[0:00] of these issues as inconvenient as they
may be. Uh the goal of the commission is
[0:06] to ask the tough questions. Um Chris,
>> they cover this commission.
[0:11] » I think you should have introduced
yourself and the board.
[0:14] » So I have that next and I'm sorry I
thought I did at the beginning that I'm
[0:19] vice chair Christian acting chair this
evening. Um we'll go into a roll call in
[0:25] just a moment. I have one housekeeping
item in addition to this. Um but u I
[0:30] will say that uh I guess the last thing
I'll say is that um disagreement is
[0:36] normal uh and expected and uh and for
the public to be here and raise concern
[0:42] is also normal and expected. So um we
should look at everything presented
[0:47] objectively and uh and hold ourselves
accountable. And with that just one
[0:52] quick um I guess we can go into roll
call and then I have a housekeeping
[0:55] item. So we can start
[1:02] » Christine McDade treasurer
>> Joshua secretary Mark Casper Fields
[1:10] » and
>> Alison
[1:14] » Alison
thank you
[1:18] » the White House I have a clarification
this is not a public hearing this
[1:22] evening it is a a meeting in public of
conservation commission. That said, the
[1:28] commission is not required uh to allow
public comment. However, we've made it a
[1:33] regular best practice that has that kind
of standing item on the agenda. There's
[1:38] been quite a bit of outreach uh with
regards to a desire to make public
[1:42] comment this evening. So, as we've done
in the past, there is a signup sheet
[1:47] over here uh for those interested in
making public comment. Uh new field
[1:52] presidents as we've done in the name and
address and each member of the public
[1:58] will be equal time two minutes for
public comment.
[2:07] » You know, I asked to be on the agenda
and you said I would given time to
[2:11] speak. You did not say you were
restricting.
[2:13] » I'm not sure who you are.
>> I particular
[2:17] I asked to be on the agenda to be able
to read a statement.
[2:20] » My response to you was that you could
give comment or public And then I asked
[2:24] for clarification and you didn't send
one.
[2:27] » I believe there was the
>> No, we didn't send one. So this this was
[2:31] an attempt by you to not let me sir.
>> There you had reached out. If you'd like
[2:37] me to email my response was
[2:42] » First warning, sir.
>> I don't think you responded
[2:48] to his response. I didn't respond back
because you clarified what I had said.
[2:55] I said the only thing that was on the
agenda was public.
[2:58] » Correct. And my initial
email was
[3:06] all right.
Let's uh delve into the agenda. Uh the
[3:12] first item is previous meeting minutes.
have been a bit of a backlog of meeting
[3:18] minutes 18 to June 15th and
[clears throat] the July 20th meeting.
[3:23] Um I know sent those out to each of us
with the revisions that have been
[3:28] requested. I guess we could start with
May 18
[3:32] and if there were any corrections or
amendments additional by anyone like
[3:38] » I have no additional.
>> Okay. Uh then with that I move to
[3:44] approve the May 18th as
>> a second.
[3:50] » All in favor?
[3:53] » Uh the next is the June 15 meeting
minutes. Again amendments for those
[4:01] minutes.
>> I have no additional
[4:06] » hearing. None. I move to approve the
June 15th meeting minutes as presented.
[4:15] » All in favor?
>> I
[4:18] uh and then the July 20th and I saw that
you had incorporated Chris's edits
[4:26] » and I would suggest one.
>> Oh, that's right.
[4:31] » Any additional corrections or amendments
to the July 28th
[4:39] None. I move to approve the July 20th
minutes as presented.
[4:46] All in favor?
[4:54] » Okay. Second agenda. So there have
there's been quite a bit of discussion
[4:58] around minutes and trying to find a
balance between uh verb recordings and
[5:06] more success
[5:15] and elaborating on the proposal.
Um so yeah certainly the last meetings
[5:23] request to make the minutes more
transcript. Um so I just want to share
[5:27] my view that that's really not what
minutes should be. um minute should be
[5:31] just an overview of the cabinet meeting,
a general idea of what was discussed and
[5:36] any action items that help with that. So
the um the suggestion that I made is to
[5:42] as we move forward under each item I
would do a very short what was discussed
[5:47] but no actual statements made by any
particular person and any actions that
[5:52] come out of that and I would link each a
each um agenda item or minute item to
[5:58] video to the exact in the video. So I
want to hear the full discussion that
[6:03] would happen there. I think what happens
especially as the as someations get
[6:07] longer or could be contentious that um
people have ideas of I want my statement
[6:13] to be in there and that then ends up
with months and months of edits things
[6:18] like that. So I think this would be a
good format moving forward. It makes it
[6:22] very readable for someone just see what
happened here, what were decisions made,
[6:26] what are next steps and then they can
watch the video at the time.
[6:31] » And if someone wanted to get into the
nitty-gritty details of the meeting,
[6:36] what's the retention period for a
YouTube video? How long is it available
[6:39] for?
>> Uh, question.
[6:44] » I think it's indefinite. I mean, it
stays up for
[6:49] » Okay. There.
[6:53] » Sounds good.
>> And and are are is the transcript I saw
[6:56] it came up that it said it was
transcribing
[6:59] » the transcript is tougher because the
the audio is connected to because we're
[7:05] logged in as right now and so it doesn't
identify any particular person as they
[7:10] speak and the transcript obviously is
done by AI so it's not ideal. It does
[7:14] give the whole conversation but it says
Sue was the entire time. There are
[7:19] certainly other tools and other product
software hardware that that the town
[7:24] could invest in where you wear something
and it tell it knows who you are.
[7:27] » No, I was just asking when I saw the
transcript, you know, somebody wanted to
[7:31] check. I know when it does the um the
video and it it turns it into text.
[7:36] Sometimes you can hear something and see
that the text is wrong.
[7:40] » Yes.
>> So there'll always be those kinds of
[7:43] errors anyway.
>> Okay. Okay. So, but something is
[7:45] available if somebody wanted to dive
into the the details both the video and
[7:50] the transcript. Okay.
[8:05] » Yeah. I mean certainly when I wasn't
here at the July meeting I I think those
[8:08] meetings took me quite a bit longer that
minutes because I was pausing because I
[8:12] wanted to get exact verbiage because
that was the direction was going in. So
[8:16] I was pausing and going back
and that takes a really long time
[8:22] » and you had
[8:29] um only question
[8:41] speakers
[8:45] Yeah. So it would be it wouldn't be any
statements made during the conversation.
[8:50] It would be the action who made the
movement
[8:53] was did it pass? Did it fail? Was there
[9:08] » I would move that we accept Caitlyn's
suggestion for the content of our
[9:12] minutes from this point forward.
[9:20] Hi.
[9:26] » Chris.
>> Sure. So, um, for the end of July, our
[9:32] conservation account currently has
$76,354.19
[9:38] and our current use account currently
has $21,972.33.
[9:44] Um, the dividends were respectively
$238.11
[9:49] and $68.51
and the um interest for this month was
[9:55] 3.683% 683%
uh which is slightly up from the
[9:59] previous months. Uh there were no um
expenditures uh out of either of these
[10:04] accounts and uh did put in the request
based on the previous approval for the
[10:09] um invoice that have been discussed
previously and soon should be able to do
[10:13] that now that she has
[10:17] good shape for now.
