[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:03] Copy. Yeah, that'd be great. Thanks.
[0:13] Thank you, charity. Good morning, everybody. I'm going to call the Board of Ethics meeting for Monday, February 3rd to order at 9.03.
[0:29] And ask for a motion to adopt the agenda. I'll move. Move to. Any agenda.
[0:37] Can I have a second?
[0:40] Second.
[0:43] On the agenda, Brett?
[0:46] Yes.
[0:49] Ed?
[0:50] Yes.
[0:53] Obviously, we're getting one out.
[1:09] But for my memory,
[1:14] at the last meeting, I asked that on the agenda it would be the issue of the
[1:24] open at members and their duties or responsibilities.
[1:33] We didn't have time to address them at the
[1:37] last meeting. I asked the people at this meeting, and I don't see it.
[1:44] I asked the people at
[1:45] them.
[1:57] Any other comments on the agenda?
[1:59] Yes.
[1:59] Yes, I would like to alter the order of the agenda so that we complete what we did not complete last time, which is the selection of officers.
[2:13] And I also think that it would be appropriate to deal with the alternate proposal.
[2:27] made before we deal with the amendments. And I'm assuming, finally, that the amendments
[2:37] discussion will include profits.
[2:46] My own view is that I think we should continue to complete the issues that we've been dealing
[2:53] with for many months and get this over the line. And then we should follow the – and
[2:58] And accordingly, I think we should just follow the agenda as is because I think the other items are.
[3:05] I just feel like there are distractions at this point from actually getting the proposals that we have in front of us that are very close to having one.
[3:13] I totally agree that we should address both issues during this meeting. I just think we should go in the order that we have here.
[3:20] I
[3:23] assume no one has a timeline when they have to leave.
[3:27] That's why I asked about 11, sometime around 11.
[3:32] So if you guys are going to hold this all off the chair for more than two hours.
[3:37] In that case, my point is moved.
[3:39] Excellent.
[3:44] And
[3:47] in the interest of time, I had left the duties of alternates off the new agenda item,
[3:56] But we can certainly add that because it doesn't look like, it looks like we'll be able to get to that.
[4:04] I would recommend that it, you know, we finish our old business before we add a new business to it.
[4:11] So we can put it in as an item of new business. How's that?
[4:18] I don't believe it's new business. I believe it's old business.
[4:22] Well, certainly relative to the prep of the recommended code amendments, which we've been dealing with for 14 months.
[4:31] Well, we've been dealing with open it's for 10 years.
[4:35] We have never put this in a meeting and I think it's time that we adjust that.
[4:40] All right.
[4:43] So, with the one of ruling on that, if you don't mind a ruling on.
[4:48] I'm asking that that item be moved forward on the agenda.
[4:56] Okay.
[4:57] I would suggest that it go on your new business item B.
[5:05] I believe that if we take a vote on anything prior to considering the alternate situation,
[5:16] and the vote comes up high that we need to have a break in whatever that item is and deal
[5:28] with the alternate situation.
[5:31] Otherwise, until we come to a vote, which is 2-2, if we don't have a vote before we
[5:39] deal with the item that Mr. Lieberman suggests, then it is easy to put it off to new business.
[5:49] If, however, we have to vote on something and have a two-to-two vote, then that item should be
[5:57] delayed until we deal with Mr. Lieberman's ultimate suggestion.
[6:03] But we have five people here.
[6:05] If we end up with a 2 to 2 vote is all I said, suppose someone is disqualified, I don't expect it to happen. I'm simply saying that it is not an issue unless we have a 2 to 2 vote as to whether we do it to this minute or 2 hours from now.
[6:27] Yeah, my view is that there's quite a bit of discussion that we should have about that particular topic, which I think is an interesting topic.
[6:36] And one that I had not previously really even thought of until Ed sent his email last week.
[6:42] So I've had a little bit of time to think about it, but I do think that we should.
[6:47] But we can take it up. I think we take it up under item five on the agenda. Make sure that we cover it today.
[6:54] If we need to flip the order of A and B for some reason, then obviously we can do that. But I suggest that we conclude, put it under new business and address it today.
[7:06] And I'm not disagreeing with that unless we come to a two to two vote case.
[7:11] In which case I think, you know, we have the flexibility to reconsider that.
[7:15] Okay, so with the amendment of the agenda adding item 5B, duties of all trance, we've
[7:30] got a motion on the floor all in favor of the motion to approve the agenda as amended.
[7:40] Let
[7:52] me just check on the computer to see if there aren't any anybody in the waiting room.
[8:16] So, on comments from the public, seeing no members of the public here or in the waiting room,
[8:24] that brings us to old business rep for the recommended code amendments.
[8:31] Our responsibility here is to account for and
[8:43] sort out our amendments or adjustments of the recommended
[8:56] coad amendments taking into account the work session and the comments of the town board.
[9:08] That's the focus. So I'm going to try and keep us
[9:17] focused on that agenda to deal with the comments of the board on our work session. In other words,
[9:26] I don't want to get into new recommendations for proposal to amend the code.
[9:35] That will happen at 5B.
[9:39] And we can talk about other amendments to the code for when we get to topics for future
[9:46] agendas.
[9:47] But I want to stick to our task of adjusting our recommendations, which we've been back
[9:55] and forth and back and forth and back and forth. We got a final recommendations. They went to the
[9:59] board. The board had comments. We can adjust our recommendations based on those comments,
[10:05] but I don't want to get back into a discussion of whether or not we should change something
[10:13] unless it was per the discussion at the work session. Is that fair? Anybody have any objection
[10:23] to that? Okay, so with that, let's go through the Board of Ethics Code Revision
[10:35] Recommendations. The document is dated 10-29-20. I'm sorry, check that. 11-6-24.
[10:46] And we'll start with the first, which is eligibility for appointments to the
[10:51] board.
[10:55] And let me just for our viewing public, assuming there are some, to
[11:03] summarize it and to go
[11:11] from there. It's basically that no member of the town board
[11:15] department had her consultant to the board, including without limitation of
[11:20] county attorney may hold an office of voting or leadership
[11:26] position in a political party or committee within the town as
[11:31] those terms are defined under state law.
[11:41] Anybody have any comments about that, Sue?
[11:45] I believe what we're doing is consistent with proper practice
[11:51] And it is consistent with the requirement on your State Law, Part 932.4, of the state regulations.
[12:04] The policy makers, heads of state agencies, and statewide elected officials are prohibited from engaging in certain outside political initiatives.
[12:16] specifically serving as a member officer, director, board member, or district leader of any party committee.
[12:25] And if that's the law for people working for the state of New York, I do not see why we should have a more lenient rule.
[12:39] specificity title 19 NYC RR part 932.93 2.4 and I can quote the whole thing but
[12:47] unless Sue can I shortcut this because I think I have a short the only comment
[12:52] or objection that the town board had was a supervisor suggesting that it was
[12:57] unconstitutional correct this has been upheld I don't see no no no the
[13:05] I'll give you the constitution.
[13:07] No, no, no. I don't want the constitution.
[13:09] I want to focus on the only comment that the town board had on this in terms of an objection, I believe, was the supervisor saying that it was unconstitutional.
[13:22] And.
[13:23] May I?
[13:24] Right. Were there other objections or comments that the town board had?
[13:30] If you'd like me to address the constitution.
[13:33] No, I don't. I want to know if there are any other, okay.
[13:37] I'm trying to say that there's precedent and it's constitutional.
[13:41] All right, and I'm going to say that I met with the supervisor who retracted his objection.
[13:47] Apparently, there was a lot of back and forth between you and the supervisor on this topic,
[13:53] And he was in clarifying whether or not he was going to attend today's meeting.
[14:01] I asked him about, you know, who was going to get a legal opinion for the constitutional
[14:09] question, and he withdrew it.
[14:12] So I think that this section, without that objection, there were no other comments
[14:20] or concerns raised by the town board. So I would think we can move forward on this.
[14:27] I don't want to lengthen this unnecessarily, but just for the record, my discussion on the
[14:33] constitutionality with Mr. Noam. Okay. Right, but I think the point is, is that I think we have
[14:42] already determined as this board through our consensus, we think this is worth putting
[14:47] in front of the town board in an official capacity and if three of the five members of the town
[14:53] board think this is good it will go into law if three of the five members do not think that this
[14:58] is should be in the law that
[15:00] It will not, but I think our business is done with this particular provision. Is there an agreement there? So beautiful.
[15:07] And with one note, any comments that we have or the amendments to what we presented to the board that don't take into account the board's comments are things that we need to do at the public hearing.
[15:29] because we need to get this before the board and start a public hearing.
[15:36] And I'll give a four example.
[15:40] It has been brought to my attention that the way the language is crafted in this is a little
[15:50] and artful. In other words, it arguably would present, you know, sense you can't vote in a
[16:00] political party in the town, meaning you go and on November or whatever and you pull a lever
[16:08] or you allow the circle. What we intend is that you can't hold a position as a party officer
[16:20] And that term party officer is also defined under New York State election law.
[16:27] So I would be in favor of taking this up at our next meeting where we prep for the public hearing and discuss this among our board so that we are amenable to, you know,
[16:48] When we shepherd this through the town board, we say, you know, that that sounds like a good fix to the concern because there will be people at the public hearing, you know, raising these issues, I'd expect.
[17:05] Can you amplify how the clause could possibly be interpreted the way that you suggest?
[17:15] No member may hold an office, vote,
[17:24] voting, or leadership position in a political party.
[17:32] What
[17:37] we really mean is in a political committee as the terms and also it should I believe it should say may be a party officer or hold a leadership position and that's better language because party officers will find in state law.
[18:02] And so, you know, that's, we don't need to belabor this now because it really is for next meeting, but it is a fix to this apparent confusion or overbred of this.
[18:21] And it doesn't change the substance, it just clarifies exactly what, you know, we intend is that they can't be a party officer or be in the leadership position.
[18:39] Do you want to circulate your suggestions?
