the

[1:03:19] policy is in the office for doing that. Yep.

[1:03:21] » Thank you. >> All right. Good.

[1:03:24] » Roberta, you're good. Okay. Hi. You're [clears throat] good.

[1:03:28] » Y. >> All right. Carol

[1:03:31] » for now. >> You're good. Pat,

[1:03:33] » um, on the fiberworks, I've been talking about Northeast

[1:03:37] Fiberworks. Um, so I had some questions, concerns, and I don't know how the phone

[1:03:44] lines that you're currently using down here are run, if they're run pole to

[1:03:49] pole or underground. Where we are in Reagan Road, they're underground.

[1:03:54] » Yeah. >> And [laughter]

[1:03:57] and um that means that if a tree falls on the line, it knocks out the electric

[1:04:04] but not the phone. And we can report an outage,

[1:04:10] fiber works is going to string it pole to pole. So, if you're going phone over

[1:04:14] internet, uh, you're going to lose that when the

[1:04:18] line goes down. >> What? We're going to be what?

[1:04:23] » It's not It's It's If you go with the NEK, if you leave consolidated,

[1:04:29] » if you if you switch your phone service like Verizon or AT&T, I'll use that as

[1:04:33] an example. It's not I mean it's apples and oranges but but you have consol I

[1:04:37] don't know what you have now but say you have consolidated what he's saying is if

[1:04:40] he's consolidated on the Reagan road is underground. If he was to switch over to

[1:04:44] NEK they're going pull the poles to his point is if a snowstorm hits power lines

[1:04:49] go down that means the phone lines go down if you're using NEK. If you're

[1:04:52] still in consolidated you're fine >> right?

[1:04:55] » That's what that's what he's saying. It's not saying it's not saying it's

[1:04:57] everybody's going NEK. It's it's your choice to switch over. That's for the

[1:05:00] town risk. But then they usually can only put it underground to get to your

[1:05:04] house >> that you just

[1:05:05] » Yeah, but that's but that's >> that's only

[1:05:08] » that that's only if but that doesn't have if if something happens up the

[1:05:11] street and the pound goes down, you're not going to get phone access or

[1:05:13] internet access or that's what he Right. Is that

[1:05:16] » I mention it's it's a consideration that's important for me. It may or may

[1:05:21] not be important for the town. Yeah, >> great great point to raise with folks

[1:05:27] when they're considering whether or not to switch service. I guess yeah,

[1:05:31] » but consolidated is Reagan World might have it underground, but I don't know if

[1:05:35] other people have it underground. I think it's all it's all it's it's it's a

[1:05:39] it's a fin it's a financial burden on them that they make that choice to

[1:05:42] either put it underground, which costs more.

[1:05:44] » Yeah. and easy cost obviously is to put it up in the air which obviously living

[1:05:49] in Montgomery you're going to have a different potentially outcome you know I

[1:05:54] use the examples like like the Belelfrey we went to um to Starlink

[1:05:58] » for that reason because we were constantly we would lose power we have a

[1:06:02] generator but we'd always lose our phone lines and we'd lose our credit card

[1:06:06] reader and everything so um and I understand what you're saying I agree

[1:06:09] with you I just it's just that it's you know it's

[1:06:12] » the preferential of the company how they want to spend spend their money. So, I

[1:06:15] mean, it's tough. >> Um, but I think your point being is that

[1:06:20] if we're going to use NEK here, we're potentially going to this building's not

[1:06:25] going to have internet andor phone.

[1:06:30] » Well, if it's strung on a power on a pole and

[1:06:35] » Yeah. >> tree falls.

[1:06:36] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[1:06:42] » Thanks, Pat. Anything else, Pat? >> No. Okay. Uh Sue,

[1:06:46] » not at this time. Thank you. >> Okay. And I will just uh seeing you

[1:06:49] reminded me, I'll just let everybody know uh I did check in with DEEC Friday.

[1:06:53] They thought they were going to have the written response to the public comment

[1:06:58] on the wastewater indirect discharge permit by Friday. They haven't posted it

[1:07:02] yet. I haven't heard from them yet this week, but as soon as that does come out,

[1:07:06] we'll put something on the website so folks can read that. So, thank you.

[1:07:09] » Yeah. >> Um so, we're going to keep going around

[1:07:12] in public comment. So, Alyssa, you're good. Tusca,

[1:07:16] » I'm good. >> You're good. All right. Now, we're going

[1:07:18] to loop to the next row and go back this way. I don't see anybody behind Alyssa.

[1:07:22] So, Amy, you're up. >> Me?

[1:07:24] » Yep. >> All right. So, Oh, yeah. Mine was kind

[1:07:28] of about what um [clears throat] the farmer was talking about because we

[1:07:34] had a man probably two weeks ago step up and said

[1:07:39] that they had ran ran the fireworks up to

[1:07:44] and I was like really and you know and he's coming and he's [clears throat]

[1:07:49] looking at our meters and everything and there was nothing up there and he said

[1:07:54] they're supposed to be running it and I was like, well, that's kind of far.