>> All right. With that I move to accept
[10:24] ascepted.
All in favor
[10:32] next section.
[10:37] So a few pieces of course
[10:45] here. Uh on July 30th uh 2026 a Thursday
we received a letter from Johan Hanley
[10:53] trails and community engagement manager
itself
[10:57] communication was intended to alert
commission that he was handed to write a
[11:02] letter that day so July 30th to the
select board and town hall the self
[11:08] informs the board
about plans to expand this greenway on
[11:16] the road to accommodate up to six years.
He notes that the expansion permitted
[11:22] under the conservation included in the
2023 management plan updated and
[11:28] approved by the commission.
Uh lastly, you know, the work will
[11:33] include minor site improvements
including the removal of approximately
[11:37] 297
soil, a short section of stone walls and
[11:42] one roof tree and along with that the
installation of a split rail front and
[11:48] replacement of an existing kiosk. Uh it
looks like they anticipate work will
[11:55] start late summer or early fall.
[12:00] And all these all these letters will go
into the record.
[12:06] Uh August 6, 2026, uh Thursday, a letter
submitted by uh a communication by Derek
[12:14] Trent, the event specialist itself.
Basically, the honor students letter
[12:19] highlights some upcoming events, trail
fest, nothing
[12:25] tripard,
nothing.
[12:29] summer series
[12:33] and along with a number of other items
and then you know at the end if anyone's
[12:40] interested in further information on
these events you can go to south new
[12:45] hampshire.orgself
selfdevents website.
[12:51] August 11th, 2026 on Monday, a
communication from Sydney Dendro from
[12:58] Water Planning Assistant at New
Hampshire Department of Environmental
[13:03] Services basically announcing that the
alteration of brain permit applications
[13:08] are now exclusively available online
through New Hampshire and Virro portal.
[13:14] Uh the portal allows users to search for
projects, view application materials,
[13:20] check for project status, know what are
required and uh hard copy site plan must
[13:29] still be provided to the local advisory
committee.
[13:35] On
August,
[13:38] Friday, this past Friday, a letter from
Trish came in.
[13:43] Uh the letter talks about the commission
receiving
[13:47] uh
in short commission received a letter uh
[13:52] concerning the selection of the next
chair asking that Chandler automatically
[13:58] become chair. Instead, she asked that
commission members to consider
[14:01] [clears throat]
my qualification chair's qualifications,
[14:05] independence and pursuant partiality as
well as the process for appointing
[14:12] commission members and prior involvement
of commissioners fields and matters
[14:17] related to former chair Thomas and
[14:25] this talk
[14:28] The truth of the underlying raises
concern
[14:36] succession of vice chair chair is
automatic and to consider these other
[14:42] factors instead
consider
[14:49] on August 16 letter from Brian Johnson
uh with an email attached letter uh
[14:58] requesting that fields refuse himself
conservation commission and other
[15:02] municipal matters specifically involving
burning family farm or the burning
[15:07] property citing his prior public
statements expressing strong personal
[15:11] opposition to the farm's activities and
asserting that they violate the law the
[15:17] request raised grants of impartiality
and ask to review applicable conflict of
[15:24] interest policies requested letter
referenced which
[15:37] August 5th and 14 a letter from
who I just met. Uh chronologically on
[15:46] August 5th Mr. began request to address
the conservation commission on August
[15:51] 17th meeting regarding the Vernon family
farm and was advised that he should
[15:57] speak during public comment. On August
14, he submitted a draft of a formal
[16:02] complaint seeking Christian
from the commission alleging procedural
[16:08] misconduction.
[16:18] conclusion with select board chair OB
and bias against the department. His
[16:23] letter focuses primarily on allegedness
by challengers including handling of
[16:30] refusal
his appointment process and his conduct
[16:35] related matters request a public hearing
for removal under RSA 36A 3.
[16:41] Alternatively, we ask that recuse
himself of all related matters and
[16:46] lastly
share.
[16:50] That is the end of mail received. Those
letters in their target will be entered
[16:56] into the public record and next on the
agenda
[17:02] will be public comments. Uh
and if anyone else uh during the course
[17:09] before we If you're interested, the
signup sheet is there. Um, I'll remind
[17:15] members that this is a chance for the
public to comment. It's their two
[17:19] minutes of time. Uh, so we should not
disturb any of their time. It's not Q&A,
[17:25] not a chance for the public to share
their thoughts.
[17:29] » Are you going to mention the letter from
lawyer?
[17:32] » Oh, yeah. We could I I was going to
bring that up later with that particular
[17:37] item, but um when we get to burn that up
as well. Um
[17:45] » how many how many people do we have on
the the sign up list for public comment?
[17:50] » Three. Okay.
>> So I I didn't know what a typical uh
[17:54] time for a public comment is. So, I did
what I do now is I asked AI and uh 2
[18:01] minutes if you're expecting a long
signup list. 3 minutes is the most
[18:05] common default. I don't think this list
is too burdensome. So, I make the motion
[18:09] to extend the time to three minutes
instead of two minutes. All in favor or
[18:15] maybe a second that.
>> All in favor?
[18:19] » Okay. Three.
[18:25] Maybe
[18:28] » I would like
[18:36] » So we received a letter from uh attorney
at about 12 today asking that the uh
[18:45] that the town council respond to uh some
items that Attorney Manelli uh wanted
[18:53] addressed.
So those items have been received by
[18:57] town council. Uh additionally there was
a request to uh make sure or a request
[19:06] uh that we not make action motion or
vote with regards to Vernon Family Farm
[19:13] this evening. Um which uh which I
believe is fine. Um I know that the
[19:20] attorney had responded uh the town
attorney has responded to
[19:26] and um and there are obviously items of
disagreement need to be worked out by
[19:32] respective councils. Uh so I think uh
with that uh those standards are uh we
[19:43] as far as
I guess both
[19:48] good sense for us to withhold any
motions or votes
[19:57] » didn't that always also apply to the
ones [clears throat] discussed in July?
[20:10] that it's not just tonight, but it's
also a question about the vote that's
[20:14] taken in.
[20:19] » Uh with that, we can proceed public
comment.
[20:33] We have David
[20:46] at 57 Bill Road.
Uh I had prepared prepared a complaint
[20:52] which I had emailed in. I had checked
with various people around town and I
[20:58] was told that when a public integrity
complaint comes in, it'll be diffusive
[21:03] by not some. And I emailed this board
this week asking for clarification.
[21:11] I'm now told that I'm going to be
restricted to three minutes. He doesn't
[21:14] do it. I have about 14 minutes. I knew
that was pushing it. I figured I would
[21:18] get about 10. So at some point I would
like my public integrity complaint read
[21:23] in full. But between the time of that
public integrity complaint and this week
[21:29] I read articles and saw more of the
meetings in question and it really
[21:36] really made me angry to the point that I
had to include in my public integrity
[21:40] complaint not only Chris but also
Fields. I dug up some of his Facebook uh
[21:47] posts on the vern and they were mean
spirited. They were gratuitous and they
[21:52] were attempting to harm the burn family
farm in a financial matter because they
[21:56] were in response to a co by the burn
family farm. And I'm sure the Vernon
[22:02] agree with what was said.