[18:41] Yeah, you know, in advance of the next meeting, sure.
[18:45] So that moves us to 27-6, which is the disclosure of interest in legislation and other matters.
[18:57] And that is the material
[19:03] change there was the prohibition on voting.
[19:06] But I'll try and summarize it for the benefit of anybody watching.
[19:12] no member of the town board or appointed member of a town board or committee who is a candidate
[19:18] for election to the town board and shall participate or vote on any matter which materially and
[19:24] directly benefits a political supporter who contributed more than $500 in the aggregate
[19:29] to that board member or candidate's election campaign.
[19:33] This was the subject of the Karthi letter, so it would be appropriate for us to deal with the Karthi letter here, but maybe at our next meeting, if we're going to recommend changes to this.
[19:52] But I don't think that there were material objections that came from the town board on this.
[20:05] In fact, it was, I think, fairly well received.
[20:09] The Karthi letter points out an issue that I frankly think should be dealt with in a public hearing and not by this board.
[20:23] So, if anybody, I'll open the floor for comments.
[20:29] Certainly the Karthi letter I would expect to be dealt with at a public hearing.
[20:39] However,
[20:42] I think that I
[20:48] would like to express my view of Karthi's view.
[20:54] but isn't that for our next meeting if we're talking about what we're going to
[21:01] do in public hearing? Okay. And that is that what Parthi is advocating would it
[21:13] seem to me to be contrary to the general policy of disclosure of political
[21:30] So it encompasses or suggests a general objection to current public policy, because leave them with war.
[21:48] Okay.
[21:51] My own view, I think I agree, I guess I agree with both of you to some degree or maybe to a lot of degrees, but in reading the letter, my initial reaction was, is there's anything in here that suggests there's some, and I'll use these words but not legally sue, but more like a miscarriage of justice, right?
[22:15] Did we do something basically on accident in our drafting that would be embarrassing for us to go in front of the town board such that we should revise that now based on the comments that you all had during the work session?
[22:30] I thought Mr. Carthy's letter was sort of expressing an alternative view to where this body reached with respect to this recommended provision.
[22:43] And so my own view is that, as I think you said and I think as you said, which is, I think he raises legitimate concerns that he should advocate to the town board when the town board has this in front of them as opposed to advocate to us at this stage of the process.
[23:00] And whether the town board agrees with him or with these changes, that is all part of the public debate.
[23:05] So I would think it's good to have we can get back to Mr. Carti, I think, and say thank you for your letter.
[23:13] You know, advise him that, you know, at some point that there'll be a public hearing on these recommendations and we welcome him to, you know, share these views with the members of the town board who will be ultimately deciding on whether or not to codify these recommendations.
[23:29] I don't think he addressed that to us or copy us.
[23:33] I think that came from the town clerk.
[23:36] So he sent it to Allison.
[23:39] So the letter wasn't even to the Board of Ethics.
[23:43] I think that I didn't even pick up on that after Brett had sent it.
[23:47] So yeah, so in that case, I don't think that there needs to be a response from this body to him since he has not engaged this body.
[23:55] And that's fine. Like he's basically preemptively raised some issues on an issue that hasn't even reached the town board in official capacity, but maybe you're not ready for be ready for that's great.
[24:06] Okay.
[24:08] And again, I don't see any gross miscarriage of justice in the current drafting of the recommendation, whether or not it's approved or not.
[24:14] Time will tell. Looks like Zay has a comment.
[24:20] Thanks.
[24:30] I'm not out of any one way or the other, but I think at the town board meeting, the concern was raised about whether this provision, about not voting, the delay would take effect only after the next election cycle.
[24:45] So if you're discussing concerns raised by the town board, that might be one you want to at least think about.
[24:50] Thank you for raising that because that's 100% correct. In terms of the substance of this, there were, I don't believe there were any objections, but there was a consensus that it would not take effect until the end of the current election cycle.
[25:10] I don't think we have any intentions either in that correct.
[25:15] Yeah, it would when these are drafted and sent to the town board they have to be sent both in a black line form and in complete form and the language in that and both of those has to say this provision this particular provision would not take effect until
[25:42] x-state whereas everything else takes effect as soon as the town board passes
[25:50] it and it goes to the state and is accepted by the state.
[25:57] Thanks for that
[25:58] point. Okay that
[26:14] brings us to number three. 27 point dash 6e failure to file
[26:22] campaign finance disclosure statements shall constitute a violation of this
[26:26] co-advantics. I don't have any notes indicating that the town board had any
[26:34] objection or comments with this. If anybody else has a different recollections,
[26:41] okay. So that moves us to number four new section 27-6f and that is to
[26:53] obligate anybody who makes an application. I'm sorry, I'm just going back on section three. I assume that what we mean there, it's failure to file campaign finance disclosure statements within the legally required timeline.
[27:14] I guess I'm asking from a, when does it become a violation of the ethics code?
[27:23] Yeah, it becomes a violation of state law if you don't make the state deadlines, right?
[27:30] So that would be in the case of somebody running for office, you're obligated to file three times a year.
[27:40] And it's typically a month before, a week before, and a month after the election, something along those lines.
[27:49] And that would be a violation of state law, but if they filed later, that we're not saying a violation of state law is a violation of the code because we're not interpreting state law.
[28:05] We're saying if you don't file, but your question is if you don't file when?
[28:12] I'm asking when, when has someone violated the ethics code based on this provision?
[28:17] And by the way, like I apologize, I don't want to drag us down. I had a lot of thoughts on this and I'll raise a lot of issues when we raise this back in the day. It's just, again, putting the lawyer hat on a little bit here, which I don't do so much anymore.
[28:30] I'm like, well, when, like when is this triggered?
[28:32] I think we should hold that conversation for our next meeting when we will discuss how we're going to react to recommendations for amendments to this, or should we point it out to the town board?
[28:55] or if we have clarifying language that we would like to add to this, it would be in the context of a public hearing.
[29:07] We could make a fairly simplistic change we can consider at our next meeting,
[29:13] which is failure to wild campaign finance disclosure statements as required or within the time period required.
[29:23] I'm not asking to discuss it right now.
[29:26] By state or shall constitute.
[29:30] Yeah.
[29:31] You may recall, David, that I had originally proposed
[29:34] language that said failure to file
[29:38] after being notified by the Board of Ethics.
[29:42] Failure to file within 30 days of being notified
[29:45] by the Board of Ethics.
[29:47] That would constitute a violation of code
[29:50] And that didn't, do you wanna discuss that now or later?
[29:55] No, I think we should discuss it later
[29:57] because we presented that we gotta move this.
[30:00] To the town board and, you know, move it to the public hearing phase. And I think that it's really important to air all this stuff at a, at a public hearing.
[30:14] And, you know, and we can be prepared with simplistic language at our next meeting.
[30:29] Yeah, I just wasn't sure whether there was, we wanted to clarify it now, but if we want to do the next meeting, that's fine as well.
[30:36] Yeah, I don't want to slow us down. Right. Because somebody who fails to file for years gets wind that the ethics board is looking at it in files.
[30:47] Before we do anything. I mean I guess does this have the ethics board in the
[30:52] position of basically monitoring those deadlines for each elected official and
[30:59] candidate and the day after if the ethics board who's monitoring this doesn't
[31:05] see anything does it go and slap the candidate or town board member or
[31:11] elected official with a notice of violation of the ethics code.
[31:16] Penny?
[31:17] Yeah.
[31:17] My thoughts are, you know, we should really fight right now because the real problem is
[31:23] that someone might come back and say, we're playing favorites here, and we said, this
[31:28] person did this, but we never looked at this person, so I would have fun, pass rules
[31:33] on you, see if it flies when you send it over to the board, and that's it.
[31:38] I mean, I think your last language was, you know,
[31:41] as you put in like a 30-day period on a certain time period,
[31:44] makes a lot of sense to me, and then you have a lot better.
[31:48] No one could criticize later and say, you played a favorite.
[31:55] In either event, the town board is
[31:57] going to react to what we send to them
[31:59] during the public hearing portion.
[32:01] So I don't know if any changes we make
[32:05] from the time we have the work session to the time
[32:07] that we submit for public hearing is playing, will be viewed as gamesmanship with the Town
[32:18] Board, especially if we're trying to give them something that's even more baked and requires
[32:24] less back and forth with them as board.
[32:27] We got some leeway to add language to this through our liaison to the town board who was tasked with just working with the Board of Ethics to effectuate the intention of the town board as expressed in the work session.
[32:54] So we can fiddle with language, but it has to be true and faithful to what occurred during the work session.
[33:06] And I don't see any problem with having a more fulsome discussion at the public hearing on this.
[33:15] I'm fine with that. I mean, as long as we come in with a recommendation when that issue is raised
[33:20] and we say yes we've thought about that since then and here would be how we would revise that
[33:25] and the town attorney and everyone else would jot it down and probably say that sounds good.
[33:31] Suppose it's not raised, I mean what do I want to move to this one?
[33:35] And you may actually just vote us pretty quick.
[33:38] Oh Penny I think.
[33:39] No one wants to hear and maybe no one would hear you.
[33:44] Oh okay oh I'm just saying suppose it's not raised.
[33:55] Thank you. My concern is if it's not raised, and this language for names, I am concerned
[34:07] And I think the way to skin this cat, I may use that phrase, is to address it at our next
[34:17] meeting in prep for the public hearing.
[34:27] So can we move to number four?
[34:30] Sure.
[34:31] So any
[34:36] person who makes application to the town shall disclose as part of the application
[34:43] or submission campaign contributions totaling more than 500 in the aggregate made to any
[34:51] town board member or candidate to the town board.
[34:55] And also the name of any municipal officer or employee who they believe has an interest
[35:01] and the submission for the application and the paragraph 2 there says for
[35:09] purposes of this section that duty officer or employee shall be deemed to
[35:13] have an interest in A, B, C, D, ERF and A through D is currently a part of the
[35:25] definition of interest in our code and it adds
[35:30] ERF on this section is actually part of our recommendation number six
[35:38] to add two more subparts of the definition of interest to make it
[35:46] consistent with this new 27-6. So we can actually
[35:55] deal with our number four and our number six and one fell swoop because I don't think there was any objection to any of this.
