[0:07] Hey there. Good evening. Hello. All right, Amy,
[0:14] you're making all the board members co hosts.
[0:20] Okay. Great. And your staff, obviously. So who
[0:38] are we waiting for? We're waiting for Janet.
[1:25] Welcome everyone. I'm gonna wait one more minute
[1:27] to see if Janet arrives. Ami, are you
[1:39] letting in the public? I am. There she
[1:55] is. There she is. Yeah. Joanne, do you
[2:17] see Janet? Yes. She just came in. Okay.
[2:20] To unmute. There she is. Hi. Amy, Trish
[2:32] Allen is part of the garden group so
[2:37] I'm not sure why her video is on
[2:40] from your perspective. Not your bad Trish, just
[2:47] we're trying to. Them's the rules. Yeah. That's
[2:52] there you go. Trish Allen. Should not be
[2:57] a cohost. Not yet. Yeah. No. They're not
[3:01] now. So let me. Been promoted, Trish. Let
[3:09] me see how to do that. I'm hearing
[3:25] some background noise. Anybody know where that's from?
[3:28] No. And what about Sally? Yeah, Sally shouldn't
[3:39] be on the video either. Some I mean,
[3:42] it's nothing it's not bad, but Yeah. I
[3:46] don't know how that happened. What kind of
[3:51] background noise are you hearing? It's off now.
[3:56] I'm not sure who's that was. Okay, I
[3:58] think we're ready. Welcome everyone. This is a
[4:03] city of Northampton Board of Health meeting. It's
[4:06] 01/19/2023. Time is 05:33. Tonight we have all
[4:15] members of our board present Doctor. Cynthia Swopis,
[4:19] Doctor. Suzanne Smith, Nurse Dallas Dukar, Janet Grant,
[4:24] and myself, Doctor. Joanne Levin. We also have
[4:27] some staff from the Department of Health, Director
[4:33] Amy Hutchins of the Department of Environmental Health
[4:39] and Human Services. And I'll ask you later
[4:43] to introduce the other staff members. Great. Yeah.
[4:47] Great. First, we'll start with the public comment
[4:51] session. We would we're always interested in hearing
[4:54] from the public. We ask that you limit
[4:57] your comments to two minutes. And Suzanne, are
[5:00] you up for being timer? Oh, you're muted.
[5:04] Yes. Great. And because of the way our
[5:10] Zoom is set up that the public doesn't
[5:13] generally have their videos enabled. We can't see
[5:18] you if you're waving. So for people who
[5:20] want to give public comment, please use your
[5:22] electronic hand, which is found in the reactions
[5:25] department down in your lower menu. So if
[5:28] you would like to give public comment, please
[5:30] raise an electronic hand. I don't see anyone
[5:39] give it one more minute anyone here for
[5:43] public comment okay I don't see anyone here
[5:49] for public comment session we'll close the public
[5:51] comment session Then would someone like to make
[5:58] a motion to open to convene the meeting
[6:03] of the Northampton Board of Health? Move to
[6:06] open. Is there a second? Second. Any comment
[6:11] or discussion? All in favor, we'll do a
[6:14] roll call for votes. Cynthia? Yes. Suzanne? Yes.
[6:20] Dallas? Yes. Janet? Yes. And me. Yes. Okay.
[6:26] Board of Health meeting is now open. Welcome,
[6:29] everyone. This meeting is being recorded. And I've
[6:38] already mentioned who's here. We are all here.
[6:41] I'm just gonna mention that, I may need
[6:43] to leave early if we are going to
[6:45] go for an extended time, but we'll see
[6:49] how that goes. The first thing on our
[6:54] agenda was a continuation of the hearing for
[6:57] Jim's Variety. Do we have a representative from
[7:01] Jim's Variety here? Amy, do you know if
[7:05] they were invited to come to the department?
[7:07] They were and we reached out to them
[7:09] to see if they'd like to join us
[7:11] at the department itself because they had some
[7:13] technical difficulties last time and they assured that
[7:17] they were going to be all set and
[7:19] that they would be here. Okay do you
[7:22] see any of these names representing? I don't
[7:25] and the only The one thing is that
[7:30] it appears on the agenda that the hearing
[7:33] is to start at 05:45. Oh, that's a
[7:36] very good point. So we need to give
[7:39] them that time. Okay, good. Let's move on
[7:45] and we'll come back to them. Let's move
[7:47] to public health nursing updates. Do you want
[7:49] to introduce your staff, Amy? Absolutely. Kelly Hughes
[7:55] is with us tonight. She's our new public
[7:57] health nurse. Kelly, if you'd like, why don't
[8:00] you tell us a little bit about yourself
[8:02] and what you do at DHHS? Hi there.