Uh, so he should be recusing himself and
[22:08] uh, Chris, I mean, I'm sure you've read
the complaint. Uh, obviously want to
[22:13] summarize it. So, I'm just going to
read, you guys can cut me off when we
[22:16] get to three minutes.
What has been reported in the press and
[22:20] by Mark Casper illustrates clear
collusion between select board chairman
[22:25] and conservation commissioner member
Chris despite both protesting and
[22:29] falsely claiming they were revealing
pollution in others. My prepared
[22:33] complaint against
is incompetence and collusion with the
[22:36] select board chairman has already been
submitted to the conservation committee
[22:40] via email but the events of last week
specifically Mr. Shandris and Caleb
[22:46] signing an aligning the former
conservation commissioner chair force me
[22:51] also made an additional integrity
complaint against Mr. Phy
[22:55] and now conspiring with Mr. Chandelas
this complaint along with the one you
[23:00] already have on Mr.
will be submitted to the select board
[23:03] asking for both members to be removed
for cause. Quite simply, Taylor Fields
[23:07] and Chris are only on the conservation
commission because they reliable anti-
[23:11] burden with their votes. Most likely,
they were tipped off in BFF beyond the
[23:15] conservation commission agenda soon
after they were appointed in a shady
[23:19] underhanded manner. They are currently
in the minority among more qualified
[23:22] conservation commission members and
they're now trying to whittle away the
[23:26] majority by behaving in an unethical
underhanded manner and claiming that
[23:29] others are quote biased unquote when
they themselves or at least Mr. Fields
[23:34] is extremely biased and transparent in
his loathing of the burn family. Mr.
[23:38] Shadowis like Mr. Harmon and Mr.
Loa by disguising himself as a helpless
[23:44] bureaucrat is only following the law. He
is not. Mr. Shannis is basically
[23:50] I will submit everything else for the
record.
[23:55] » Just one more point of clarification.
The commission is not the appointed body
[24:02] for so but I do believe that
>> I asked it to be for the select. I will
[24:10] address the select
policy I believe is to be public
[24:14] integrity.
[24:19] Next class.
[24:28] » Good evening. I'm Brad Johnson.
Thanks for
[24:33] submitted requests
as you mentioned asking that
[24:39] conservation commission matters in
this based on Facebook statements that
[24:45] Mr. Fields made property owner
expressing strong personal and
[24:49] opposition to the farm's operation. He
wrote quote I stand with and support
[24:54] farms not concert halls and bars open
areas. He also repeatedly stated as fact
[25:02] quote against every law local and state
and he also stated once abandoned a bar
[25:09] go to the shopping closet in
not asking the commission to rule these
[25:14] legal claims tonight asking to address
the appearance of impartiality someone
[25:20] judge matter as unlawful and
participates in governmental decisions
[25:24] about that same property in a small town
is not realistic to expect officials
[25:30] opinions about interactions with people.
That's not a standard asking for this is
[25:38] about the extreme and repeated nature of
Mr. stated opposition which goes well
[25:43] beyond ordinary opinion and raises a
real question about his ability to be
[25:47] partial
concerns about the process matters
[26:14] I'm going to ask that you not
YouTube as you posted things on Facebook
[26:33] this part.
[26:37] » It's disheartening to see base face
baseless criticisms
[26:42] overshadow the genuine positive impact
that Chris and Kayla Fields have had on
[26:48] our town. Their actions have been guided
by our desire to improve our environment
[26:52] and enrich our community our community's
quality of life. You will not find
[26:58] anyone more transparent about the issues
pertaining to our conservation land.
[27:03] President Caleb took an oath to maintain
transparency and honesty and in my
[27:08] opinion my opinion only, they are the
only two members of this board
[27:15] in the last five years that have carried
through with that vote.
[27:22] Why would anyone question members of
conservation commission showing concern
[27:27] for town conservation land?
[27:32] They're getting backlash for actually
doing the job they volunteered to do.
[27:38] In my opinion, the efforts of deflection
seem a bit suspicious. Not only are
[27:44] Caleb and Chris invested in protecting
the town's conservation land and
[27:48] maintaining transparency and integrity,
they have helped with concomment.
[28:01] Before being a member of the Pinecom,
Caleb did the aerial surveying and
[28:07] pictures for the beaver issues on the
Piscas Greenway. He is also looking into
[28:13] the new wetlands regulations
and they have both done a ton of
[28:18] research on soil integrity
and testing and the effects of misuse of
[28:25] that land.
I urge everyone here to focus on
[28:30] supporting and appreciating the hard
work they continue to do for our
[28:35] community and for the preservation of
our land. Thank you, Chris, for all you
[28:41] do. Thank you for all you do.
[28:49] » Thank you.
With that, that is the last before we
[28:53] move on to the next agenda item. I'll
offer one more time
[29:01] from public comment. Then,
uh the next agenda item is something
[29:06] that's I requires clarification. So
there was some recent discussion about
[29:13] our uh general inbox investation
conservation at new fields nh.gov.
[29:22] Um just some suggestions that we should
all be checking it that it's sometimes
[29:28] being used for CCing members. So I think
to avoid future confusion we should have
[29:34] some agreement about how that's being
used. I know Um Allison Watts had shared
[29:41] the user and password with all of us
although I believe I and a few other
[29:47] commission members were not aware or had
forgotten that that had been shared with
[29:51] us. Um but nonetheless we all had access
to that inbox. Um so uh but again the
[29:59] way that I understand that inbox uh it
had been suggested that maybe we use it
[30:04] to CC one another. I think our general
practice has been to include everyone's
[30:09] individual emails when we're ceasing
versus ceasing the conub. I believe it's
[30:14] more of a external communication tool
for inbound communications. I will also
[30:20] say that when you go to the website, it
says specifically on the link email
[30:24] conservation chair. So the indication
that it is for the conservation chair.
[30:29] But I bring that up because I think the
questions that we need to answer so that
[30:33] there is no more confusion around it
moving forward is what is the intended
[30:37] use of that general email and inbox
who's responsible for monitoring it? Is
[30:43] it a joint responsibility or is it
solely the the responsibility of the
[30:48] chair and um should it be used for
internal communications or is it purely
[30:53] for use uh with the public?
Any thoughts or
[30:59] No, I'll just reiterate that the basic
need for it was to provide some
[31:05] continuity between chairs. So if that
person changes, comes in and out of the
[31:10] role, then they have the history and
they can go back. So I just wanted to
[31:14] put that out there.
>> Um this is Allison. Can you guys hear
[31:19] me?
>> Yep, we can.