[1:07:59] And then I was to the understanding that they overtook Consolidation, but no,

[1:08:06] » no, >> no. So, in town now, we're going to have

[1:08:10] NEK in their service area, Northwest Fiberworks in their area, Consolidated,

[1:08:16] which is now Vidium, >> and you can also get Comcast, I believe,

[1:08:21] as another alternative. So, there's still going to be

[1:08:24] » certain points. >> Certain points. Yeah. Not everybody. I

[1:08:27] should somebody going to be that far up? >> So my understanding is that um the

[1:08:32] communications union districts are trying to get to the quote last mile for

[1:08:37] service everywhere. Okay. >> So they should be running it all the way

[1:08:40] up to the geoo. That's that's their plan at least.

[1:08:44] » Okay. I just find it funny, you know, because

[1:08:48] just where we are, you know. Yep. Um, and then, uh,

[1:08:58] I don't know, Terry, this might not have nothing to do with, you know, the topic

[1:09:03] tonight, but it has to do with Act 181 and 2, Act 250 that

[1:09:12] I'm concerned that there a statement by you that

[1:09:21] are going to just take our land by conservation whether you

[1:09:27] remember Dennis you said you can get what you want for your land whether you

[1:09:31] want you know the price you're asking >> somebody's going to pay if they want

[1:09:36] your land they're going to pay for it >> but but that's going away when that

[1:09:40] assessor come up he said we're not assessing your property we're assessing

[1:09:44] your land your land's going to be devalued we were

[1:09:48] Oh, >> this was the nemerric assessor that came

[1:09:52] to your property. >> Okay. I mean, the assessor should be

[1:09:55] assessing >> devaluing someone's land.

[1:09:59] » You're talking about the statewide assessment of everything, properties and

[1:10:02] land. I guess I don't I'm just trying to understand,

[1:10:04] » right? >> So, this whole state,

[1:10:06] » this whole act, it involves the whole act 181.

[1:10:10] » I'm not really fully familiar with 181, but

[1:10:13] » I would I got something for you and you better be. You're going to be if you

[1:10:17] watch this, you will be. But

[1:10:21] they're he told he said they're not. He He didn't even care about our building.

[1:10:27] He didn't care about what was in our building. He said we're here for the

[1:10:32] land. So what I want to know is no. >> Well,

[1:10:40] I read statement a statement from Charlie

[1:10:46] and in a in a

[1:10:51] I believe it was BLCT, but I could be wrong,

[1:10:57] that there's going to be a 40-year easement on

[1:11:02] certain people's property, which I know mine's one of them because we're not in

[1:11:06] current use, down to 10 down to 10 acres

[1:11:13] where you're going to prevent us from allowing our son

[1:11:20] son's kids to build on our land that we have paid full property. We're not

[1:11:27] current use. >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:11:28] » We've always paid full property taxes, >> but because you want it so bad for

[1:11:32] conservation that you just want you're just going to snatch it.

[1:11:37] » So, do you have can you can you point me towards the statement you think I made

[1:11:41] where where I can find it? She said, "I I don't know what you're talking about."

[1:11:43] And not no offense. >> Well, I tried to find it right before I

[1:11:47] came here, >> but I couldn't. Okay.

[1:11:50] » But I've seen it, >> so I'm going to find it. You know, I

[1:11:55] will. You know, I will find it. >> Okay. And I'll just say if you can find

[1:11:58] what you're referencing and send it to me, I'm happy to address it. What you're

[1:12:02] saying does not ring any bells related to anything that I'm aware of. As far as

[1:12:07] act 181 goes, that was repealed. Um, and so that's

[1:12:11] » but but what you're going to do, so we got our gravel pit. What you're going to

[1:12:16] do with the gravel pit is you're going to say it's too close to the beaver

[1:12:19] pond. We've already I've already seen this action already occur cuz they were

[1:12:26] in our somebody was parked at the Beaver Pond driveway and I walked in there and

[1:12:31] I asked them what they were doing. >> When you say they like do you have their

[1:12:35] contact information like who this was? They were the natural resources

[1:12:41] commission. >> So it was somebody from the Department

[1:12:44] of Environmental Conservation. >> Yes.

[1:12:46] » Okay. >> And you know what?

[1:12:49] » Our gravel pit been there longer than the beavers, but we we protect those

[1:12:55] beavers left and right. >> Okay. I'm I'm not aware of anyone trying

[1:12:59] to shut down your gravel pit, Amy. So I I don't know. But again, if you can find

[1:13:02] the >> find the statements,

[1:13:04] » there's a lot of money involved here and a lot of money you want to get away with

[1:13:08] because what it's going to what it's turning into be is you have the first

[1:13:13] right of refusal. >> Who does

[1:13:18] » you? The town >> on what?

[1:13:20] » On what? >> On on the properties.

[1:13:23] » I don't believe we do. >> Come on, Mark. You can sit there and

[1:13:27] shake your head all you want. Your farm is so protected. I can't believe it.

[1:13:32] » So So Amy, so if you can if you can find >> I'm gonna find it.

[1:13:35] » Yeah, I would love that >> because you know what? Every time I go

[1:13:38] in into these um places that I've looked and I found it before,

[1:13:43] it there's a red flag saying don't enter this. It's It's dangerous. It's a

[1:13:49] dangerous site. You know what? I entered that site today. There's nothing

[1:13:53] dangerous about it. >> Okay. Yeah.