[36:05] There was a question as to how this would be effectuated and the answer there is, you know, you do a little form that becomes part of the
[36:19] application questions that become part of every application, which is, you know, list
[36:27] any town board member or candidate to the town board to whom the applicant has made
[36:34] one or more campaign contributions totaling more than $500, et cetera, et cetera.
[36:40] So I don't – in summary, I don't think there were any material concerns raised
[36:46] used by this. There were a lot of questions, but ultimately no material concerns.
[36:54] Anybody have a different recollection? Okay.
[36:57] Your concern was expressed by Carthy, not by the challenge.
[37:01] Right. I think I agree. This would be part of what Mr. Carthy had concerns with.
[37:07] Right.
[37:07] But again, there'll be a proper forum for that to be raised.
[37:11] And also another topic that people can think about in advance of our next meeting is that
[37:23] some may be confused by what is an application.
[37:27] I mean, do you apply for a dog lessons, you know?
[37:32] And it really, in my mind, you know, but I have a background to administrative law.
[37:42] Applications are, you know, where you're seeking approval that requires discretion.
[37:47] But what we can do here without creating a whole new definition of the term application,
[37:54] which just makes things more cumbersome, we can say any person who makes an application
[37:58] concerning real property, you know, to the town.
[38:02] And that's really what we're getting at,
[38:06] the land use committees and the power of the town board
[38:11] to make decisions concerning property that involves real estate
[38:18] is what we're getting at and what we're concerned about in all of them.
[38:22] So that's something that we can pick up at the next meeting.
[38:31] So that brings us to our number five, 27-10, private employment conflict with official duties.
[38:41] That title doesn't really do this section much justice because it doesn't really affect private employment,
[38:50] but it fits there within our code as new 27-10-C.
[38:57] And that is that basically members of a committee or board that participates in the process
[39:05] of regulating land use, which includes the Town Board, the Planning Board, the ZBA, the
[39:11] ARB Conservation Board, Open Space, and the Board of Assessment Review are prohibited
[39:17] from appearing on behalf of the third party before any board or committee of the Town
[39:22] of North Castle. And I think the comment was, what do you mean, appearing on behalf of what
[39:33] if you just are making a comment as, you know, you can as a resident. And I think the better
[39:45] language is are prohibited from representing a third party before any
[39:52] board or committee and that seemed to assuage all of the comments and concerns
[39:57] of the town board so I would recommend that when we send this back for
[40:04] acceptance by the town board to schedule a public hearing that that
[40:13] language be amended. Any other comments or questions about that?
[40:28] So and I think
[40:30] we've taken care of number six by adding little four and little five, little
[40:39] Roman four, little Roman five to that.
[40:45] So I think that's our marching orders for
[40:48] for getting this to the town board to accept it in order to schedule a public hearing and
[40:58] if we schedule and that's the next step to put it in the form of a public law and do
[41:08] the black line of that as well.
[41:12] I would think though that and
[41:18] want to be presented to the town board for acceptance
[41:22] that we'll just flag those couple of little changes
[41:26] that we've made subsequent to the work sessions.
[41:35] So we don't do two black lines,
[41:37] a black line of what we sent them versus, you know,
[41:41] our amendments that we're gonna make now
[41:43] based on their comments.
[41:45] And a second black line,
[41:47] which is everything against the current law,
[41:51] The everything against the current law will be required and, you know, we just flag the couple of minor things that we did to take into account their comments.
[42:01] And you're proposing another meeting for that.
[42:04] No.
[42:06] No, I think it's ready to be prepared and sent to the town board for acceptance with a putting it in the form of a public law which is necessary.
[42:20] and then black aligning it against the original code.
[42:27] I must have misunderstood.
[42:29] I thought we were referring to the next meeting in terms of refining things a few months ago.
[42:37] Right, but this is going to be presented,
[42:41] a sent to the town board for acceptance.
[42:45] And then they will schedule a public hearing.
[42:48] And when they schedule a public hearing, we'll have an opportunity to meet in advance in the public hearing to talk about things like what do we do for a timing of the failure to file.
[43:00] Okay, so you envisioned another meeting of this word before the public hearing.
[43:05] Correct.
[43:06] To deal with some of, for example, language you just suggested.
[43:10] But after the.
[43:12] After the meeting is, after the hearing is noted.
[43:15] Right.
[43:16] And after, after these recommended revisions are extended.
[43:46] And that brings us to new business annual election of the chair and secretary.
[43:54] We don't need a vote on moving forward with submitting all the proposed change.
[43:59] No.
[44:08] Are there any motions.
[44:12] regarding new business A, annual election of chair and secretary. Can I have a motion
[44:19] for chair? I nominate Sue by seconds.
[44:33] All right. There's a motion on the floor. Any
[44:36] comments? Sue, I want to ask if you would accept this. I would accept if the board
[44:45] Okay. So it's not a move. It's not a move issue. Any comments? Here's my one comment. I'm super supportive of Sue taking over as chair.
[45:00] I think that's a really cool thing, I think, about this board that, you know, we've, you know,
[45:06] allowed for a rotation of the chair. I think going back before we reconstituted the code,
[45:13] there was a gentleman who was chair for a significant amount of time, which was fine. I don't think
[45:19] that was necessarily bad. I just think that sign of the times, this shows progress. And
[45:25] and I like the fact that a number of us here
[45:28] have had the opportunity to be the chair
[45:30] and I think that's very healthy
[45:32] in terms of how we interact.
[45:34] I will ask for one thing though,
[45:37] as I kind of think about Sue taking over as chair
[45:42] at this very moment in time based on the prior discussion
[45:45] and the work that we've been doing largely under Brett's
[45:48] chair ship for the past year plus
[45:50] on these specific changes.
[45:52] And I do think, given how close Brett is to these issues, now we all are of course participants in that, I do think that it will make sense for Brett to still be the driving force of getting these code changes over the line, given how close we are to that.
[46:08] And then obviously Sue is the chair coming in setting the agenda for sort of our future items, new business, etc. But I do think it will make some sense for Brett to continue to be in the lead.
[46:18] Not as chair, of course, assuming that we all vote for you, but more as sort of sort
[46:24] of artifact ahead of getting these changes, these amended changes over the line.
[46:30] I certainly think that it would be appropriate for Brett to present these changes
[46:36] at the public hearing. Great. That's what I think as well, which makes a lot of sense.
[46:43] But then of course, as we have in the past at public hearings, you know, when any number of us are the best, best position to address issues that the town is raising, I think we've all shown good collaboration at various public hearings in front of the town board, you know, where we'll typically have a lead who presents an item.
[47:02] I've been in that seat before of course and then you know very happy to defer to others who you know
[47:07] our best position to address comments and feedback since we're all not in each other's mind when
[47:13] those discussions take place. I completely agree with you and I hope you will, assuming I'm chosen,
[47:22] I hope you will be willing to present the position to the town board with respect to this
[47:29] board's belief in the appropriateness of the various amendments?
[47:35] I would, and I appreciate that recognition of, you know, I see it as a recognition of
[47:44] the work that I put into this, which is.
[47:48] You put a lot in.
[47:50] Yeah.
[47:50] More than I care.
[47:52] More than I care to the site.
[47:55] I was telling somebody the other day that over the past couple of years I have put in
[48:07] more time to this committee than virtually any of the other volunteer roles that I've
[48:14] had in this town, which go back well over 20 years, and that includes 12 years on
[48:21] the school board, and that includes running the soccer program, which had 150 adult volunteers
[48:27] and 950 kids at its peak. This is worse. Oh, no, no, this is more time consuming.
[48:37] That's a better word. Don't worry. I didn't capture that in the end.
[48:40] Thank you. I withdraw that last comment. This is more time consuming.
[48:46] And all due respect to your other roles, which were important and are important.
[48:51] I think my perspective on the world, and on this, is that ethics is the most important.
[49:04] And therefore the time that we put in on it is most appropriate.
[49:09] Thank you for the work.
[49:10] And I just strongly believe as I'm not going to expand on the public right now, I strongly
[49:22] believe as I've said in passing to a number of you that we must do our utmost to ensure
[49:35] of ethics and development. And we start here in North Casa. And when we drafted the ethics
[49:46] code, most channels had at most a very skeleton ethics code. We began the move to have a thorough
[49:58] ethics code. And as I've also said to others, my aim when I left the bench was for this
[50:08] town to leave the way and to have a strong ethics code. So thank you for all you've done
[50:14] and may we all continue to strive for a better code and ethics endowment.
[50:22] And Sue, I just want to clarify that, you know, carrying this over the line and representing this before at the public hearing, you know, should be the one focus that I have.
[50:46] And I want to do that until there's a final vote on whatever comes through making. Okay. So with that, I want to say two things.
[50:59] I 100% agree with you on the importance of ethics and which is why I was willing to devote all of the time that I did devote to get us through last year's code amendments.
[51:16] and now this year's Code of Amendments.
[51:20] And I think that collectively,
[51:25] it will put this town in such a better place.
[51:29] And I know you agree with that.
[51:31] And I'm so heartened by the acceptance by the town board
[51:40] of a continued emphasis on a healthy ethics function.
[51:44] and think about all the education that we've been able to do
[51:49] and awareness that we've been able to promote.
[51:53] And that's only good for every single elected person,
[51:59] every single employee and volunteer in this town
[52:01] and every member of the community.
[52:04] So I agree with you on that.
[52:07] So and I appreciate the work that you and David and a number of the other members of the community
[52:16] undertook in what was it, close to five years before the code was read?
[52:24] Look at that. I left the bench in January 1, 2004. I think that we actually started the
[52:32] House force in roughly 2013.
[52:35] But there was work done before that.
[52:37] Yeah, work done before that.