[31:21] » Yeah. So just also a little context
there as well. We do get a lot of
[31:26] I I would say
um maybe not necessarily deeply
[31:31] important emails, the updates from
um you know there's going to be a a fish
[31:37] fest, there's a beaver thing, so general
educational stuff. There's a lot of
[31:40] stuff that comes through that email. Um
and part of the reason people don't what
[31:47] I do is I forward it straight into my
email so I get it all. Um people in the
[31:51] past have not wanted that much because
if there's a lot of email, you know, we
[31:56] all have too much email. So, some people
wanted to be able to have a way of
[31:59] focusing it. So, that was that was
another way people approached it. I
[32:02] don't particularly care. I get it all,
but we wanted to give people the choice
[32:06] of getting all of it or being able to
focus more.
[32:15] » I mean,
[32:34] Yeah, I think that as far as I mean to
me it is kind of a general inbox. I
[32:39] think it's from a transparency
standpoint it's kind of nice that we all
[32:43] have access to it. Um and the intent
isn't for example if there's a matter
[32:49] chair and county council or something
like that. It would be sent to the
[32:54] general inbox. So I don't think there's
any I don't see any issues with other
[32:59] members having access to it. U
I I feel like as far as since it's uh to
[33:07] your point Josh and on the website that
it does indicate that it goes to the
[33:11] chair that um that it be the
responsibility of the chair to monitor
[33:15] that and sort of uh Are you any relevant
indications to the commission versus the
[33:22] expectation that individual
commissioners are expected to check?
[33:29] It sort of comes with the responsibility
of the chair.
[33:34] » Yeah, I think I think leaving it open
for all commission members to access uh
[33:39] is is a good thing. I think the only
risk is if someone deletes something by
[33:43] accident. There's a lot of hands in
there. It can happen, but the the risk
[33:48] of that is fairly low.
[33:52] » I think it's fair for anyone who does
have to check it, which I'm trying to do
[33:57] more frequently now that I know it and
have access to it. Um, that if something
[34:03] looks like it's significant, I think any
one of us can bring it up to the rest of
[34:07] the commission to say, is there
something we should be doing here as a
[34:12] as a commission?
[34:17] So, I'm not going to count on just the
chair to make that assessment.
[34:28] » Allison, any any further thoughts from
your perspective?
[34:31] » Um, I guess my only other thing and I am
having trouble hearing even though
[34:34] someone already said this, forgive me.
There should be a designated person to
[34:38] the chair who is the only person who
sends from that email. Otherwise, it may
[34:42] wind up with different people sending
different stuff.
[34:44] » Sure. Yeah, good point. Yeah.
>> All right.
[34:54] So
then if I were to a motion here, just
[35:00] » I don't think we need a motion for this.
>> It's kind of status quo. Yeah.
[35:05] » Okay.
I mean if when we get back to working on
[35:09] the bylaws and the and the ways of
working and so forth they can be listed
[35:12] as a way of working.
So just for my own clarification, we're
[35:17] suggesting that it primarily be the the
in the responsibility of the chair, but
[35:23] we're fine with other members also
monitoring that.
[35:27] » Mhm.
>> Okay. All right.
[35:32] Uh
really quickly, um site monitoring
[35:36] updates. Um so I had some correspondence
with uh or
[35:44] County Conservation District uh on
Friday and her latest update was that
[35:51] the coal and more easements have been
monitor
[36:01] part of that the morning. Yeah.
And then um she uh then told me that the
[36:08] static greenway was started on Thursday
and she completed on Friday, August
[36:13] 14th. Um and that she will try and
complete those reports as expeditiously
[36:19] as possible. Um I'm coming
uh and she uses
[36:35] farmer
will be end of August. Uh still think to
[36:40] be pinned down and then the daily ement
will occur sometime September. Um she'll
[36:48] keep us posted on that and with exact
dates and uh and then again
[36:54] recommendation for conservation
commission members to join her on any of
[36:58] those sitew
[37:04] encourage her that when the reports are
ready and we have reviewed them and
[37:09] approved them to then issue the um
invoices as they are done. Not to
[37:16] invoice us at the end of the year.
[37:20] » Had she been doing that for the most
part?
[37:23] » I think last year she tended to wait to
do the invoicing
[37:31] » and it just helps also with
[clears throat] the budget flow and
[37:35] understanding what the budget might need
to be because we're going to go into
[37:38] budget season again real soon.
>> Yeah.
[37:44] So to understand what the true cost in
terms of her time is to do this is
[37:49] helpful for our planning purposes.
>> Yeah, I know. Uh she referred to
[37:56] one of the
[38:04] » many of these are because there's a lot
of boundaries and uh and you need to do
[38:08] a certain amount of work establishing
the boundaries and then checking the on
[38:12] the conditions both at the boundaries
and internally in some cases.
[38:20] » All right. Anything else on
[38:26] um we had a couple of uh projects that
were in the works. Um I know we had the
[38:35] alternate member uh which had uh some
degree of discussion in the past couple
[38:42] of meetings and I think actually to some
degree both the alternate member and the
[38:47] bylaws are intertwined because we
currently don't have any practice or
[38:53] policies that approve with regards to
alterate members. Um
[39:00] so
perhaps u addressing that I know it's a
[39:05] little bit premature unless anybody has
any uh comments or thoughts on that
[39:12] process. I know some things were brought
up about folders and uh and I did see
[39:19] there was a folder with letters of
intent. um there was some degree of
[39:24] discussion around u the the uh the notes
that were taken in the screen process
[39:32] I think there's certainly some learning
in there but again I feel as if that
[39:38] might be part of an overarching
discussion about bylaws and trying to
[39:42] finalize those
>> I would just like to comment though that
[39:48] we had agreed um to that a subcommittee
of us would take a look and interview
[39:53] candidates. We were fortunate to have
numerous candidates that that stepped
[39:57] forward uh some of who whom afterwards
um declined based on the time
[40:02] commitments and so forth once they
understood better what they might be
[40:06] asked to do. Um but we did have a a
willing candidate because uh even though
[40:12] we had had multiple discussions about
the candidates and their um capabilities
[40:19] um that uh uh Chris and Caleb had rec or
uh abstained from voting in support of
[40:27] them last time and although that uh was
still a positive vote um the person did
[40:34] not feel that they were getting the
support they needed. So I think has lost
[40:38] uh credibility and uh um good good faith
in the from from the community based on
[40:46] that your actions in that previous
meeting.
[40:50] » Want to point out for that that just two
months before the first ever vote of the
[40:56] NCC for an alternate member or member
was done. Tom abstained from voting. It
[41:04] was six to nothing for Dan Williams.
That's a historic vote. It's never been
[41:08] done for NCC before, ever. And another
person did abstain from voting and he
[41:14] chose not to serve as well.
>> Well, Dan moved away.
[41:18] » Whatever it was, that was the first ever
vote of NCC on record.
[41:24] » And Tom felt he knew the candidate.
>> They voted on me. Just saying.
[41:32] » Allison saying they voted on her.
>> I'm I was an alternate member and they
[41:36] voted on me a while ago but yes
>> anything in meeting minutes on
[41:42] » on what
>> any other vote
[41:45] » on an alternate member
>> or member period
[41:52] » okay well we'll have to talk about this
when Allison is here can can explain
[41:58] » as of the town records there there was
only one vote ever done and it's for Dan
[42:02] Williams six to nothing vote and Tom
Rutenberg abstained from voting.
