[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]

Newfields Conservation Commission Meeting 8/17/2026 AUDIO ONLY

Transcript