[52:38] But that sounds about right.
[52:39] Yeah, I called our old co back of the napkin
[52:42] because it was the minimally required by state law
[52:46] and I got scolded by that at one point for doing that.
[52:51] But that is my view.
[52:54] And I will say also my work on the county board of ethics
[52:59] has been similarly inspiring
[53:01] and it was only with leaders under the leadership of George Latimer was the
[53:08] county willing to do the very same thing. They reconstituted the Board of Ethics
[53:14] and we took a six-page code and we made it you know what is it 40 Selma pages
[53:21] but we made it detailed and thorough and educational and the education
[53:28] component is happening at the county level like never before. The enforcement is happening like
[53:36] never before. And that's really motivated me. And I've learned a lot there that I've brought
[53:46] into play here at the town. And you continue to serve there. And continue to serve there. Continue
[53:51] to tell us what you learned from them. Yeah. Yeah. And it's been very helpful. And I do know
[53:57] from all of that work, the statement that you made about our town taking the lead on
[54:05] developing a really meaningful code has been duplicated by other towns.
[54:15] They've seen what we've done and used our work as an example in many cases.
[54:23] And so we should all feel good about, you know, the ripple effect that all of our work is done, but it couldn't have been done without the support of our town board.
[54:36] So that's another statement that I'll probably make, you know, when we present this and during public hearings, we need an amendment of a motion for the secretary.
[54:49] Well, we have a vote on you as a chair before we head to that.
[54:53] There's a motion on the table that he's voting on.
[54:56] Any other comments on the motion that we have before us to elect Sue as our next chair with the proviso that I will work to present the recommended revisions through to conclusion at the town board level.
[55:16] comment and right I want to thank you sincerely I don't want to be repetitive
[55:26] everything that's been said but the amount of effort and time dedication put
[55:34] in it's phenomenal I appreciate it I don't want to diminish David's work as
[55:45] Thanks, Chair, but most of you gentlemen over the past 10 years have been extraordinary.
[55:54] Thank you for that comment.
[56:00] I appreciate it.
[56:05] And where does that take us we anybody else have a comment before we call for a vote on this motion.
[56:15] All in favor of Sue, all in favor of the motion that's on the floor.
[56:21] All right. All right. All right.
[56:24] Sue. Okay. It's unanimous. Thank you.
[56:28] Yeah. Jose, you want to make a comment about that.
[56:34] Yeah, not about the vote. Congratulations. By the way, Sue.
[56:38] Thank you.
[56:39] Just I want to add, I thought it was inappropriate before the vote, but thank you.
[56:43] The whole committee's worked incredibly hard.
[56:46] Ethics obviously are incredibly important to the town.
[56:50] So I personally thank everyone.
[56:52] I thank everyone on the board.
[56:54] Grief with that.
[56:56] David, you've carried the burden a number of times too.
[57:00] You know, it's rewarding and gratifying,
[57:01] but it is a burden with all the work that's required.
[57:04] It took tremendous amount of effort, I know,
[57:07] and work under what might be viewed in some cases
[57:11] as trying circumstances.
[57:13] But thank you for the result. I think it's incredibly important for the town and its residents to have as much confidence as possible that the count board and other boards and committees are behaving without undoing influence and in the full interest of the town and ethics code is important for that.
[57:33] Thank you.
[57:37] So I will entertain a motion for Secretary to the Board of Ethics.
[57:47] I nominate charity.
[57:52] Very clever.
[57:55] I second the motion.
[57:58] You are here.
[57:59] Well, that's really, by the way, I really, I love the new chair. Very wise. They're seconding my motion. That's great.
[58:08] Okay, charity. If this motion passes, would you accept?
[58:13] Okay.
[58:14] So, with that, any comments about the motion.
[58:22] I will just say what I said a little bit with regard to Sue, and that is I think it is a really wonderful thing about this board that we can rotate these leadership positions to give people a break from some of these positions from time to time, but also give other people an opportunity to serve in a slightly different capacity.
[58:42] I mean, I think one really excellent thing about this board is just how consensus driven
[58:46] we are and collaborative we are, even when we disagree with each other.
[58:50] I think we do a good job of keeping peace and we expect that Sue and Charity will
[58:56] continue to enforce the peacekeeping of the leadership of our small but mighty ward.
[59:04] But nothing, and Charity, I know Brett and I have both done it.
[59:08] I won't speak for him, but I will say any guidance, help, et cetera, that you would need in that position, in this position coming into a new happy to do that. Sue also happy to do that for you.
[59:19] But I should have said that earlier.
[59:23] And my comment is thank you charity.
[59:28] No, it's a big thank you.
[59:30] You know, there's a lot of responsibility that falls to the secretary in terms of, you
[59:40] know, the minutes and making sure everything is filed.
[59:44] And I do.
[59:46] In fact, I learned this weekend that there's a lot of work to be done on, you know, making
[59:53] sure that our minutes are posted onto the town board because I don't think they have
[59:58] been for quite some time.
[1:00:00] time. And I also looked for one of our dead time. They just haven't been given over. They're
[1:00:08] all here. They signed everything. She said yes already.
[1:00:16] Okay. All in favor of the motion on the
[1:00:21] floor to elect a charity monitor as secretary to the board of ethics.
[1:00:27] Hi, hi, congratulations to unanimous.
[1:00:33] But I was looking for a video of one of our last meetings too,
[1:00:39] and I could not find it on the town board website or anywhere on the website.
[1:00:44] So, you know, there's been a big transition of where everything lands.
[1:00:52] And I don't know whether it's you can't find it either.
[1:00:56] Okay, so I know that we've only been recording our board of ethics meetings.
[1:01:04] Once I figured out how to use the system.
[1:01:08] And but but didn't Carrie record these way back when
[1:01:13] when she was secretary?
[1:01:17] Yes. She sat there and recorded because I remember the recording in progress
[1:01:24] for so long, but I couldn't find any of those meetings even on the town website. So I don't
[1:01:30] know whether it's just a transition thing or a housekeeping thing or something at the town clerk's
[1:01:37] office. I don't know, but it is something that's, you know, worth keeping on the radar screen.
[1:01:45] regarding that. I don't think it's available readily on the town board. If I recall, you'd have to
[1:01:54] get to the town clerk and there's a special code or something you have to put it. It is so ridiculous.
[1:02:05] You can find it. It's there, but it's not readily available.
[1:02:15] The video, the links to actual historic videos without more, okay, it's there, but it's almost
[1:02:26] impossible to get my on the new system, which is in the last year, there is a menu for the
[1:02:39] video links to the town board, to the planning board, to the conservation board, to a bunch of
[1:02:46] boards, ethics boards not even included in that list. And other than maybe four or five videos
[1:02:56] under the town board, none of the others are populated with any meeting. So I don't know
[1:03:02] whether the conservation board, for example, is reported. But anyway, that's, you know what,
[1:03:09] that concludes my chair's report number six. But we have 5B. Oh, we have 5B. Thank you.
[1:03:20] It still concludes number six, so we can skip that when we get to it.
[1:03:24] 5B, duties of alternates.
[1:03:30] And this was, if I may, summarized it, how to deal with the question of whether and
[1:03:46] And when alternates may vote, become a voting member of the town board.
[1:03:59] So with that, I'll open it up for discussion.
[1:04:04] I'd like to make a few open comments regarding it.
[1:04:09] Sue, grab the mic.
[1:04:10] I don't know, because I always talk to speakers.
[1:04:12] It's a proposal.
[1:04:13] Okay.
[1:04:15] And you have the floor.
[1:04:17] It's something that's concerned me all the years I've been sitting here,
[1:04:22] that we haven't had the alternates who we encouraged to participate.
[1:04:32] Certainly, I've learned in my life, you don't know what you don't know.
[1:04:35] And the more information you get, whether it's from an alternate or a permanent member,
[1:04:41] I think it's certainly really important. I think all of us feel that way.
[1:04:48] I don't quite accept it said in the town code it says that we have five permanent and two
[1:05:00] was very little further direction regarding the alternates. But it seems to me, and I could be mistaken,
[1:05:09] but the purpose of the alternate is to serve when a permanent member can't serve.
[1:05:17] And there have been several occasions,
[1:05:20] past 10 years or so, where we have a quorum, but still assured a board member. And we've
[1:05:31] had all the minutes, and we've never suggested that it become permanent. Well, if that ain't
[1:05:39] it. And they don't mean permanent member, but at least serve as a voting member. So
[1:05:45] I said to my soul, what is the point of having an alternate member when we have a vacancy
[1:05:52] and they don't turn it?
[1:05:57] And it was even an occasion, I don't recall when, where we ended a meeting because we
[1:06:05] no longer had a quorum, yet we had an alternate or alternate sitting here where we couldn't
[1:06:12] continue the meeting.
[1:06:13] And it seems to me in that case, I found it particularly frustrating that we take the time
[1:06:19] to come and I'm not criticizing a permanent member for not being here.
[1:06:25] Certainly there are times when you can be here, but that's when the alternate should be serving.
[1:06:31] And I see no reason why in those cases where an alternate should not be pointing
[1:06:38] appointed or recruited or named or whatever it may be, so that we have another vote on
[1:06:44] the board. That's my position on it.
[1:06:49] Two?
[1:06:50] Oh, one other thing. I did look at the code carefully, and I tried to, I made up two proposals,
[1:07:01] one for the code and one without the code.
[1:07:06] And I felt just by addressing the guidelines,
[1:07:11] I felt it was sufficient.
[1:07:13] It's not that I ignored the code at all.
[1:07:15] I
[1:07:18] believe that the internal guidelines can and should be amended
[1:07:26] in the way that Ed proposes.
[1:07:30] Let me deal with the can first.