[42:08] » Yeah. Because he felt he knew him too
much. So he wanted the
[42:12] » There's no no reason on record. But I'm
just
[42:17] I'm just recalling what he said at the
time. But uh but I think that
[42:23] we, you know, in this particular case,
we had somebody who considered it um a a
[42:29] bad mark on him and a lack of support
and therefore has chosen not to
[42:33] participate. So just something for us to
consider when we've got we're trying to
[42:37] establish a subcommittee
um record or way of acting so that we
[42:43] don't have to all participate in all
activities and be more efficient. And so
[42:48] I think we do need to say if there's a
subcommittee recommendation and we vote
[42:53] on that that we should say you had two
months to say I didn't have enough
[42:58] information or I'm abstaining because of
you know whatever the reason is that you
[43:04] feel you need to abstain.
>> I did say I abstained because there was
[43:06] no notes. Um Tom said he had a few
postits. We didn't get any. No, there
[43:11] were plenty of notes in the in the uh um
>> Oh, I just looked yesterday on it, but I
[43:17] had a few notes. Um
>> well, there there were several emails at
[43:21] least then. There were many emails.
>> I just saw a long
[43:24] » that Tom had shared
[43:28] » no Tom shared everybody's email when
they applied.
[43:36] » [clears throat]
>> I would say the reason why I'm saying
[43:40] issues or items being
we were trying to develop both at the
[43:47] same time without any established
practices. Um, so, uh, I feel like there
[43:55] was some confusion there. To the point
of the notes, I had gone into the drive
[44:00] and only saw letters of intent. And then
I did see a file that I had gone back
[44:08] and read that was dropped in there on
July 20th, uh, the day after after
[44:14] meeting somebody.
So, um, I think to me there's a
[44:21] formality. I know a few others, people
that serve on nonprofit boards that have
[44:28] alternates and is a general a little bit
more of a defined process and maybe more
[44:36] of a strict process in terms of asking
the the alternates, the candidates, you
[44:42] know, the same question, recording all
of that so that other members of the
[44:46] board have access to the same question.
And then each member treated, you know,
[44:51] in the same manner and treated fairly. I
know um I think Tom had told me uh that
[44:57] there was actually a fairly u at least
in his conversations with candidates
[45:03] fairly rigorous and I I guess not seeing
any of the outputs of that uh was was
[45:10] challenging
not to to have those notes.
[45:14] » But it did get discussed at our
meetings.
[45:18] » Some of it did. I don't think degree
and and you're right. I mean, I think
[45:24] that's the opportunity to ask more
questions for sure.
[45:28] So, as far as as that and as it pertains
to to the bylaws,
[45:35] I believe we were all in a pretty
comfortable state of where the finals
[45:43] are are at. I think there's probably
some opportunity to shore some things up
[45:49] around the uh the alternate member
around uh specifically one one item that
[45:58] I'd like to revisit before we finalize
the bylaws is term limits on the
[46:03] commission. I think that uh that was an
item we talked about and uh it sort of
[46:09] uh didn't get much traction but I think
it's a it's a something that on any
[46:17] board or commission is a good practice.
Uh there's as we talk about ultimate
[46:23] members and getting fresh blood on
commissions and new insights and new
[46:28] thinking I think it's something that we
ought to examine. I know it's fairly
[46:34] standard on a lot of boards and
commissions for members to serve two
[46:38] successive terms and then they're
required to take a year off from the
[46:43] board for commission. And I think that
that creates opportunity for engagement
[46:48] with others in the community to join the
board uh versus uh some potentially
[46:54] stale thinking or um or just uh you know
inviting new ideas and new members to a
[47:02] board. So for me that's one item I'd
like to go back and revisit but I
[47:08] believe there are some other items that
other district members have indicated
[47:13] they may want to
[47:17] Well, I think we need specific
suggestions about what else needs to be
[47:22] reexamined because my last recollection
was that we were ready to vote on them
[47:27] pending just pending the final changes
we had discussed and agreed to and then
[47:33] send them to the um select board that
needed to be approved for approval. So,
[47:39] » so
>> I don't see why we need to revisit all
[47:41] of these things.
[47:45] and
>> you're expressing your opinion about
[47:47] what you think a board should be. You're
not
[47:50] you're not having a discussion about
what the board thinks the board
[47:54] » fair. I think it's worth going in and
maybe one last round of comments and
[48:00] deliberate and then to your point Chris
I think the intention was to try and get
[48:05] that finalized in December. seems like
it's coming faster than we like. I think
[48:13] I'm happy to go in there and put my
comments in
[48:18] discussing.
[48:24] » But in interest of tonight's agenda, I
would say let's move on then because
[48:28] we're not prepared to discuss that today
and we have other people.
[48:33] » All right. So, um I guess I'll just say
that are there any
[48:42] aspect of that there is a consent link
you may know where that file is and what
[48:48] it's lab but I'll send that to you
[48:58] the next item on the agenda
[49:03] » I did just have one uh one question
about the alternate members within that
[49:08] initial population of people. Do we have
anybody left in that?
[49:13] » There was um one person I believe but
I'm not sure of his current status.
[49:18] » Okay. So we have one potential. So this
is a call for alternate members. Uh send
[49:24] in your
>> Okay. Send in your applications. And we
[49:27] also have a an empty seat that is uh
permanent. Right.
[49:33] So just wanted to clarify that
>> you have both a member and
[49:39] » yes.
[49:44] » Okay. Um with that okay um so the window
dresses program uh we participated in
[49:51] this for the first time last year as a
town of Newfields um at the invitation
[49:55] of the exit energy um commission and
they are offering to do this again for
[50:01] all of SA16 which is what they did last
year. Um the windows are incredible. Um
[50:07] they have a whole program where uh any
homeowner in the town can request
[50:13] measurements, find out a cost. Uh there
is support for the cost. So if you have
[50:18] unusual sized windows, um they make some
amazing inserts that are solid wood with
[50:25] plastic sheeting on two sides. Really
durable uh inserts that would help with
[50:32] uh protecting homes from the cold coming
in through windows. Uh so we are going
[50:37] to have a um town farmers and craft
market on Saturday, September 19th and
[50:45] window dressers will be one of the uh
participants in that craft market.
[50:49] That's also our town um community day,
fall community day and uh so I would
[50:55] encourage people to find out more. I'm
going to try and work with the library
[50:59] uh to also get some samples so people
can see. We did have some participants
[51:03] from Newfields last year. Extor was
super happy with um the amount of
[51:08] participation that we did get. Um, and I
would just like to make it more public
[51:13] and uh more people more aware because I
think people think of uh it's you know
[51:17] like plastic and and insert and it's
going to be kind of flimsy and so forth,
[51:21] but no, it is custom fit to your windows
and the um the church in town uh got
[51:28] some of them for their windows and I
don't know all of the people in town who
[51:32] did but encourage you to come and see
some of the samples um and find out more
[51:36] about it if you have any interest in
energy conservation.
[51:40] So that's it and it it will be also
addressed in the um the town newsletter
[51:45] when that comes out from the library uh
in early September.
[51:51] » Thank you.
>> All right. Uh the next item on the
[51:56] agenda is family management plan.