[8:07] Is everybody able to hear me? I'm going
[8:10] to mute myself because I'm hearing Oh, you're
[8:13] here twice. Of my voice. You're actually You're
[8:17] here twice. Are you able to hear me
[8:20] if I do that? Yes. Yes? Okay. Hi,
[8:24] sorry about that. So, my name is Kelly
[8:26] Hughes. I'm an LPN that's been working in
[8:30] ambulatory care, primary care in the Valley for
[8:33] about eight years or so, seven, eight years.
[8:37] I worked with the health department as part
[8:39] of the COVID-nineteen contact tracing nurse collaborative for
[8:44] a couple of years, and that's how I
[8:47] got connected with the health department. And I'm
[8:49] also an MRC volunteer from about 2016 till
[8:53] now. I'm excited to join the team and
[8:58] work with Amy and Elliot and Meredith and
[9:00] everybody else seems really lovely. I'm excited to
[9:04] start this new adventure. Great. Well, thank you
[9:08] and welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Elliot's also
[9:12] with us. I think Elliot's going to do
[9:15] an update on the respiratory illness. Yeah. So
[9:18] I'm going to share my screen. And I'm
[9:23] sharing straight from the Northampton City website where
[9:29] anyone who wants to can find this information
[9:31] every week. So, here's our dashboard for this
[9:35] week. Now, we had a pretty significant bump
[9:37] over the holidays, and I know last week,
[9:41] our test positivity rate rose to eleven percent.
[9:45] So, that was kind of worrying. But then,
[9:46] when you dig into the numbers, it was
[9:48] actually for the week that included New Year's,
[9:51] and there were very few tests performed, which
[9:56] I think just meant that the only tests
[9:58] that were being done basically were probably through
[10:00] like hospitals and things like that, where they're
[10:03] testing people who are sicker. So, I think
[10:04] that's positivity rate temporarily like doubled for only
[10:08] a week. Our hospitalization rate in the county
[10:13] is about the same as it was, and
[10:16] our wastewater has had a huge decline. So,
[10:20] it's all pretty good to see. It seems
[10:24] like we're probably coming down from our holiday
[10:28] peak, particularly based on the wastewater and the
[10:31] fact that our hospitalizations have stopped climbing. Although,
[10:36] of course, we know hospitalizations lag cases, so
[10:40] they're still kind of high. So you can
[10:43] see our wastewater data here. The blue is
[10:46] Northampton, the green is Hampshire County, and the
[10:50] gray is nationally. And you can see our
[10:53] two local numbers here, they've declined quite a
[10:55] lot. They're kind of back to almost pre
[10:58] Thanksgiving levels. And flu, luckily, seems to have
[11:06] collapsed. I mean, if you look at it,
[11:09] we're really back to a typical season. Flu
[11:13] is not gone, but it's not at these,
[11:16] like, extremely high levels that we were seeing
[11:18] for a while, which is great to see.
[11:22] Now, I know that experts are predicting that
[11:24] later in the season, most likely we're going
[11:26] to get a second spike of flu B.
[11:28] It's hard to say how bad that'll be,
[11:32] but I know that I was hearing from
[11:35] DPH that they are expecting a second spike
[11:38] later in the season for flu. And then
[11:40] we know RSV is still circulating but at
[11:42] pretty low levels, so that also has quieted
[11:45] down. So all in all, right now, seems
[11:49] like cautiously good news for the time being
[11:52] in terms of respiratory illnesses. And as always,
[11:57] people should use the same techniques they've been
[12:00] using in terms of social distancing, masking, indoor
[12:04] ventilation, testing, staying home if they're sick, and
[12:08] all of that. Elliot, just the transmission rate.
[12:17] I'm sorry. The slide went by really quickly.
[12:19] We're still high with the transmission rate? Yeah,
[12:24] so we are still at the high level.
[12:26] Okay. And our best indicator now because of
[12:30] PCR testing and home testing is wastewater, is
[12:34] that correct? It seems like it. And I
[12:38] just was in a webinar with the CDC
[12:42] about wastewater today, and they were saying that
[12:46] wastewater has very, very reliably predicted hospitalizations. And
[12:52] so they're seeing that it really is a
[12:55] pretty good indicator. Great. Thank you. Thank you.
[13:02] I think, what I see at the hospital
[13:04] also reflects what you were saying. We had,
[13:08] and I don't remember which week it was,
[13:10] maybe the week after Christmas, we had an
[13:12] enormous jump in hospitalizations, like doubled, like wild,
[13:16] and then it went right back down. So
[13:19] I'm not, you know, I think it was
[13:20] real, but definitely in a better place than
[13:25] it was. Any questions for Elliot? Okay, thank
[13:33] you so much. All right, I think we'll
[13:39] go back to our hearing. Amy do you
[13:45] remember, do we need to officially open and
[13:47] close the hearing. Does anybody remember? I'm gonna
[13:54] think we do do that. I feel like
[13:56] we do. I don't know that for sure.