[1:07:32] with
[1:07:36] respect to ultimates, the code says, and I'm going to
[1:07:42] depth out a little bit, the town board shall also point to the
[1:07:45] ultimates
[1:07:48] who shall be eligible to serve if a member or members
[1:07:53] of the board are unable to proceed and now the critical
[1:07:59] language on a particular map. It doesn't say in particular
[1:08:05] of proceeding, which would suggest that it's only when we have a violation charge. It's
[1:08:13] a particular matter, which means to me that anything that comes up for a vote requires
[1:08:21] a vote by the Board of Ethics would be permissible for an alternate to vote. And the critical
[1:08:33] question only is how do you choose to go to it and add suggestion point. Part one,
[1:08:42] we have to adhere to the requirement about political affiliation. And then part two
[1:08:51] is optional because there is no requirement. Simply put, a rule and that
[1:09:01] is to have the senior member if the member qualifies on the party affiliation. So I believe
[1:09:08] that the language on a particular matter makes this a legitimate amendment to the internal
[1:09:15] guidelines. It does not cover the situation where the meeting doesn't have a quorum because
[1:09:22] we can't, in my mind, have an alternate for a meeting without an amendment to the
[1:09:29] code for the entire meeting. It has to be for particular matter. But with respect to
[1:09:39] issues that arise that require a vote, I think it's
[1:09:46] Proposal to the internal guidelines is legally sound
[1:09:49] and important. Any
[1:09:56] other comments? I do.
[1:10:05] It sounds like the code assumes the only reason you wouldn't have someone as some sort of conflict
[1:10:15] and it doesn't take into account the fact that someone might not be here.
[1:10:19] But that's obviously even more likely and stops us in our tracks.
[1:10:25] And I have to say, when I was first asked to be an alternate, I assumed this would
[1:10:29] be the case. It only makes sense. That's why you're an alternative. Isn't that what you
[1:10:34] thought? Like, sure. Then I would vote when there's a reason that somebody else can't.
[1:10:39] It just seems so sensible that you're on the committee, you're there for a reason, and
[1:10:45] in the rare case, because this doesn't happen very often, but in the rare case where you
[1:10:49] wouldn't be able to have the vote, you'd have them. So I think it makes sense.
[1:10:53] Okay.
[1:10:56] Penny, do you want to comment?
[1:11:00] No, I feel exactly.
[1:11:02] May I offer an alternate viewpoint?
[1:11:09] You know, we.
[1:11:12] We set rules.
[1:11:15] And we should promote rules that work.
[1:11:18] In perpetuity.
[1:11:19] and I agree that in the ordinary case and as you've seen in the way I conduct the
[1:11:34] meetings is everybody has input but the voting members have a vote and if you
[1:11:42] were to slot an alternative in any time a voting member is absent for any reason,
[1:11:53] you introduced the possibility of a lot of gamesmanship on down the line for anybody who
[1:12:01] takes our position. I don't want to suggest that anybody here would do this, but what happens is,
[1:12:08] And let me back up a little bit. May vote on a particular matter. I believe that should be interpreted as may vote on a particular enforcement matter, a matter of such significance that it's necessary.
[1:12:27] Our quorum is for who start the enforcement process, you need three votes to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that there may have been a violation.
[1:12:48] And that starts a whole bunch of really significant deadlines and times and things like that.
[1:12:58] If, Sue, you travel for a month at a time in the fall every year, and if I'm the chair
[1:13:10] and I schedule a meeting, knowing that this is something you would vote against and they
[1:13:15] schedule a meeting or call a meeting while you're absent in order to have an alternate
[1:13:24] it replace you for I'm going to say a significant vote I don't think that that
[1:13:32] is the spirit of what our rules should promote so I really think that if there
[1:13:45] is a question or a concern here I'm in favor of clarifying that the voting
[1:13:53] voting on a particular matter is voting on a particular enforcement matter, which I think clarifies that we're not talking about, you know, somebody can't make the meeting.
[1:14:06] kind of thing. So that's my view. And I don't mean to detract from the contribution that
[1:14:15] our alternates have, because I think a board of seven is better than a board of five. It
[1:14:24] takes a little longer sometimes to get everybody's comments, but oftentimes it's comment number
[1:14:32] six and number seven that may change the way everybody thinks. So again, I don't mean to
[1:14:43] diminish the role of the alternates, but I do think that voting members are voting members
[1:14:51] and alternates oftentimes sit for years as alternates until, you know, a voting position.
[1:15:00] Comes up. I'd like to comment on that again, please. Sure. I respect your view, Brett.
[1:15:11] I find it almost very difficult to imagine that a chair is going to manipulate
[1:15:18] the meeting date coincide with an alternate vote or not.
[1:15:27] Is it possible? Anything's possible, but I don't think that's realistic.
[1:15:33] I'd also like you to consider this.
[1:15:40] That
[1:15:43] being an alternate, if you know that there's going to be the opportunity to serve,
[1:15:50] You're going to make sure that you're here at the meetings.
[1:15:54] I can recall years back where it opened and never even showed.
[1:15:59] We didn't have any open.
[1:16:01] We had an open name, never showed.
[1:16:07] If that alternate knew that they might be serving as a member of the Board of the Voting
[1:16:13] matter, that's more incentive than to show. So it keeps having mine. That's another point now,
[1:16:22] I forgot what I wanted to make.
[1:16:25] Okay.
[1:16:29] My view is perhaps tainted by my recollection of the
[1:16:38] legislative history, where we deliberately use the words on
[1:16:43] particular matter, and I recall a discussion of whether it could
[1:16:48] be for a proceeding only. But we don't have a record of that.
[1:16:56] And it could have been something that was only in my head in
[1:17:00] interaction. And that's not totally relevant. But I prefer to think that what we were talking
[1:17:16] about earlier, which is ethics and the importance of ethics, that as long as we have a decent
[1:17:26] people
[1:17:30] on this Board of Ethics. As long as that can be maintained, the maneuver you talked
[1:17:39] about will not come to pass. Once the Board of Ethics starts to become political, politicized
[1:17:53] or personal, it may well. I think we should adopt this, and I think it should, your comment
[1:18:03] should be a reminder of how important it is for us to stand up in our own lives just top
[1:18:12] ethical standards. I want the board not to be stymied on the rare occasion when a member
[1:18:23] before that they can hang on those on the map either because they're unable to be here from
[1:18:35] before the poem due to or they have ethical reasons not to vote.
[1:18:45] One other on my job also. Yeah, let me open this to other people and then I'll
[1:18:51] I'll get back to you and you have a,
[1:18:54] I was just,
[1:18:59] yeah, I'm probably okay with it.
[1:19:01] I think it will require some
[1:19:08] diligence on the part of the board
[1:19:10] in that,
[1:19:13] like, I think it will need to be,
[1:19:16] first and advanced notice will be,
[1:19:18] I think, an important goal, right?
[1:19:20] So when a sitting of the five members is not going to be able to attend, participate, whatever to make that known as early as possible.
[1:19:28] So the alternate can sort of effectively know that they're on deck and sort of make sure that they are preparing more, etc.
[1:19:39] Just in case they're not inclined to as Ed pointed out that that's a good point.
[1:19:45] And then I think also sort of just that notice to everybody else that that is going to happen, I think, is important.
[1:19:52] I don't think a situation in which, you know, there's a discussion on a matter happening and, like, well, I'll just use my own example, right?
[1:20:00] You know, sometimes I have to leave meetings because I have to go to work, right?
[1:20:04] by Jadavand says as best I can but it doesn't always work and I mean and it
[1:20:08] could be anybody right who has an appointment etc. I do think we should
[1:20:12] avoid the situations in which a discussion has begun and somebody has to
[1:20:19] leave in the middle of it and then it just you know somebody slots into but I
[1:20:24] did think that we should just be careful about when we would appoint an
[1:20:30] alternate to consider a matter. And I don't know if it should be in the middle of a discussion
[1:20:39] that that would be appropriate. And I think I've raised some of this because,
[1:20:45] look, I wasn't here at the last meeting, right? And this suggestion came up almost sort of in a
[1:20:51] a way to resolve an impasse.
[1:20:55] And I don't think that would be the best use
[1:20:59] of appointing alternates to consider matters.
[1:21:06] For instance, had I, for instance-
[1:21:09] Let me say just one thing.
[1:21:11] That's one of the reasons I'm proposing it
[1:21:15] that when there's this vacancy in effect,
[1:21:18] They must be appointed to avoid that situation.
[1:21:23] They can choose that it will be automatic.
[1:21:27] Right.
[1:21:29] I don't want to sort of go into too many details on that one second.
[1:21:33] So I just think that we should try to be as deliberate as possible.
[1:21:39] When this is going to occur. So the members of the actual sitting members of the board.
[1:21:48] not the alternates sort of have that sort of are fully aware that an alternate is
[1:21:55] going to come in and take their place on a particular matter, which is fine, right?
[1:22:00] Because we have to get business done. The other question that I have, and so
[1:22:06] you can address the first stuff that I said in a minute, is are there other
[1:22:09] boards that have alternate members and do we know if this is how alternates
[1:22:14] are used for other boards and I don't know the answer to that question and
[1:22:21] maybe it doesn't matter I would just be sort of curious if you know there's four
[1:22:25] or five other boards in addition to the town board the town board obviously
[1:22:28] doesn't have alternates but you know planning board etc do they have alternate
[1:22:34] members that swoop in to consider matters when a sitting member of say
[1:22:41] that the planning board can't appear.
[1:22:44] To the best of my knowledge, no.
[1:22:46] No, as in they don't have alternates or no is in,
[1:22:50] the alternate doesn't play that role.
[1:22:51] No, to the best of my knowledge.
[1:22:52] We can check that.
[1:22:54] My perspective, what you were saying is
[1:23:01] if it is essential that an alternate
[1:23:05] who participates in a vote be present
[1:23:09] for the entire discussion? No. Certainly we should not. But I think that the alternate
[1:23:16] should know before the discussion, I'm sorry, I think the alternate needs to know before the
[1:23:22] discussion ensues that they are probably that they are going to be the voting member of the
[1:23:30] discussion. Yeah, there's a little problem with that in that it requires a lot of telephone
[1:23:35] phone work that doesn't happen in public, and you don't want to get a sense or pitch
[1:23:47] something to sort out, listen, you know, would you be a voting member?