I'll give a quick update from the last
[52:04] meeting and where I think things stand.
There are as was mentioned earlier
[52:10] during correspondence there are some
matters being uh discussed between
[52:19] councils. So at the very least this is
an update on where things last meeting
[52:26] um at the last meeting the discussion
was really around the uh determining
[52:33] the whether or not proper assessment of
the soil the park area has been
[52:39] performed and if there was a desire or
or a belief from the commission that
[52:48] testing soil testing needed to be part
of that assessment it was it was uh
[52:54] the feeling of all the members of the
commission and soil testing prior.
[53:01] So uh with that
>> it was of all of the active members of
[53:07] the commission that day not all members
of the commission
[53:10] » and I was not at that meeting
>> and was not there and Tom was asked to
[53:15] refuse himself.
>> That's right. So with with the majority
[53:20] of the fish drivers, Caleb, Gild, myself
[53:31] should be assessed
as a result to look at a way of doing
[53:37] that in a independent way.
Michael
[53:44] RFP
as a result of the motion that was made
[53:49] and again there's discussions between
legal council
[53:55] but the next action from that was to
reach out to various entities that
[54:01] identified
county conservation district uh UNH
[54:06] cooperative extension and NRCS
I taken that action and all I' spoken
[54:14] with all of those entities all of whom
pointed to the New Hampshire Association
[54:21] of Conservation Commission
[54:32] and what happened
>> fair yeah I think that's oh okay so the
[54:39] discussion
to pursue that with those.
[54:45] » Are you going to write that up for the
rest of us?
[54:48] » Yes. And I will put those resources on
the shared.
[54:54] Um
so
[54:57] with that there is uh
as
[55:03] points out there is uh some discussion
amongst the uh household attorney about
[55:12] several items there.
So that is where that action stands.
[55:21] Um
and
[55:25] no there are there are no no motions
with regards to this.
[55:37] » Can I [clears throat]
can I comment in here?
[55:40] » Sure.
>> This is Alison. I'm not sure if this is
[55:43] the place or whe labor in this agenda,
but there have been two requests for
[55:48] recusals for members related to matters
regarding burden family farm and there
[55:53] has not been any response or discussion
of that. Um, you know, when this
[55:57] happened in the last meeting, there was
a lot of discussion about potential
[56:02] issues associated with the member. I do
think that the members who have been
[56:05] asked to recuse themselves need to
discuss the issues that have been uh
[56:12] raised and they need to determine
whether or not they feel that they need
[56:16] to recuse themselves. I think that that
needs to be on the table and disc
[56:20] » well I actually don't believe there was
any discussion of that refusal. It was a
[56:24] uh there was a
a point that I raised that I felt as if
[56:31] it required
member
[56:34] That was the discussion.
[56:39] » I don't I don't know if you have that
right.
[56:43] » Um,
[56:46] changing topics a little bit, but
uh,
[56:52] so I just wanted to recap all the
discussion about my potential conflict
[56:58] of interest
um, and how that went. So, I originally
[57:04] joined the Concom four years ago to work
on the conservation of the rug property.
[57:11] Thought it would be a good idea for the
town. And as a mountain biker, I know
[57:15] how special that land is.
After more than a year on me being on
[57:21] the Concom, Vernon Family Farm was on
the agenda. I raised my hand, called
[57:28] time out, and said I wasn't sure that I
could be involved with any matter
[57:34] involving Vernon Family Farm because the
candy store that my wife and I own sold
[57:40] seasonal candy to Vernon Family Farm
farm at Easter time.
[57:46] I sought guidance from town council and
it was deemed that the revenue was so
[57:52] small that it was inconsequential and
not grounds for recusal.
[57:58] In addition, I'm not involved in a
day-to-day operations as I have a
[58:03] full-time job as an engineer. I'm not uh
working at the candy store.
[58:08] So to recap, I self-identified the
potential conflict, made sure it was in
[58:14] the public record in the meeting
minutes. I sought legal guidance.
[58:20] I followed legal guidance. I made sure
the conclusion of the legal guidance was
[58:26] captured in public meeting minutes. So
fast forward to October 2025.
[58:33] So this uh potential conflict was again
brought up uh prior to the concom voting
[58:40] on the parking uh parking on the
easement.
[58:44] This was discussed publicly and it was
relayed that the business relationship
[58:49] had ended removing any potential
conflict of interest. I think that's
[58:54] what you're referring to, right? Uh, I
watched the video of the recent July
[59:01] 28th select board meeting where
commission member Channeris was at the
[59:08] podium
and he was talking about this conflict
[59:11] of interest and Chris at at one point
you were talking about me and said he
[59:18] asked me not to bring it up.
In other words, you paint the picture of
[59:24] me trying to sweep this under the rug.
This is a fabrication to demean my
[59:30] character, and I'm not going to stand
for it.
[59:34] In fact, I have an email to you that
says, "Chris, I agree with you, and this
[59:40] relationship will be disclosed at the
beginning of the meeting when I first
[59:45] self-identified this potential conflict
of interest back in 2023.
[59:50] The initial draft of the concom meetings
minute meeting meeting minutes made no
[59:57] mention of it, but I specifically asked
it to be added to the minutes for full
[1:00:03] transparency. I'm totally good with
putting it all out there. Thanks, Josh.
[1:00:09] So, Chris, the good thing about uh our
interactions is it's either on video or
[1:00:16] it's an email, right? So, I would like
you to provide me with evidence that I
[1:00:21] asked you not to bring it up. Okay.
>> If I had say that, then that was not
[1:00:27] accurate. However, it was an email
exchange over a long period before you
[1:00:33] came forward with the information and at
the meeting
[1:00:39] disclosed. Uh, I hear your disposal.
>> Mhm.
[1:00:44] » And I would say have to go back
There were quite a few back and forth we
[1:00:51] got to do.
[1:00:56] » So what would you do if I went to a
public meeting and said something wasn't
[1:01:03] true about you? You should you should
call on
[1:01:07] I said that and it wasn't completely
accurate then absolutely
[1:01:12] » you did say it because I heard it also
>> and I I went camping for nine days with
[1:01:17] my family. I came back and all that
relaxation just like
[1:01:21] » shrunk.
>> That was the worst.
[1:01:24] I will say that uh and again I'd have to
go back and look at there was quite a
[1:01:30] few
that
[1:01:34] » Sure.
>> Um but uh I don't that was when it was
[1:01:41] made public and I believe that's what
Alison [clears throat]
[1:01:46] » All right. So that's a good segue into
refusals. So let's talk about your
[1:01:51] potential and your potential.
Brian Johnson put it perfectly. I would
[1:01:56] stand behind those posts. All my posts
had legal opposition. Oh, Brian said it
[1:02:03] was legal opposition years ago.
Actually, when you had business dealings
[1:02:07] with them
[1:02:13] just like you, it makes no bias on my
part. It was legal oppos opposition. And
[1:02:19] if you read through them, it's all legal
and fact based. I even keep saying,
[1:02:23] "Take a motion out of this. Let's look
at this professional."