[1:13:59] » But if you so so if you can find if you can find and send uh send me on the

[1:14:03] board a reference to what you're looking at, I think we'd be better able to

[1:14:07] address it. So yeah, if you could do that, that'd be great, Amy.

[1:14:11] » And it it'd be great if if you would appreciate us some more for what we've

[1:14:16] done. >> I will try to appreciate you more, Amy.

[1:14:19] But I think I've said in the past, >> what pissed you off, Charlie,

[1:14:23] » is when we put our road in right alongside that class 4 road because we

[1:14:27] asked for help for many years and you wouldn't help us and you said, "Here we

[1:14:32] go. >> I'm going to I'm going to shove it right

[1:14:35] up their ass." And that's what you done. >> I didn't shove anything anywhere and I

[1:14:39] don't have any opinion left, right, or center on your road.

[1:14:42] » Look at Look it. It pissed you off. >> And don't tell me it didn't. That pissed

[1:14:48] you off, child. But yet, >> a mile past our place, you guys went in

[1:14:54] that went in up on that Atlas land. You took bulldozers and skitters and

[1:15:00] everything you could and made a two-lane highway, but yet we put a driveway in

[1:15:06] because nobody would give us money for 30 years to take care of a class 4 road

[1:15:11] that we done out of the kindness of our heart. But when times got tough, and

[1:15:19] it's the same thing you guys do. When you can't afford it, what do you do? You

[1:15:24] raise taxes. >> We couldn't afford it. What you do to us

[1:15:28] when we asked you for help? >> That's what you did to us.

[1:15:34] » All right. Thank you, Amy. Uh Carrie,

[1:15:39] » uh I think that she was talking about maybe your your not just 181, but your

[1:15:43] conservation company or nonprofit. >> Are you talking about Cold Holiday

[1:15:48] Canada? >> Yeah. And I I'm hoping because I know

[1:15:52] that now we're not allowed to. We used to be able to kind of comment together

[1:15:57] per topic instead of having to revisit other people's topics, too. So,

[1:16:02] » there's a lot on my plate that I'm going to try to go through nicely.

[1:16:06] » Or yours. You can >> like I said, no one's got a time clock

[1:16:09] on yet. Everyone has >> Okay, go ahead.

[1:16:13] » Kind of keep it straight forward. But >> for your for your She's talking too

[1:16:18] about your conservation. Is there anything that you know of in law,

[1:16:24] legislation, lobby or just your executive director of your company is

[1:16:31] think considering anything >> company

[1:16:35] » taking land instead of asking people if they want to buy not buy

[1:16:41] » no one is taking anybody's land. >> Okay. So that's what I I wanted to know

[1:16:44] if there is anything that can that that is in action has been done at all. So

[1:16:49] nothing related. >> Yeah.

[1:16:51] » I just wanted to know. I didn't know >> you're talking about eminent domain.

[1:16:55] » Yeah. >> But for conservation purpose.

[1:16:57] » No. Yeah. >> No. And this is Dennis. This

[1:17:01] » I'm just asking. >> No. No. I'm just saying this. I'm just

[1:17:03] » Okay. So So question answered. We're good. Okay.

[1:17:06] » And it's answered and we we're >> it's different than imminent domain.

[1:17:10] » And then yeah, not imminent domain. Whatever. I don't know what that's not

[1:17:14] my focus right now. Um, the tech comment was more about

[1:17:20] really kind of just having maybe you do a lot of work, Charlie. You do the

[1:17:25] minutes, you do the tech, you do you moderate, you know, you're and you've

[1:17:31] been doing this for quite a while and you've had to take on some of these

[1:17:35] extra [clears throat] roles like Suzanne used to be the minutes, you know, and so

[1:17:38] it would just kind of be nice if we had an independent person that could do the

[1:17:43] tech. um or somebody that is specially here for all of the technological things

[1:17:49] so that you're not having to do that on top of everything else. If something

[1:17:52] isn't working because things are not working on a regular basis, there's a

[1:17:58] problem somewhere and and if you're not able to find it, we should have a tech

[1:18:02] person that is more responsible to make sure that that's all functioning like

[1:18:07] like we have Northwestern access today. they they're in charge of

[1:18:12] their their stuff and it's working, you know, um because they're setting I don't

[1:18:17] even know they're who knows. And then the same with the minutes too and then

[1:18:24] the public record complaint. Um, so with that,

[1:18:33] I mean, it's not just a a select board email that's advocating for something,

[1:18:39] and I've already talked to you about that. That wasn't the problem. The the

[1:18:44] attorney sending back all that information, it was fantastic, but it

[1:18:48] was very narrow. It avoided a lot of the main points that were solid that I was

[1:18:54] concerned with. And I'm looking up a lot of like past connections because you

[1:19:00] when you start having affiliation with so many different boards and you're on a

[1:19:05] legislative level and there's a lot of money involved on all of these boards

[1:19:09] together including your nonprofit and grants are being given everywhere.