[13:58] Yeah. Okay. It would be safer to do
[14:04] that. Yeah. Yeah. And I thought oh, there's
[14:09] Hamed. Do you wanna let mister Habib be
[14:14] a cohost? You got it. Okay. Where is
[14:27] he? Mister Habib, are you with us? Hi.
[14:35] Yes. Hi. How are you today? Good. Welcome.
[14:38] Do you want to turn on your video?
[14:40] You don't have to, obviously. But you are
[14:42] welcome to if you want to. There you
[14:46] are. Okay, great. So would someone like to
[14:49] make a motion to open the hearing regarding
[14:54] Jim's Variety Store? I'll motion. Is there a
[14:58] second? Second. Thank you. Any discussion? All in
[15:03] favor? Suzanne? Yes. Dallas? Yes. Janet? Yes. Cynthia?
[15:10] Yes. Joanne, yes. Okay. Welcome back, Mr. Habib.
[15:15] Thank you. Thank you so much. So the
[15:20] last time we met, we had talked about
[15:26] the findings. And we had talked about the
[15:32] fact that we were using the new state
[15:37] regulations and that we had proposed the fine
[15:41] of $1,000 but we were undecided about what
[15:47] is appropriate for that ban on sales. Meredith,
[15:56] unfortunately, couldn't be here tonight, but her recommendation
[16:00] is that because they cited rule six sixty
[16:10] five, which is the state reg, that we
[16:14] couldn't use our local reg. And then there
[16:17] was the whole issue about the state regs
[16:19] sort of because they were new, everyone was
[16:22] sort of starting fresh. There was a question
[16:27] that Meredith had at that time about whether
[16:30] there was a mandatory ban on sales in
[16:35] the state reg. But we discovered later that
[16:38] that was only true if sales to a
[16:40] minor was the issue, which was not the
[16:42] issue here. So Meredith's recommendation is that we
[16:47] go with the fine and not with the,
[16:51] sales ban and complete this case. Does anybody
[16:57] have any comments? And Cheryl, welcome. Cheryl Sabar
[17:08] is with Thank you. I had a hard
[17:10] time getting on. What's new? So Cheryl, maybe
[17:17] I'll ask you to introduce yourself. So we
[17:20] have some new members, and maybe we'll go
[17:21] around and introduce ourselves because of this hearing,
[17:24] there may be questions for you. Sure. I
[17:29] am Cheryl Sabara. I am the Executive Director
[17:32] and Senior Staff Attorney for the Massachusetts Association
[17:35] of Health Boards. And in that capacity, I
[17:38] provide legal education and technical assistance to boards
[17:41] of health throughout the Commonwealth. I think what
[17:44] occurred here is that the state law now
[17:49] requires a suspension for the first offense of
[17:55] selling to someone under the age of 21.
[17:59] But that is the only mandatory suspension requirement
[18:04] in the state law for a first sale.
[18:07] And I believe that's why Meredith is suggesting
[18:12] that the fine alone would suffice in this
[18:17] case. Any questions for Mr. Habib, for me,
[18:24] or for Cheryl? I guess I kind of
[18:32] have a question, although I don't know who
[18:34] it's for. I just, pretty new to the
[18:38] Board of Health, and this was the first
[18:40] thing like this that has come up. I
[18:45] remember, Meredith saying that this actually had not
[18:50] been a first offense. And I don't know
[18:53] how that's counted or, you know, I think
[18:56] it was maybe, it was a first offense
[18:58] since these new regs, but it's not overall
[19:02] the first offense. So I find that a
[19:05] little concerning. I can give a little explanation
[19:09] of that if I'm allowed to. Sure, go
[19:13] ahead. So I'm managing the store since last
[19:16] ten years. Currently, I was actually going through
[19:22] the state rules and regulations that if you
[19:25] have a violation and then for the next
[19:27] three years, you do not have any more
[19:30] violation than the previous one gets expunged from
[19:33] your record. So if after three years you
[19:36] have a new offense, new violation, then that
[19:40] is considered as the first one. So far
[19:43] in ten years, we never had any state
[19:46] related violations. For the city of Northampton, we
[19:53] did had two violations before, but that also
[19:58] been a very, very long time ago. Our
[20:00] first violation was about eight years ago. It
[20:04] was selling to a miner. At that time
[20:06] we had a new employee and same thing
[20:08] happened. It's almost four years now since our
[20:13] last violation. So as far as anything else
[20:18] is concerned, this is our first violation on
[20:23] not selling to a minor. A point of
[20:29] clarification is that we have local regulations which
[20:33] are slightly different from the state ones, and
[20:36] ours tend to be more strict. And so
[20:39] our regulations say that there is no, what
[20:44] they call, tolling period, meaning you get to
[20:46] wipe your slate clean after three years, even
[20:49] though the state offers that. Our regulations don't,
[20:53] and that is something on our agenda tonight
[20:54] to discuss going forward. Cheryl, tell me if
[21:01] I'm correct. Because ours are more strict, we
[21:04] can go by ours. Yes, you can. That
[21:09] the state law specifies that if the local
[21:13] regulation is stricter, then you certainly can use
[21:16] your own regulation. And I'd like to add
[21:20] Donna Bowman, Inspector Bowman is here with us
[21:23] who did the inspection and has the file
[21:26] for Jim's variety. So I'm not sure if
[21:29] you'd like her to speak to the history
[21:32] as well and that side to it. If
[21:36] you guys have any questions regarding that, Donna
[21:39] is here with us. Sure. Donna, do you
[21:42] have anything you want to add? I think
[21:43] we reviewed the specifics last time, but I
[21:46] don't know if you want to summarize them.