[1:02:27] » Yeah. I think the core of your recusal
is the part where you say, "Um,
[1:02:34] I I get irritated when I hear Vernon
Family Farm in my treeand, on my deck,
[1:02:41] in my pool." Like,
>> yeah. For two hours straight, we got to
[1:02:45] hear masturbation. And I have three
young kids. to listen to a lecture on
[1:02:51] masturbation.
>> Mhm.
[1:02:53] » Loud and clear over a megaphone.
>> I have a problem with that. I have three
[1:02:59] young kids.
>> Yeah.
[1:03:00] » Yep.
>> I agree.
[1:03:01] » That has nothing to do with
conservation.
[1:03:03] » No.
>> Maybe you're okay with your family on a
[1:03:05] camping trip listening to it.
>> I am not.
[1:03:08] » Okay. And then we also had to hear an
hour of um what was the wording? Um
[1:03:15] vandalizing their homes, but do it after
this um comedy session.
[1:03:22] » So yeah, my stuff was all on legal obser
uh uh opposition and yeah, as a morally
[1:03:31] uh as a father of three kids. Yeah. I
don't want my kids listening to that. So
[1:03:35] yeah, and it's recording. You actually
have a copy of the recording in your
[1:03:39] Hong Kong Yep.
>> thing, too. It's it's disturbing.
[1:03:43] » Yeah.
>> There's no way you can't side with me on
[1:03:45] that. There's no way. As a Are you a
father, too? And you want your kids to
[1:03:48] listen to that?
>> I would not.
[1:03:50] » So we're on the same page,
>> but there are noises. And on my
[1:03:56] understanding of the
>> there are there's one thing to have
[1:03:58] noises. It's another thing to listen
about two hours of masturbation.
[1:04:02] » Yeah. But I I think that the the
timeline of that doesn't really line up
[1:04:06] because I think your post was two years
ago. I think the that uh adult comedy
[1:04:13] hour was was last year. So that that was
before that.
[1:04:17] Can I can I chime in too?
>> Sure, Alison.
[1:04:21] » While we're at it, so I mean, would you
say, Caleb, that you would prefer that
[1:04:27] they were not holding those events,
those particular obnoxious events?
[1:04:32] » Which events?
>> Ones that you found obnoxious and
[1:04:36] problematic.
>> Do I want the kids listening to that?
[1:04:39] » No, she asked if you want them to hold
the events.
[1:04:43] We're here for conservation, not for
farm events.
[1:04:48] » Okay. So the the recusal criteria is
having a direct personal or pecunary
[1:04:56] interest in the outcome. I would say
that you have a direct personal interest
[1:05:00] in the outcome of whether or not the
Vernons are allowed to part in that
[1:05:04] field and hold those events.
>> Austin have one with his financial
[1:05:08] interest.
>> Nope.
[1:05:12] It was
[1:05:17] » just as easy. I can say nope.
>> Sorry, Alison. You said something. It
[1:05:21] got lost in the noise from the crowd.
>> I I said that Josh talked to the town
[1:05:25] attorney. He ran his his conflict
through town council. I would suggest
[1:05:29] that Caleb did the same.
>> Sure.
[1:05:34] Just like Johnson who brought it up, all
all my statements were legal opposition.
[1:05:41] Perfect.
>> Your your interpretation of legal
[1:05:44] opposition. You are not a lawyer.
>> His words were legal opposition, not
[1:05:51] opinions.
[1:05:55] » I'm just assuming what Brian Johnson
stood up here and said,
[1:06:00] » I believe he quoted your Facebook post.
I didn't copy that one, but that that
[1:06:06] you were saying that they were not
following the law. opposition.
[1:06:31] » So, so could I just clarify then, Caleb?
Do you not feel that you have a reason
[1:06:36] to recuse? Just just sort of clarify
that for me.
[1:06:51] It's an interesting kind of words
because um I think that uh it's hard to
[1:06:57] start uh slinging blood and I think
there are lots of things that could come
[1:07:03] out that uh that are trou
and
[1:07:13] that it's hard to be in a small town and
not have some connection.
[1:07:20] We want to swing mud. If I look at
public commentary, Miss McDade, I'm
[1:07:25] sorry, you're on all of it, too. And a
financial donor for the Burnham as well.
[1:07:31] » How am I a financial donor?
>> Harmonies.
[1:07:34] » I did not.
I've purchased items at their stores.
[1:07:39] » You're listed as
you're a direct contributor and
[1:07:44] » that was that was before I lived here
>> as soon as last week.
[1:07:48] » Last [clears throat] week.
>> What did I comment on?
[1:07:51] » You're on their social media posts. So I
like Chris said, we can sling mud all
[1:07:56] over the place right now.
[1:08:00] » But I never say anything derogatory or
make a judgement. though you approve or
[1:08:05] like it and donate financially.
>> I do not recall [clears throat] donating
[1:08:11] financially.
If I did, then I'd have to go back and
[1:08:15] look at that. I do buy products from
their stores.
[1:08:18] » You didn't hide your name on the
GoFundMe.
[1:08:21] » Well, I don't believe in hiding my name
no matter what.
[1:08:24] » That's fine. I'm just bringing it up.
Sling mud all over the place.
[1:08:29] » And that was, I believe, before I was on
the commission. My statements were years
[1:08:35] and years before I was on the commission
as well.
[1:08:40] » Three years.
>> Three years.
[1:08:44] » Okay.
[1:08:50] » Even if it was six months or
it was three years ago.
[1:09:00] » To get back to the sub issues. Um, and
and I know that legal councils need to
[1:09:05] confer, but
there there are lots of things that
[1:09:12] raise concerns and questions uh in in
the record. And uh for me, I I'll I'll
[1:09:21] point out that and since we're talking
about record, I had to go back to the
[1:09:26] November 17th meeting to find all the
quotes by everyone on this commission
[1:09:31] for soil testing. Yeah.
Everyone was fine soil testing and uh
[1:09:39] » that that's not that's not true. What we
said was that we needed to consider the
[1:09:44] plan that they had suggested and then in
a subsequent meeting we decided based we
[1:09:51] asked for input. You got both of you had
provided some level of input but not
[1:09:56] before the meeting. So we asked for more
information and I think even without Tom
[1:10:03] recusing himself, we had problems
because the Vernons could not be at the
[1:10:08] last meeting. So we shouldn't have had
that on the agenda without their ability
[1:10:13] to be there.
>> Well,
[1:10:15] » but I think it just needed input. It
needed input.
[1:10:20] » We we received their suggested
monitoring plan, right? We did not
[1:10:27] accept it as is. We we said that we
would review it and discuss it
[1:10:32] » which we had subsequently done but then
the June meeting we weren't allowed to
[1:10:36] do anything because of the incorrect um
uh public publicity about the meeting
[1:10:43] content and therefore we were continuing
that discussion. Just because they
[1:10:48] presented a plan doesn't mean that we
can't as a board go back and say we
[1:10:53] would like some additional elements in
this plan. And that's all we needed to
[1:10:59] do as a commission is to say we request
this additional element even though
[1:11:15] » there there's not going to be any
action.
[1:11:21] » What was and when the commission
[1:11:26] Thank you.