[1:19:14] People like Tusca need grants. You're in charge of like she has to say yes and

[1:19:19] you're part of the board that like says yes for that for every grant. Like all

[1:19:24] I'm saying is you're affiliated with things. I don't even know if there's an

[1:19:27] affiliation with any dress that she gets from from but it's a whole atmosphere

[1:19:32] out there politically with a lot of money and kind of potentially a lot of

[1:19:36] like control. So that's what my concern was more with that with that um email

[1:19:43] that you were saying something that was not true

[1:19:46] » and you were promoting it in a way that was like swaying voters. like not only

[1:19:52] were you promoting it, we know that you like you want the wastewater system, but

[1:19:55] you had an angle on it that was like no matter what, you factually characterized

[1:20:00] like something wrong. It was inaccurate and it was to me a little like deceitful

[1:20:05] saying that the person who wrote the petition was from from mass when it it

[1:20:12] was from Vermont. And you might may or may not have known that. I'll figure

[1:20:16] that out at some point. I I mean I've told you that multiple times in and open

[1:20:21] meeting. It's on the record. It's recorded. You can watch it again, but

[1:20:23] keep going. >> Yeah. Exactly. So So you were persuading

[1:20:27] voters in a false way. >> That's the problem with the with the

[1:20:32] open meeting law. That is the the main there. There's probably more, but that

[1:20:36] was the problem. >> So just to be clear, are you saying that

[1:20:38] that is in violation of Vermont's open meeting law?

[1:20:41] » Yeah. >> Okay. It's not.

[1:20:42] » No. >> Yeah. So Okay. It's I respect your

[1:20:46] opinion that you don't like it, but it's not a violation of open meeting law.

[1:20:50] » No. >> Just like I know you don't like that I'm

[1:20:52] involved in a lot of things. It's possible. And no matter what,

[1:20:56] » you're just not getting any answers you want. So that's all there is to it.

[1:21:00] » You do with ethics issues. I >> How long are we going to hash this out?

[1:21:05] » We've gone over it how many times, Carrie?

[1:21:06] » Okay. If they had just if you had figured something out.

[1:21:09] » Jeez, it's getting ridiculous. >> Like across the board blanket.

[1:21:12] » Okay, just keep going. We're through your comments. You're good.

[1:21:15] » I just don't think that this should continue to be something.

[1:21:18] » You should stop any time on this issue. >> All right, Mark. Let's just let her

[1:21:22] finish. >> Yeah.

[1:21:24] » Yeah. >> Yeah. Watch out.

[1:21:27] » Guys, guys, everybody take a deep breath.

[1:21:31] » Everybody take a deep breath. >> Carrie, you have the floor.

[1:21:34] » Okay. So, >> work through your comments.

[1:21:36] » Yep. And that's fine. Thank you. Sorry. I'm

[1:21:40] » No, don't be shy. [snorts] >> It's okay. It's all right. Um then I

[1:21:45] wanted to ask um oh the connection with Sarah

[1:21:51] having done that I mean she she she has presented

[1:21:57] two VT Vermont city league and towns. She was a presenter for codes for code

[1:22:05] of ethic and they changed the codes of ethic. So she literally created the

[1:22:11] codes of ethic potentially. >> Okay. Can you just can you clarify what

[1:22:14] you're saying? So Sarah Buckton, our municipal attorney

[1:22:17] » Yeah. >> presented at a VLCT event about the

[1:22:21] municipal code of ethics. >> Y

[1:22:23] » and you're saying that led to the state legislature changing the code of ethics?

[1:22:27] » No, I'm not. I'm just saying I'm just trying I'm just trying to understand

[1:22:32] what you're what you're saying, Carrie. just saying you're getting all of your

[1:22:36] information from the attorney that wrote wrote that like the the response and

[1:22:42] she's she's the one involved in Vermont City leads and towns. She's giving our

[1:22:47] town advice. You are the president vice president there, right? So like it's all

[1:22:53] like the fact that we are sending our select board members to a place that is

[1:22:58] like potentially there's a lot of conflict between in the past between

[1:23:04] that I can see and I'm finding between you and Sarah having like a pretty

[1:23:09] long-standing crossover like relationship

[1:23:11] » like can you like what >> I have a few I have plenty

[1:23:14] » like what I just if you have a few no if you're going to accuse me of a conflict

[1:23:19] of interest in every breath I want you to be specific. What is it? What is the

[1:23:23] conflict? >> I don't want to say anything that's

[1:23:25] that's technically like wrong. I If I do it, it has to be in writing. It's

[1:23:29] horrible. But it's just >> Okay. Well, I would appreciate instead

[1:23:33] of kind of vague assertions of things, specifics really do help.

[1:23:38] » So, well, yeah. What what do they follow for the what's their it's called

[1:23:44] something the >> no for the um yeah for the for the code

[1:23:50] of ethics for Vermont leaks cities and town there's a name of it

[1:23:54] » so just so I can clarify >> that's you you have an issue with

[1:24:00] the lawyer who sits on the board that helps to write the ethics

[1:24:03] » no so she doesn't sit on the board >> No okay okay so she she she she wrote

[1:24:08] the code of ethics for the municipality bodies.