[1:23:55] I want you to be aware that you're going to be a voting member on this particular issue
[1:24:01] and oh then there's you know discussions or you know you line that up with a
[1:24:08] couple of different members and you know all of a sudden you're sort of through
[1:24:14] the telephone having a meeting you know adjacent. I don't think that this
[1:24:21] requires a telephone discussion let me give you the scenario I envision which
[1:24:28] is that we're all meeting here, too, just with the alternates
[1:24:33] press to discuss an issue. The alternates are talking or not
[1:24:41] talking. And something happens so that it ends up either with a
[1:24:48] two to two vote, or a member non alternate has an emergency
[1:24:56] to invest to leave.
[1:24:59] At that point, the alternates we've seen this
[1:25:03] are as involved as members of the board.
[1:25:09] Some more so, some less so,
[1:25:11] just like members of this board are more or less involved.
[1:25:16] They participated the same way we have
[1:25:19] because we allow that or favor that whatever.
[1:25:23] That's the way it's been
[1:25:24] and I just envision no change in that.
[1:25:26] So, when it comes to the vote, they are as up to it as I am, and as you are.
[1:25:39] I do not envision a phone conversation, meeting a sleeper, and noticed the alternates and
[1:25:46] noticed just like you and I are, and when the discussion ensues, and Joe Smith suddenly
[1:25:57] has a horrible tummy ache and leaves an alternate with the criteria set out, sits in. Is it going
[1:26:11] to happen often? No. But how do you envision- I mean a vote? No. How do you envision, you know,
[1:26:18] because I think David makes a good point, if there's an ongoing discussion over the course of a
[1:26:24] meetings. And the alternate is present at all of those things. And the member either,
[1:26:33] and the member leaves a meeting, you still have a quorum. You can still have a 2-2 vote.
[1:26:39] I'm talking about the likely that we're talking about a 2-2 vote because we need a quorum.
[1:26:44] Yeah. But if there's an ongoing discussion and there's a 2-2 vote, it tells me that
[1:26:53] But it should continue to be an ongoing discussion to try and achieve consensus, and consensus
[1:27:02] meaning at least three of the five votes.
[1:27:08] And that's kind of what I mean about, well, you know, we've been discussing this and
[1:27:16] somebody's absent, so, you know, an alternate is going to step in to vote.
[1:27:22] And that, what that does is it takes that person who has been on the board for however long attending all of those meetings where that issue is discussed.
[1:27:34] It takes their involvement completely, it makes it completely irrelevant because somebody could have a different point of view.
[1:27:43] and add to your point and sue to yours that you don't envision this happening.
[1:27:52] You know, one of the most significant things that we do, I think, is to elect our chair
[1:27:59] and our secretary each year, and this was something that was urged, and that's, I think,
[1:28:09] a an accurate or if not a mild description of our last meeting where that was that was a motion
[1:28:21] and it died too too but had it not been then one of our permanent members wouldn't have had any
[1:28:33] opportunity to participate in the discussion of who should chair this
[1:28:40] board and who should be secretary. So that's another example of why I think it
[1:28:49] should really be limited to serious matters that involve enforcement.
[1:29:01] Okay to
[1:29:02] to that, let me just give one brief answer and then I think I spoke the more I
[1:29:09] should.
[1:29:13] Legislation says, in particular, now it does not say enforcement
[1:29:19] proceedings. Correct. And your suggestion it does is narrowly. Clarify. You
[1:29:30] can say narrow, I say clarify. Now we have a different interpretation of the
[1:29:34] same word. I'm giving you. Okay. I told you when I thought of the legislative history, you know,
[1:29:40] it's like I can't prove it. Yeah. It narrows it. And what Ed's proposal does is clarifies what I think
[1:29:50] was the original one. Now I sound like a constitutional lawyer. Sit that once, but not anymore.
[1:29:58] So let me ask.
[1:30:06] We all agree that the roll is in the town code, but we disagree on the interpretation of a particular
[1:30:17] matter. Is that fair? Okay. So clarifying what, you know, the code does versus changing what
[1:30:28] the code does is kind of a fine line. Are we changing the meaning of the code if we say,
[1:30:36] oh, you know, it's any matter, or maybe you would say we're changing the code if we say
[1:30:46] an enforcement, that's narrowing the code in your interpretation. So it's a code issue that
[1:30:55] requires clarification and what have we done for the last two and a half years when we have a
[1:31:01] code issue that requires clarification is that we bring it before the town board and
[1:31:08] with a recommendation to clarify and we should say any matter or we should say a particular
[1:31:17] enforcement matter. In either case, it would clarify what we're talking about now. Are we narrowing it or are we expanding it?
[1:31:31] You want it to expand it and you want to expand it? I'll take narrow. I want to make it specific to enforcement matters, which is what I think it's intended to be.
[1:31:42] So it's an issue and it really isn't something that I think we ought to do or can do or should purport to do through our own internal guidelines, which are very flexible.
[1:31:57] And we can change them anytime we've got, you know, or quorum to do that.
[1:32:03] Oh, sorry.
[1:32:04] That was it.
[1:32:09] Oh,
[1:32:13] Oh,
[1:32:14] Oh,
[1:32:15] Oh,
[1:32:15] Oh,
[1:32:15] Oh,
[1:32:19] regarding your point, I understand what you're saying, but, but
[1:32:25] in my mind, it is not the right approach because of this.
[1:32:29] When you say it has to be of an important matter.
[1:32:35] I can just imagine, and it's one, two, three, four attorneys here, when it comes up, we're
[1:32:43] going to spend hours saying, is it important, or not important?
[1:32:47] Enforcement.
[1:32:49] Enforcement.
[1:32:49] Enforcement.
[1:32:50] Is it enforcement or not enforcement?
[1:32:53] That's exactly what I want to avoid.
[1:32:56] My language is any matter.
[1:32:58] It takes that off the table.
[1:33:03] I'm just going to reiterate what I said before.
[1:33:07] Well, don't reiterate then.
[1:33:09] No, I believe that we went through this in the drafting of the legislation.
[1:33:16] I think at this point, and we did not put in enforcement matter that we put in the
[1:33:23] particular and it covers a lot more than enforcement, and I think we should put it to about
[1:33:31] Yeah, and I will just say, fine with voting on it, do you think that a best practice would
[1:33:42] be that as early in the process as possible that the alternate knows that they are going
[1:33:51] to be voting on that particular matter. I would want to see a situation in which
[1:34:00] sitting member of the board has participated extensively in a particular matter and then
[1:34:07] only because the timing of the vote happening at a conflict allowed somebody else to suddenly
[1:34:15] assume the voting spot.
[1:34:20] I don't know how you avoid that. I think you avoid it by a lot of different
[1:34:24] ways of avoiding it, which would just be... I mean,
[1:34:41] this is all internal guidelines,
[1:34:43] is it right? So it's how we govern ourselves. No, I don't think it's an internal guideline.
[1:34:50] That's
[1:34:50] There's a provision in the town code that is let's call it vague or subject to interpretation
[1:34:59] and there are a couple of different interpretations of that.
[1:35:05] If we say any matter in our internal guidelines, are we expanding that?
[1:35:13] I believe yes.
[1:35:14] If we say enforcement matter, are we restricting it?
[1:35:17] I would say clarifying, but Sue says restricting.
[1:35:22] So it's an interpretation of the town code.
[1:35:25] I think at a minimum, before we arguably change the town code one way or another,
[1:35:34] we should get some kind of clarification as to what the town board wants to do with that.
[1:35:44] I think that we can meet your suggestions really by saying when a member has been not
[1:35:55] participated in the discussions then.
[1:35:58] Yep.
[1:36:00] I didn't find that as language.
[1:36:03] But with those, that phrase put in just before as language.
[1:36:07] But, Sue, how does that address, you know, last meeting of voting on who should be the
[1:36:13] chair because David was absent?
[1:36:17] I think that that is something that nobody had talked about before.
[1:36:22] It hadn't been the subject of earlier meetings.
[1:36:25] And according to your interpretation, it would be fine to select, but to undertake
[1:36:33] One of the most significant things we do every year if we choose to elect a chair and a secretary.
[1:36:42] I mean, what if David wanted to be president last meeting and we're going to do this charity, but you have a comment.
[1:36:51] I think that was one of the reasons we stopped discussing it this because he wasn't here and we were talking about him.
[1:36:57] Possibly filling one of the roles. We said, wait a minute. We can't discuss it when he's not here.
[1:37:01] wait till the next meeting. We're talking about him. We'll do it next. So that was a very sensible
[1:37:05] way to postpone it because there's five of us playing these roles and we're talking about him
[1:37:12] for one of them. Obviously we're not going to do it without him. So it wasn't that we just,
[1:37:17] you know, did what you were saying. It was because he's too important in this particular
[1:37:22] discussion to not be here for it. And that's why I brought her up to this meeting.
[1:37:27] Right. But what would have, what would have the result been had instead of David been nominated that and her charity had been nominated at the last meeting?
[1:37:39] You might want to be nominated.
[1:37:41] That was.
[1:37:43] Oh, I see that's your position.
[1:37:46] Yeah.
[1:37:48] So, Tim, and I call for the vote.
[1:37:54] May I suggest a brief, a very one clause addition to it?
[1:38:00] To what?
[1:38:01] To Ed's proposal, which I'm still looking for.
[1:38:06] Ed, can you read it all out and I'll tell you where?
[1:38:09] Well, nevertheless, in five members of the Board of Ethics, you are able to vote.
[1:38:14] Here is an alternate or alternate shall be selected to serve as a member of the Board of Ethics with that vote
[1:38:22] Then it goes on to yeah
[1:38:25] You'll have to read the rest of it. No, hang on. Let me let me call it out
[1:38:33] Again, we're never less than five members of the Board of Ethics are able to vote and
[1:38:38] And alternate shall be selected to serve as member of the Board of Ethics for that vote.