[1:11:31] short of record. My name is Amyelli from
BCM law council for Vernon family farm
[1:11:36] and I'm making a point of order to ask
that the commission not get into details
[1:11:42] relating to anything about the
management farm and burn family farm for
[1:11:47] the reasons that you're raising that
burn family farm wasn't present at the
[1:11:52] last meeting and we're not we're asking
to not get into the substance of the
[1:11:59] plan
because of what happened at the last
[1:12:02] meeting. So I just don't want to get
into well in November this and in May
[1:12:08] that in July this. I think it's best if
we just leave the substance management
[1:12:15] plan. Uh what's the discussion? I
respect the deliberation that the board
[1:12:19] is having right now about the board's
composition,
[1:12:23] board process, board recusal decisions
that may happen, but if we can do it
[1:12:28] without into um soil testing. Yes. Soil
testing no. That's what I'm asking.
[1:12:36] Thank you.
>> And I appreciate that. My point is that
[1:12:40] we we as a board still have
responsibility and the accountability to
[1:12:46] to decide what the final action is.
That's not going to be decided tonight.
[1:12:54] » Okay. So, we heard from Caleb about his
reaction and what what is the reaction
[1:12:59] from your side? And I guess you can you
can keep it brief because I think we
[1:13:04] have decided that this should go to town
council and there
[1:13:20] I don't want to get it wrong.
[1:13:25] I think I'm actually
on this
[1:13:35] probably fair to say
>> I believe that the point of
[1:13:42] » I would like to know who they are.
[1:13:46] I believe believe the point that was
made in some of the letters had more to
[1:13:50] do with your engagement with um Mr.
Harmon outside of the knowledge of this
[1:13:57] board.
>> So to that point I would
[1:14:05] select board chair
I would say
[1:14:11] attorney
much That's a part of
[1:14:27] » the question was Mr. Chandler's
emailing Harmon.
[1:14:33] » No, Mr. Harmon
emailing
[1:14:37] » Mr. Chandelaris and Mr. Shan Malaris
driving a meeting in a certain way based
[1:14:44] on that without any of the rest of us
knowing.
[1:14:47] » Yeah,
I guess I'm not sure how it's
[1:14:52] » and it was addressing an email that
wasn't shared with the rest of the board
[1:14:57] from Tom,
>> right?
[1:15:02] and then forcing an action
and a discussion that went beyond what
[1:15:08] was actually on the agenda for that
evening.
[1:15:12] » He did.
[1:15:15] » I'd just like to point out from Amy
Manzelli's email earlier today that
[1:15:21] Allison Watts and Tom Renberg and her
writing have had
[1:15:27] from what she writes extensive emails
and the rest of this knows nothing about
[1:15:32] them.
June 12th,
[1:15:36] 2026. And she goes into detail, even
quoting stuff about Tom
[1:15:42] having a plan to build on events and
very likely to be affirmative vote.
[1:15:48] He's he's emailing opposing council
without Mark Casper put too during the
[1:15:56] subboard meeting. He should be involved
in this.
[1:16:00] » But that's that was the point.
>> This is material that is the request to
[1:16:05] not be discussing this tonight.
>> So let's pump the brakes on that. Oh,
[1:16:12] I'm just relating it to this because
there there's a lot of emails that are
[1:16:17] not in our com that are hidden on some
other kind of email.
[1:16:21] » No, they're on the conservation
commission. The general email. Yes,
[1:16:26] » they all are there.
>> They all are there.
[1:16:29] » No, they're all there.
Let's um this is all in discussion and
[1:16:37] so I think it would be unproductive
but there we started at the onset there
[1:16:44] there is discussion.
[1:16:50] So at this point, other than the brief
update on where things stand with the
[1:16:56] plan, um we'll uh the results of this.
Um
[1:17:06] as far as the remaining items on the
next uh last item is the open share
[1:17:15] position.
So that
[1:17:20] discussions
[1:17:32] I would accept it if everyone wants me
to do it.
[1:17:39] » Can I Sorry. Can I hear the motion? I
didn't hear it.
[1:17:43] The motion was for Chris Mc to take the
chair position and was seconded by
[1:17:51] » Lauren was the originator.
[1:17:58] » Thank you. Yeah, personally I think that
would be a good choice.
[1:18:03] » All right, all in favor
[1:18:10] » we'll have to about
>> the treasur.
[1:18:14] » So,
>> and I think you can do dual roles, I
[1:18:17] assume, because there's I mean, if you
want to
[1:18:21] » I'm I'm happy to treasure for now. It's
not been very hard.
[1:18:25] » The reason I say it is there's chair,
vice chair, secretary, treasurer. That's
[1:18:30] four positions. We can be a board of
three.
[1:18:34] So there must be an a situation where
you would have dual rows.
[1:18:40] » That's up to others on the board if you
want to maintain some level of distance
[1:18:44] between the treasurer and the chair.
>> I don't think you have uh sole control
[1:18:52] of our finances. More like a reporting,
[laughter]
[1:18:55] » right? Everything goes through to the
town clerk essentially
[1:19:01] » uh to ensure any expenses are handled
properly per our uh fiduciary
[1:19:07] requirements in the town.
>> I don't even I I have even have to get
[1:19:13] the report from Sue. It doesn't come
directly to me. The the report each
[1:19:17] month has to come from Sue.
[1:19:27] don't know since I already have the
chair
[1:19:30] » and I mean the the treasurer position. I
think it's just a matter of everyone
[1:19:34] being comfortable with that and the
recognition that
[1:19:37] » should that change for any reason then
we can always vote on it again.
[1:19:44] » I think that's fair. you feel like
serving both roles um and I don't know
[1:19:49] there's nothing in the uh that I know of
the existing bylaws that take a look but
[1:19:58] at least during the transition you're
willing to serve and just double check
[1:20:03] it you can figure out what your time and
effort sort of threshold is for for that
[1:20:11] you need somebody to step
>> well we do have the open board position
[1:20:15] which when I joined was advertised as
the treasurer's position. So that could
[1:20:22] we could either advertise the open board
position as open board or as pressure
[1:20:29] depending on what to do.
[1:20:35] So that would be a decision we might
want to wait make if we want to just
[1:20:39] advertise an open position on the
conservation commission.
[1:20:46] I mean, one of the things I would like
to be able to do in this commission is
[1:20:51] more of the activities related to
getting our records up to date,
[1:20:55] information out to our community, making
sure that we are making the best use of
[1:20:59] our resources and not spending all our
time on procedural matters.
[1:21:08] » We have discussed it before and it came
up in the select board meeting too. We
[1:21:11] need like a procedural handbook. I think
we do. It was I forget her name. Brought
[1:21:18] it up and Tom and I have been talking
about it for a while. It is important to
[1:21:22] me to get that done on the side to get
that approved.
[1:21:33] » So the motion has passed for
you as chair and I think
[1:21:41] revisit but for now you're willing to
continue
[1:21:51] » any anything else
[1:21:55] all right then we will adjourn the
meeting at 8:37
[1:22:07] » thanks
>> have a good rest of your trip.
[1:22:13] » Okay. [laughter]