[1:24:11] » No, >> no,

[1:24:12] » no. She, no. She has presented to Vermont League cities and towns who then

[1:24:17] » trains you >> and works with you and

[1:24:21] you know what they're following for their codes of ethics is like right on

[1:24:25] track with with her. So like that in addition to the state,

[1:24:31] » the attorney's office that she's involved in, Paul Gill, is that his

[1:24:35] name? >> Gillies Tarant is the firm. Gilly has

[1:24:40] has wrote a and and for quite some time a significant book about town policies

[1:24:50] act 250. >> He Yeah, he has. So, but just to be

[1:24:54] clear like >> the LCT has many events. They bring in

[1:24:59] many speakers to address things. They didn't write the code of ethics. The

[1:25:04] legislature did. So again, I I I >> But hopefully that'll change in

[1:25:10] November. >> Sure. Anything can change with

[1:25:13] elections, but I >> So So again, car I guess all I'm asking

[1:25:17] Carrie is if there are specific >> things that you can give us in writing

[1:25:23] to respond to, but I don't know. I don't quite understand some of the the

[1:25:28] » That's why I write because I'm really a horrible public speaker. I I

[1:25:31] [clears throat] don't it doesn't come out right at all. It's it's not

[1:25:34] something that >> it's one of those things that I'm

[1:25:37] working on. >> Okay, hold on, Amy. I'm gonna I want

[1:25:40] Carrie to finish her public comments and then we're gonna go to Josh.

[1:25:44] » I just am saying that she did a presentation that's explaining how

[1:25:47] municipality municipal offices should analyze conflicts of interest. So, she's

[1:25:53] the one she's saying this is how you should analyze it. And then she's our

[1:25:57] town attorney and all of the people here are going like to to her and there's a

[1:26:05] background between you guys that I'm like very concerned about that that was

[1:26:09] a very biased response. It was narrow. There's a lot of stuff that I'm going to

[1:26:14] be needing to go through legally because it's not it's not fully right and you

[1:26:19] shouldn't have been doing some like talking about our code of ethics policy

[1:26:25] with with like attorney money for one and talk about it from a legal

[1:26:31] standpoint. That's why are we defending that's not what I was asking. I wanted

[1:26:35] to ask if you guys had talked like actually talked amongst the board about

[1:26:40] the possibility of an appearance to a reasonable person in town that there

[1:26:45] could have been a town code of ethic violation. A reasonable person in town

[1:26:51] couldn't have assumed that if a reasonable person in town does any kind

[1:26:55] of research at all and understands anything, it's possible. Nice.

[1:27:00] » I mean, I just >> I'm I just don't want to get to the

[1:27:03] point where I have to find like bad. Like, it's just I want to prevent that.

[1:27:08] » I just You should have at least like talked amongst yourself. I was expecting

[1:27:12] you to not give this legal like spend a lot of money, give this legal response

[1:27:18] to all the code of ethics. >> I was expecting you to talk about it at

[1:27:21] a select board meeting. Would would somebody reasonably think that? So

[1:27:26] Chris, you're the one that talked to her, Sarah, correct?

[1:27:29] » Yes. >> So this was Hold on. So So to your to

[1:27:35] your point to your point, Carrie, you're saying

[1:27:40] » Chris is the one that headed the investigation, right, Chris? Correct.

[1:27:45] Right. So we can clear that up now. So you saying that Charlie spoke to her

[1:27:50] about what we what Chris addressed has it's nothing to do with Charlie. Like

[1:27:56] Chris did his part to do to to to talk through through this stuff. So Charlie

[1:28:01] had nothing to do with this. If you're going back to looking at it as a

[1:28:04] standpoint of their relationship, which I mean I don't I mean I don't know. I

[1:28:08] mean you know people have relationships with lawyers because they have the best

[1:28:13] interest of in this case the community. um whether and people have the complete

[1:28:20] right to disagree with it, right? Because anybody we're going to disagree

[1:28:23] whether it's wastewater or short-term ordinance or you know the lawyer the

[1:28:27] conflicts or whatever what have you. But that's why she went to law school is and

[1:28:30] if she's talking about ethics that's like that's what you know that's if I'm

[1:28:35] not mistaken that the law firm is specializes in municipality ethics.

[1:28:39] » She's she's in general. Okay, we're going to we're going to

[1:28:42] » Yeah. So, all all I want to end on this, all I want all I want to end up saying

[1:28:47] is Chris is the one that spoke with her, not Charlie.

[1:28:50] » So, this is the order of operations because Chris did already email me back

[1:28:54] about what happened. Liz emailed the attorney. The attorney replied to

[1:29:00] Charlie and repi replied to Liz because he's the chair, right? But he is the one

[1:29:06] that I'm talking about conflicts of interest

[1:29:09] that I don't know if it should have just gone back to to Liz and then I think he

[1:29:14] said and I have to go back through his email to explain all of the dates and

[1:29:17] all the times but that that Charlie then asked him to to present. So like you

[1:29:24] made a decision for him to present before you even fine

[1:29:27] » the at the public meeting at the grain shaw Chris was appointed by the board in

[1:29:32] a vote that I abstained from to lead on this just as a matter of fact and a

[1:29:36] record. >> I did not pick Chris or tell Chris in

[1:29:40] charge of all >> this is a topic on you and you should

[1:29:44] really not be talking. >> Carrie Carrie I am the chair of this

[1:29:49] board. It's a public comment session. We're going to keep doing public comment

[1:29:52] and we're going back to Robert's rules right now. The person with the floor can

[1:29:56] talk. Carrie, you have the floor. You can finish your public comments.