[1:38:46] And David, I would suggest that your phrase goes in whenever less than five members of the Board of Ethics are able to vote. And what do you want to put into the timeline and have been and have not participated fully?
[1:39:03] I guess that's probably all right. But that's still vague, right? Penny, help out here.
[1:39:09] It's way too vague.
[1:39:12] What is it that we're trying to accomplish that the alternates, I'm sorry,
[1:39:17] are we trying to accomplish that the alternates need to be here for the entire time so that they
[1:39:25] are able to vote. I mean that's one of the positions I would take. Obviously you
[1:39:32] don't want an alternate who walked in that day. One of the members is not
[1:39:37] available on that day. If that was me I would not want to vote because I don't
[1:39:44] have enough information. So amongst the clarifying pieces would be that the
[1:39:50] alternate would not have been here during the time that the issue was
[1:39:54] discussed but I think we have to kind of play with the language. I'm not sure that this requires
[1:40:01] any great brush unless everybody here believes that but I think it requires some let's toss the
[1:40:08] language around let's figure out what everybody's comfortable with and let's make sure it's in
[1:40:13] compliance with the code. But the one question I have is are the same criteria given to put an
[1:40:22] alternate on this board as a regular member, a voting member, or they're different criteria.
[1:40:28] I think it's the same criteria, right? I mean, it's the same application that gets built out,
[1:40:33] but I think it's just the same interview. Yeah, same interview. There's no reason why an alternate
[1:40:39] would not be able to assume that position provided they were there the whole time.
[1:40:44] I'm thinking of an alternative juror. But that's why I thought that
[1:40:50] But the alternate should only vote when they, like, began, when the discussion began knowing
[1:41:01] that they would be voting on the matter, right?
[1:41:05] So like, such, I, otherwise it feels bait and switch to me.
[1:41:11] Wait, it's bait and switch.
[1:41:13] I think the alternate should know that if you take this position, as long as you
[1:41:19] If you are here for all of the discussion, then you very likely could be called upon. That's, that's fair. But if you weren't here for the entire discussion, you should not.
[1:41:32] That's fair.
[1:41:33] Let me let me let me try and, and no I want to give party an opportunity to weigh in on this.
[1:41:41] And, Charity, can you hand that to Art, because you've got it.
[1:41:44] I can speak loudly.
[1:41:45] My understanding of an alternate is somebody who was required to be at all the meetings
[1:41:52] and understands all the issues that are being presented.
[1:41:56] I think once you start all of these qualifying statements about the function of the alternate,
[1:42:03] you're better off not having any alternates.
[1:42:07] Because if you're going to stipulate that they can enter into a discussion here or make a vote here, I think you are not only limiting what they can do, but you are eliminating the need for them.
[1:42:26] Sue, do you have a comment?
[1:42:28] Because I have a suggestion.
[1:42:30] Oh, there's a little proposal to a vote.
[1:42:32] Well, I like Hennie's suggestion that we circulate language that
[1:42:40] is much more likely to achieve consensus.
[1:42:44] For example, consensus, not, you know,
[1:42:47] with the exception of the annual election of chair or secretary,
[1:42:52] Whenever fewer, and I insist on word fewer instead of less, whenever fewer than five members are able to vote on a particular matter, and you can insert whatever clarifying language to address your point that may or may not fly when we ultimately talk about this,
[1:43:16] that we circulate language that's a little broader than what you have suggested, and we pick this up at the next meeting.
[1:43:28] I don't think there's any real rush on this.
[1:43:32] I agree that there's no rush. I do disagree with drawing exceptions.
[1:43:38] All right, I think that the selection of officers is important, but it should not be subject
[1:43:50] to different rules.
[1:43:53] I think that the alternate, if they have been present and have been able to partake
[1:44:01] as we've always had them partake, as we've shown just in this discussion, they should
[1:44:08] have the right to vote. I appreciate David's wish not to have the alternate come in in the last minute.
[1:44:19] Nonetheless, if the alternates have been involved as they are here right now,
[1:44:29] I don't think it matters if that tummy egg takes one of us out right now or not.
[1:44:38] Um, perhaps the wisest thing to do, even though I think there should be much to about now is everyone go home, sleep on it, and it'll be on the agenda next time.
[1:44:52] Yeah, and we know we have an upcoming meeting. So, yeah, that makes some sense to me. Okay.
[1:45:00] I'm fine with that. What I don't want to see happen. I don't want to see email going back from the board.
[1:45:07] Absolutely. That I don't want to say. That's fair.
[1:45:09] Yeah, I agree.
[1:45:11] And by the way, the purpose of that email was not to have discussion back and forth.
[1:45:19] I thought it was only proper since it came up at the previous meeting that everyone had the opportunity to think about and evaluate it.
[1:45:28] And I have no objection to us putting it off to the next meeting, but I don't want to see any back in thought.
[1:45:35] So, yeah, I really can discuss protocol for a moment. I would, I would agree with that.
[1:45:40] And so it's perfectly clear.
[1:45:45] And you've made the point, Brian, that we cannot have discussions by email.
[1:45:51] Nonetheless, I think that what ended here was very useful.
[1:45:58] And so I would ask that if a member of the sport or an alternate has an idea for some legislation that says rooms should be all purple in the town of Northcastle, that's ethical, that they circulate that proposal.
[1:46:18] And no one comment on it, but we all have time to think about it.
[1:46:23] The way, the way agenda items are, you know, the way we've dealt with agenda items is that, you know, two or more members, you know, can put something on the agenda.
[1:46:38] What's that?
[1:46:39] I'll talk to you later. One.
[1:46:42] any member?
[1:47:07] Yeah, give me a second because I just saw it.
[1:47:13] That's a motion for two.
[1:47:38] Yeah,
[1:47:40] give me more time, but we'll make this up at the next meeting. Anyway, do you have a
[1:47:48] problem with the concept that folks, namely if a member or alternate on this board wants
[1:47:56] the room page in purple, but they draft that and no discussion.
[1:48:02] Yeah, the way that my practice over the last couple of years is that we can share information
[1:48:10] but not debate things, and that is essential to, I think, an effective way to run a board
[1:48:23] and still comply with the state's open meeting laws.
[1:48:27] Because once you start discussing things,
[1:48:30] and gosh, we all know that probably the worst way
[1:48:34] to come to an agreement is through texting.
[1:48:37] And the next worst way to come to an agreement
[1:48:40] is through email.
[1:48:42] And the third worst way is through Zoom.
[1:48:46] And the best way is when everybody's present
[1:48:49] and everybody is presented with the same amount of information.
[1:48:55] So you can send in informative information to the...
[1:49:04] I would recommend that it go to the chair with a request to circulate it to the board.
[1:49:11] This is information.
[1:49:12] For example, I pull up five code sections that I've found on different boards of ethics
[1:49:22] throughout the state and throughout the region, which will inform the discussion that we're
[1:49:28] going to have at the next meeting.
[1:49:29] I would send all that around for FYI and for consideration in advance of our next
[1:49:36] meeting.
[1:49:36] It would be inappropriate for somebody to say, hey, that third provision is terrible because X, Y, and Z.
[1:49:45] And we've been really good at doing that. And I think that is, you know, a hallmark of an effective board.
[1:49:55] So I agree with you. And my point that I raised in response to yours is I thought that it was language.
[1:50:05] And I still believe that it is language that is in the town code and that we should take
[1:50:11] it up as an amendment or a clarification of the code of ethics and not deal with it as
[1:50:19] an amendment to our internal guidelines.
[1:50:23] But again, that's for a subsequent meeting.
[1:50:26] And if we want to circulate language, the problem with circulating language is that
[1:50:33] If one person circulates language, does that prohibit somebody else from circulating additional
[1:50:41] language or reacting to that language with different language?
[1:50:46] And that gets to be a discussion that happens by email, effectively a discussion, you know,
[1:50:53] by changing the language.
[1:50:55] So what I'm proposing is that if anyone here has a call with respect to legislation or internal guidelines
[1:51:06] or a subject that should be discussed by the board of ethics, that you write a cryptic memo
[1:51:15] or if it's a cryptic piece of legislation, write that so that we all can think about it.
[1:51:25] And nothing more.
[1:51:28] There should not be something back saying, oh, I would change this phrase or that phrase.
[1:51:35] It's a starting point for a discussion which will take place only at the meeting.
[1:51:42] I would think that the topic is what should be circulated, not race to get the first language
[1:51:53] out there that will be the discussion point for the meeting because, you know, I've circulated
[1:52:05] drafts and you come to the meeting with your own draft and you know that's it's
[1:52:14] really difficult to do both I think that you and maybe I'm at fault on this but
[1:52:24] the discussion should be at a minimum conceptual to flag it for people and you
[1:52:32] You know, it's a balancing act to try and, you know, put a lot of substance out there and still say this is all subject for discussion.
[1:52:42] Please come with your comments. And if your comments are this thing needs to be trashed and replaced in its entirety. Here's my recommendation. So be it.
[1:53:00] I think it's more appropriate and more effective to do what I did, and that giving a specific
[1:53:08] language rather than just a topic, what would be the purpose in giving the topic that specific
[1:53:14] language?
[1:53:15] It wasn't my intent to influence anybody or anything else, just for everyone to know
[1:53:23] what my thoughts were in specific and then discuss it at the meeting okay well
[1:53:29] we're gonna put this off to the next meeting yeah so that brings us to the
[1:53:35] chair's report which I have training I'm leaving out I don't believe so I did
[1:53:42] explain that I had a meeting with the supervisor to clarify who was
[1:53:51] responsible for the legal opinion and as much as we're all lawyers that would require advice
[1:54:04] to the Board of Ethics or advice to the Town Board from the Town's Council or Council
[1:54:16] to the Board of Ethics.