[1:29:59] » Okay. >> Yeah. And that's the whole ethics part

[1:30:02] of it that if it wasn't about that that it wouldn't I wouldn't care who is

[1:30:06] moderating. >> Um so we what did we end up doing with

[1:30:10] Northwest Fiber tonight? They're essentially going to be working together

[1:30:15] and they're >> we executed a lease agreement for them

[1:30:18] to house equipment in the public safety building in the fire bay.

[1:30:21] » Yeah. >> And do they have any like is it possible

[1:30:25] that NEK can go underground? Like >> I don't know the mechanics of their

[1:30:28] operation. You can ask them. >> We're just doing we're doing public

[1:30:31] comment. >> Was there another option for the JP part

[1:30:35] section or is that the only thing we had?

[1:30:37] » The only commun the only communication unions districts are Northwest Fiber

[1:30:41] Works and NEK Broadband. the service. >> So, we're just trying to get it here.

[1:30:44] Sweet. >> And then

[1:30:48] I think I think I might be really close. >> Um, yeah. I mean, I'm not going to

[1:30:55] I don't want to go too crazy right now, so I'm fine.

[1:30:59] » Okay, great. We're going to go to Josh. >> I do have a question about that

[1:31:02] broadband. You said that we have a 25 year lease agreement. We could have a 25

[1:31:07] year lease agreement and we have to maintain that for 25 years. What happens

[1:31:10] if no one dies? We have to buy a brand new one in that arena.

[1:31:14] » I'm sorry. Buy a new what? >> Generator.

[1:31:17] » Uh >> cuz you said we have to maintain it for

[1:31:19] 25 years only buying the original one. So if it dies in 15 years, we have the

[1:31:23] new one. >> So no, the lease agreement of 25 years

[1:31:26] is just for them to have access to that space.

[1:31:30] » Um there's nothing in that agreement where if the generator died and we

[1:31:33] didn't furnish one, we'd be required to. Just curious

[1:31:40] maintain that thing. >> The generator is ours for good.

[1:31:43] » So, we have to maintain that for them no matter what.

[1:31:46] » Uh we maintain it. We'll we'll be maintaining it with all of our

[1:31:48] generators because it'll serve both them and the building.

[1:31:52] » No, >> I'd like uh just go off for a question.

[1:31:56] Uh could you tell us if you've ever had any uh things with Sarah Box before you

[1:32:01] were before she was a lawyer? Have you ever testified next to her like

[1:32:06] three different times? >> No, I have never had any kind of

[1:32:10] personal or business relationship with Sarah Buckton prior to her being the

[1:32:14] municipal attorney starting in 2023. >> And I still have no other relationship

[1:32:19] with Sarah outside of her being the municipal attorney. We don't serve on

[1:32:24] any boards together. We don't hang out on the weekends.

[1:32:28] She's the municipal attorney. I saw that you guys testified next to each other in

[1:32:31] 2003 in March. I think it was >> we testified in March of 2000 where

[1:32:38] » I can find it. Come back to me. I'll find it for you

[1:32:41] » like in court. >> Come back to me. I'll find it.

[1:32:44] » Like a legislative committee. You mean something like a

[1:32:49] » I didn't go back. >> I just

[1:32:52] » Okay. Are you good? >> You don't remember?

[1:32:55] » You know. Yeah. I'm getting gray hairs. All

[1:33:00] right, Charlie. I'm going to make it simple tonight.

[1:33:03] » All right. Love simple. >> Okay. Because you talk about the

[1:33:06] temporary bridge. Well, my other half's a logger, so I know all about temporary

[1:33:11] bridges. Okay. And you know, well, I just looked it up online so that you

[1:33:17] everybody know how much a 40 foot temporary bridge would cost.

[1:33:24] » Like the purchase price. The purchase price

[1:33:28] » $26,000

[1:33:32] » for a temporary bridge, but it's yours. >> But I just want everybody to know how

[1:33:36] much >> how much is the weight of

[1:33:38] » I don't know that. Just look the 40 foot [snorts] 50 foot is 6 26,0002.

[1:33:45] » I don't give you the button. >> Anything else? Teresa.

[1:33:50] » Oh, there wasn't there. >> Hang on. It's Teresa's

[1:33:56] » radio, but I don't know how much >> Teresa, you still have the floor.

[1:33:59] » I know.

[1:34:03] » Yes. But I'm being nice tonight, just to let you know cuz I got dinner waiting

[1:34:08] for me at [laughter]

[1:34:12] » Daddy's cooking. >> And I know how great you how you how

[1:34:18] everything goes around here. I've been here long enough and I'm not rehashing

[1:34:22] anything, but these meetings are great. But

[1:34:27] sometimes people decide or get really heated up.

[1:34:32] They got to remember they're in the public and they're [snorts]

[1:34:36] thinking, you know what I mean? Like Mark, I'm not going to pull you out

[1:34:39] right now, but you got a little mad. >> Yeah. I'm sorry.

[1:34:42] » You got a little mad. >> Yeah.

[1:34:43] » And that okay, but cuz we all love you. We're all here. We're all family. That's

[1:34:50] I become family up here and I don't know why.

[1:34:52] » I don't love mine. I like them. >> Okay. Can we

[1:34:56] » But anyway, >> I just want to let you know about the

[1:34:59] logging bridge. >> Okay.

[1:35:01] » And if a Georgia thing's coming up, let us know cuz Chris needs another job.