[1:54:17] one of the things that I've learned, even though there were a host of lawyers on the school board,
[1:54:22] is that when there were legal issues to be discussed, you've got a legal opinion,
[1:54:27] and you don't have to agree with it. You can vote against, but we shouldn't be our own lawyers.
[1:54:36] So, but that issue was mooted. That's part of my chair's report on that and
[1:54:42] And moving forward, topics for future agendas, requests for information, date for next meeting.
[1:54:50] Anybody have anything other than suggestions for the date or next meeting?
[1:54:56] I think we need input from new Jose because we're supposed to meet again before a public
[1:55:04] hearing.
[1:55:05] What is the earliest date that we can possibly have for a public hearing?
[1:55:12] We're asking for a public hearing or that's our next step is presentation to the board.
[1:55:21] I thought you said we were meeting before we go to the public hearing.
[1:55:25] No, there's two steps.
[1:55:26] Oh.
[1:55:27] We've agreed on language that will be drafted to be presented to the board for acceptance.
[1:55:36] Yes.
[1:55:36] Once they accept our proposed amendments, then they will schedule a hearing.
[1:55:45] So we have to be on the agenda to accept the language that we're proposing.
[1:55:52] And that can happen at the 19th, which is the next, wait, check that, the 12th.
[1:56:01] The 12th is the meeting.
[1:56:04] Right.
[1:56:04] But that is the first date that the board can possibly accept our language. And then your question is, what's the likelihood of them scheduling a public hearing?
[1:56:19] The earliest date they might because we need to meet before that. That's what I'm asking. Okay.
[1:56:25] The next meeting, and I'm not, I can't guarantee that I can get this to the board in the next day or so in order to get on the agenda for the 12th to have it accepted.
[1:56:38] Yeah, so what's the schedule of the next town board meeting after that is the 26th.
[1:56:47] That's also an expansion of the same, I'm not sure they can't speak for the whole town board, but I would want, I think it's important to have more than one public, or extend the public hearing to more than one.
[1:57:04] I said that last town board meeting.
[1:57:07] But I don't know what will happen.
[1:57:09] Um, you can submit it and it's not, it's not to quibble, but I think it's receiving it, you know, we have, whatever the ministerial act, correct kind of. Yeah. Yeah. I think there's some discretion, even as to whether we receive things, but obviously it would be received and then schedule public hearings.
[1:57:28] At the work session, there was a consensus by the board, I believe, the town board that
[1:57:38] it be scheduled in a way that would assure that it would become effective before this
[1:57:45] November election cycle.
[1:57:47] And they've talked about, oh, if we accept it, if you submit it by the 5th and we accept
[1:57:59] it on the 12th, they talked about the possibility of a public hearing on the 26th, which I think
[1:58:07] is unlikely given, you know, other people.
[1:58:10] That might be a bit ambitious at this point.
[1:58:12] Right.
[1:58:12] I agree.
[1:58:13] Listen, you folks have to decide, but I don't see any real arm.
[1:58:17] If you know you make sure you do whatever you need to get it in the town board for the meeting on the 26th, and then go from there.
[1:58:24] Right. And then is the next meeting after that the 12th?
[1:58:28] The 12th of March.
[1:58:30] March.
[1:58:35] Last year I had all the town board meetings on my personal calendar because that was essential
[1:58:41] and it looks like, you know, I'm going to have to do the same thing for this year. Okay,
[1:58:51] fair enough. I'll try and be diligent in getting this to one of those meetings
[1:58:59] things or receipt by the town board and then we'll ask them to set a public hearing and
[1:59:09] everybody is aware that this may be, you know, it's not, if we say let's do a public hearing
[1:59:18] and they're concerned that there's not enough time, it's better to do multiple public hearings
[1:59:25] rather than trying to find a time to do an hour and a half public hearing for this because I don't think an hour and a half is anything that the board is willing to give in any one fell swoop.
[1:59:40] It depends, but it doesn't seem, last time went through a few public hearings, it doesn't seem to, back a couple years ago, it doesn't seem to be as much disagreement.
[1:59:53] Okay.
[1:59:54] these things have been in the past.
[1:59:56] So this is important somewhere other than public hearing.
[2:00:00] This is safe if we have a meeting on if people are available March 4th. You're not going to have a public hearing before that.
[2:00:08] Well, certainly if you don't request it before then. So that would give you enough time.
[2:00:14] Yeah, that's it. Are people available March 4th?
[2:00:22] I'm not available March
[2:00:32] 1st through March 4th.
[2:00:39] I have a conflict on March 5th.
[2:00:48] March 6th.
[2:00:56] I have a 1030 commitment on the 6th, which means I have to be going on at 10, 15.
[2:01:02] I'd rather do March 10.
[2:01:04] I'd rather do March 10.
[2:01:06] March 10.
[2:01:07] Is that what you're saying?
[2:01:08] Yep.
[2:01:09] Nope.
[2:01:10] No good.
[2:01:10] Thank you.
[2:01:11] This is the hardest thing we do.
[2:01:13] I could do, I could also do March 11.
[2:01:15] March 11.
[2:01:17] That only gives us one day.
[2:01:21] before the market for the March 12th board meeting so right right are we
[2:01:29] considering the issue of 333 Main Street February 25 he was nice so for the
[2:01:36] 26 so I think we should consider the fact 333 Main Street it's going to be
[2:01:44] taking up a lot of town public hearing. That's why I am assuming nothing is happening on the 12th or 26th.
[2:01:55] I'm sorry. The meeting being on March on February 25.
[2:02:06] You're grimacing David.
[2:02:08] Why did you throw out a date? I did. I said the 10th and the 11th.
[2:02:13] the 10th works for me but but can we just doesn't that work medical thing okay
[2:02:19] on the 10th what about the 11th which month will you end a mark and then we
[2:02:30] just said that we wanted the public hearing on the 26th if we don't want it
[2:02:35] the next we don't want it on the 12 or whenever the next March 26 is that
[2:02:41] another, uh, town board meeting. Okay. Supervisor indicated they're going to have two town board meetings, two public hearings on three thirties.
[2:02:51] No, no, that's February. We're trying to. That's February six, I think, for the public hearing. Okay. Why don't we set our date at March 11?
[2:02:59] Great. Uh, let me, let me look.
[2:03:05] Is that suitable?
[2:03:06] Are you available?
[2:03:09] March 11?
[2:03:11] Yeah.
[2:03:12] March 11, what time?
[2:03:14] Nine o'clock or 8.30 as you as well.
[2:03:16] I can't do it in the morning.
[2:03:18] Sorry.
[2:03:19] I can't do it in the morning.
[2:03:24] Ask a dumb question.
[2:03:27] I know a dumb question.
[2:03:28] I could do later in the day on,
[2:03:33] I can't do later on the 11th because I have a flight that afternoon.
[2:03:39] I can do later on the 10th.
[2:03:42] Any time on the 10th works for me. I could do five o'clock on the 10th.
[2:03:46] Is that okay?
[2:03:50] My day isn't my day after the morning.
[2:03:55] I can't make any promises.
[2:03:58] I'm the head of a lot of different departments in my household.
[2:04:01] How about Monday the 17th, St. Patrick's Day? That is the day I never go into the city.
[2:04:10] No, that's fine.
[2:04:13] Also your birthday. I think this is good. I think we should definitely do the nice meeting. Your first meeting is chair, your birthday, St. Patrick's Day.
[2:04:22] Who can do it?
[2:04:22] We have free beers.
[2:04:24] Free beers is fine.
[2:04:27] We'll bring you whiskey then, okay?
[2:04:30] Is that 9 o'clock?
[2:04:32] Yeah, nine o'clock is fine by me. Okay. Ethics board March 17.
[2:04:40] Yeah, that works for me. Everyone else. Ed, you good with March 17.
[2:04:47] Comment on your talent as a St. Patrick's Day lunch in that day at 12 o'clock. Well, we'll be here to finish.
[2:04:55] I better be home by then,
[2:04:59] 9 o'clock. Yeah,
[2:05:03] on the 17th.
[2:05:04] And then we will try to have, obviously the public hearing for the 26th or the meeting after that, depending on the town preferences.
[2:05:18] Thank you.
[2:05:19] I know that was difficult, but it oftentimes is.
[2:05:23] And that's something that is almost impossible to do by, you know, Penny, we have one more substantive item, which is the approval of the minutes in January.
[2:05:33] And let's approve the minutes.
[2:05:34] Well, we have topics in the future.
[2:05:37] I like to it.
[2:05:38] I already, I already said, does anybody have topics for future requests for information?
[2:05:45] I have a topic.
[2:05:46] Okay.
[2:05:46] I'd like to have a discussion on the timeliness of the reporting of the minutes that discussed
[2:05:57] with that meeting.
[2:05:58] The timeliness of the reporting of the minutes.
[2:06:01] Reporting the publication.
[2:06:03] No, the distribution.
[2:06:06] Distribution.
[2:06:09] Actually, that shouldn't require much discussion.
[2:06:12] No.
[2:06:12] Distribution.
[2:06:19] Okay.
[2:06:24] Noted.
[2:06:28] We have a motion.
[2:06:30] By David to approve the minutes of January 6.
[2:06:35] And I second.
[2:06:36] Charity second. Any discussion.
[2:06:43] All in favor of the motion.
[2:06:45] That passes unanimously.
[2:06:49] I have a motion to adjourn the meeting.
[2:06:54] David.
[2:06:56] We have a second.
[2:06:58] Penny, will you second that motion?
[2:07:03] I recused myself at this very moment in time.
[2:07:07] That's fair.
[2:07:08] Sue, are you second?
[2:07:10] And Penny has now been sworn in as the alternate to make the motion on adjourning the meeting.
[2:07:18] All in favor of the motion to adjourn.
[2:07:21] Yeah.
[2:07:22] Unanimous.
[2:07:23] Thank you, everybody.
[2:07:25] Thank you for that.
[2:07:26] Thank you, Bratz.
[2:07:27] Well done.
[2:07:29] Well done.
[2:07:30] Thank you, Bratz.