[1:35:07] » Okay. I need I need to

[1:35:13] » Thank you. Okay. >> All right. Thank you, Teresa. We're

[1:35:16] going to go. Craig needs one too, right? >> We're going to Larry for public comment.

[1:35:20] Larry, public comment. The floor is yours.

[1:35:23] » I have five or six in no particular order.

[1:35:25] » You can do them whatever order you want. [laughter]

[1:35:28] » Uh Chris did a prefest for us. He did

[1:35:33] script for the uh before he read the lawyers interpretation

[1:35:39] last time on the 21st. and he read this document to the public that were here.

[1:35:46] » And I believe this document should have been part of your minutes and and should

[1:35:50] have been attached as well. >> It was

[1:35:52] » it it was not with the minutes. >> I think it was.

[1:35:55] » No, it was it was not it was basically >> this just this document with Sarah's

[1:36:00] interpretation >> the report.

[1:36:01] » Okay. But this was read before he did that before he did that interpretation.

[1:36:06] Before he read her interpretation, he read this.

[1:36:10] » Okay. That's pretty >> that's the it's the document that um

[1:36:13] it's the document that Sarah provided that went over the open meeting law

[1:36:17] complaint section of the report. >> Okay.

[1:36:20] » And um so I read instead of reading the text of the report, I read it was

[1:36:25] basically a summary of the of that section of the report.

[1:36:27] » And this and this should have been because it was read to the public should

[1:36:31] have been part of >> part of the part of the record.

[1:36:34] » Okay. If we if board members want to amend the minutes from last meeting, we

[1:36:38] there's a process to do that. >> Secondly, at one time, sometimes it

[1:36:45] doesn't seem like very long ago, but maybe it was the beer or something. At

[1:36:48] one time, Liz was uh going to be head of the uh do I want

[1:36:55] to say ethics? We needed a we needed a

[1:37:00] » a >> person a person that was a employee and

[1:37:03] she took it. How did that she go away and Chris became

[1:37:08] » what happened to Liz? >> So Liz is the leazison with the uh

[1:37:14] ethics commission. Um the ethics commission exists only in name right

[1:37:18] now. Um we have we can't we so we basically they're useless to us until

[1:37:23] they get money and can do stuff. >> Thank you.

[1:37:27] You're talking about all the complaints you receive.

[1:37:30] Lucky

[1:37:34] you you have a you have a format that you use for complaints of ordinances and

[1:37:39] policies uh particularly with planning commission zoning and everything else.

[1:37:44] You might want to look at that to see if that's something you can use and you can

[1:37:48] look at the complaint and see if it's really worthwhile. Okay.

[1:37:51] » Yep. >> Mhm. Um,

[1:37:55] » what the hell does that say? [laughter] >> Oh, yeah. The environmental group guys

[1:38:01] that were here and asked and took a few questions about the

[1:38:06] » uh the Yeah, the folks from DEC on the indirect discharge permit. Yeah,

[1:38:09] » they said probably two weeks or more. It's definitely been two weeks or more.

[1:38:13] Have you heard anything back from >> Yeah, like I said earlier, I checked in

[1:38:16] with them Friday. I thought they were going to have the written response to

[1:38:19] the comment log up Friday. It's not there. Um, I'll check again with them

[1:38:23] tomorrow, but as soon as we get word that the comment log responses are live

[1:38:26] on their site, we'll put something on the website.

[1:38:28] » A follow-up question to to that is, are you going to award a contract without

[1:38:33] their answers? >> No, because we need we need the answers

[1:38:36] and the the permit, >> the 25 year

[1:38:42] um, >> can it be broken?

[1:38:47] » Uh, there is. >> What's the terms of being able to break?

[1:38:49] Yeah, there are there is severability uh or default I should say.

[1:38:59] » Yeah, it's on 19 uh there's a default provision.

[1:39:12] » I mean it would be broken through the default provision in clause 19. Um

[1:39:17] there's no other clause that essentially allows either party to break it at any

[1:39:21] time. So it would be a case of we would default on it somehow and that would be

[1:39:26] the breaking of the lease. My my last my last comment is that a

[1:39:33] good lawyer a really good lawyer would probably poke a lot of holes in Sarah's

[1:39:37] interpretation because it is an interpretation not not all of it is law

[1:39:42] and I think that's on those people that disagree to be able to to have to do

[1:39:48] that. It's not it's other than that it's done.

[1:39:53] » Sure. Yeah. I mean, like anything related to law, until it's ruled on by a

[1:39:57] judge, it's two interpretations of law until it's settled.

[1:40:02] » Anita, anything for visitors? >> Nope. Okay. Thanks. We're going to go to

[1:40:05] the Zoom. Uh Daniel, anything for visitors?

[1:40:12] » Uh [laughter] Gabby, anything for visitors?

[1:40:16] » Uh Peter, anything for visitors?

[1:40:21] » Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? >> Yep, we can hear you.

[1:40:24] » Just an observation. Uh over many months and a few years, the board seems to be

[1:40:30] spending u an increasing amount of time defending itself

[1:40:35] on either real or appeared conflicts. And I understand you're addressing it

[1:40:42] through uh process. It concerns me that the process involves uh a law firm that

[1:40:51] is being employed by the town at the approval of the select board. Basically,

[1:40:57] the select board is policing itself. Uh she does have a stake. Sarah or her

[1:41:02] firm have a stake. They've been employed by the town for many years past and um

[1:41:09] anticipated years forward. So once again, and I've brought this up

[1:41:14] before, and it's obviously the final decision is yours, but the um oversight

[1:41:21] of conflict of interest should be removed completely from anybody with

[1:41:26] affiliation or the potential to um continue

[1:41:32] as a vendor or whatever you would call a law firm with the town and be hired out

[1:41:39] uh to somebody who's got absolutely no affiliation with the town. That's just

[1:41:44] an observation. Over the years, the the board is spending a lot of time

[1:41:50] uh on these issues and that doesn't seem to be getting any traction in terms of

[1:41:56] resolving them uh because nobody frankly is is

[1:42:03] buying the process right now.

[1:42:08] That's my observation and that's it. It's uh and and the question remains,

[1:42:14] you know, what what are these people being paid at Gilly's Tyrant or Tarant

[1:42:18] Gilly's law firm that Sarah works for u to address conflict of interest? The

[1:42:24] question's been asked and I've never met a lawyer that hasn't built somebody for

[1:42:29] breathing within the month that they took the breath.

[1:42:36] So, I'm quite sure you have what they're charging you. You must have it by now

[1:42:40] because this has gone on for a while. >> So,

[1:42:44] » yeah. So, we don't actually have an invoice to cover her work on the

[1:42:49] conflict of interest stuff yet. I I checked today because it someone else

[1:42:52] asked. >> Um

[1:42:54] » I mean, I will say that it the the board policing itself, that's the process. I

[1:43:00] mean, if complaints come to the board, the board is the one that addresses

[1:43:03] them. I think we brought Sarah in at that point to try to

[1:43:09] address the lack of trust with the board members um by having a third party and

[1:43:14] we thought the municipal attorney given that they are the attorney that

[1:43:17] represents the town would be a an adequate third party. It sounds like

[1:43:21] there's a definitive lack of trust now with her with a subset of the community,

[1:43:27] however small it might be. Um if something else comes up and we want to

[1:43:32] hire a third-party law firm to address it, we certainly can. Um but in the

[1:43:37] absence of working with an admissible attorney, it comes back to the board.

[1:43:41] And so the board essentially is who would address complaints. Um and we can

[1:43:47] certainly not involve the town attorney. Um

[1:43:53] but that's that's the resource we have right now to answer questions related to

[1:43:56] legal matters. So then the follow-up comment would be

[1:43:59] that basically the person who is citing law is being paid by the town to cite

[1:44:06] law to substantiate a position of what is a conflict and

[1:44:11] what is not. And as you must well know, you can cite law to support pretty much

[1:44:18] any position. That's why you have a system all the way up to a Supreme

[1:44:22] Court. uh far beyond our scope, but the point

[1:44:27] is that you're paying this lawyer >> to uh feed Chris

[1:44:34] supporting documentation to a position that the town uh select

[1:44:40] board has not breached conflict of interest. And I take exception also to a

[1:44:46] subset of the community, however small it is. It's not quite as small as you

[1:44:51] might imagine, Charlie. There are a lot of people that don't speak

[1:44:56] uh publicly but voice their opinions privately

[1:45:00] that have absolutely no faith in the um integrity of the select board.

[1:45:08] And you know I'm personally I I am uh cognizant of all the work you do.

[1:45:14] There's a lot of positive work you do. I get all that. My concern is that your

[1:45:18] time doing that work is being chewed up by these types of complaints of conflict

[1:45:26] of interest that are not adequately being addressed

[1:45:31] and the money is aside but uh it's not really aside. I mean the money is the

[1:45:36] money but uh the result is long you know it's it's not happening you're not

[1:45:42] squelch you're not satisfying the concerns of the subset

[1:45:48] that uh there's there's not a conflict of

[1:45:52] interest and that that could go on for more years

[1:45:57] who knows but I think it would be a productive [clears throat] constructive

[1:46:02] first step to not rely on someone that the select

[1:46:06] board is authorizing to be paid to make the judgment. The judgment should be

[1:46:12] made by somebody with absolutely uh nothing to gain. I understand you pay

[1:46:17] a third party, but you don't pay a third party for years back and years forward.

[1:46:24] It's a oneshot deal. And that that's kind of what I'm

[1:46:28] suggesting. But uh that's obviously again up to you guys.

[1:46:32] And that's it for me. All right. Thanks, Peter. That brings us

[1:46:37] through the public comment. Um, that brings us to the end of our agenda.

[1:46:41] We've done a round of public comment that I received.

[1:46:44] » We've done a round of public comment. We're all going to try to take a deep

[1:46:48] breath and go home to dinner. >> Thank you.

[1:46:51] » Uh, with that, uh,

[1:46:57] brings us to our agenda. Is there a motion to adjurnn?

[1:47:01] » Make a motion to adjurnn. Is there a second?

[1:47:04] » Second. >> Is there any further discussion?

[1:47:10] Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I or raising your

[1:47:12] hand. >> I

[1:47:14] » I. >> Any opposed?

[1:47:16] Any abstensions? All right. Motion carries and we stand

[1:47:20] in adjournment at 7:48 p.m.

Montgomery Selectboard | 08/31/2026

Transcript