[21:48] Thank you for coming. Sure. Hi. Good evening,
[21:51] everyone. I don't have anything to add. I
[21:53] know we have reviewed everything that was on
[21:57] the violation list. There is nothing new or
[22:02] different to be reviewed. So, I don't have
[22:07] anything else to offer with more news. Thank
[22:14] you. Cheryl, just one question is, I guess
[22:17] Meredith had recommended that or said that the
[22:22] state had recommended that everybody get a clean
[22:24] slate because these new regs came in and
[22:28] we had sort of old regs and new
[22:29] regs. How do you recommend we approach that?
[22:32] Well, is the recommendation normally given because of
[22:38] the different tolling periods, because the effective date
[22:40] of the regulation was during COVID, and boards
[22:44] weren't out actually enforcing for some time, And
[22:48] what the standard operating procedure at most boards
[22:53] was to start new with the thirty six
[22:56] months. However, with with Northampton, because you don't
[23:00] have a tolling period at all, the tolling
[23:05] period really isn't the issue. The issue is
[23:07] how do you wanna wipe out the old
[23:13] ones just because of the new law or
[23:16] do you wanna keep them in? And that's
[23:18] a judgment call that the board needs to
[23:21] make. Yeah. Meredith's recommendation is to let everyone
[23:30] start fresh, But it's up to you guys.
[23:36] Any thoughts? But does that impact this particular
[23:49] case? Or is that another discussion? Because Mr.
[23:57] Habib is acknowledging I don't have the data
[24:00] in front of me that this is this
[24:01] third offense, Yeah. It would impact this discussion
[24:06] if we decided not to let him start
[24:11] fresh and have this be his first offense,
[24:13] then we'd have to look at our regs,
[24:15] what the consequences are for a third offense
[24:18] if I'm reading the letter correctly that was
[24:22] sent to Mr. Habib it's listed as a
[24:27] first violation that That is what we notified
[24:32] him about. So I would think that it
[24:36] would not be right at this point to
[24:38] change that. Oh, actually, the law that was
[24:42] cited was the state law. So this was
[24:45] the first offense under the state law. But
[24:49] it was, that is how he was notified.
[24:53] So this would be, I don't think that
[24:56] this would be an opportune time to change
[25:00] that to a second or third offense. Does
[25:05] anyone have any other questions or thoughts or
[25:07] would someone like to make a proposal? May
[25:11] I just say, I apologize, but may I
[25:13] just say one other thing that I always
[25:17] say, and again, this is something for the
[25:19] board to consider, but what public health is,
[25:23] what we try to do in public health
[25:26] is to get to compliance. We're not about
[25:28] punishment, we're about compliance. That's the goal of
[25:32] everything that we do. So I just want
[25:35] that to be out on the table in
[25:36] public. Can I add something on on that
[25:41] part? We we have the tobacco as well
[25:46] as beer and wine in our store, and,
[25:49] we have some strong rules and regulations in
[25:54] the store as well as far as checking
[25:56] IDs and making sure that none of the
[25:59] miners in our community are getting what they're
[26:01] not supposed to get. Beer and wine, as
[26:05] everybody knows, is required to have at least
[26:08] 21 and over. We have zero violations in
[26:11] the history of this store. For the tobacco,
[26:15] yes, we had two selling to minor one,
[26:17] eight years ago, one, four years ago. Again,
[26:20] it's 100% agree that should not have happened.
[26:23] But when an employee changes, we get a
[26:28] new employee sometime. It does get a little
[26:30] difficult, but then I also understand that is
[26:33] our problem just to make sure that we
[26:35] have everything in place to train new employees
[26:39] better. So as far as compliance is concerned,
[26:44] we have a very strict rules and regulations.
[26:47] And if I have to make those stricter,
[26:50] I will do anything to make sure that
[26:53] these mistakes won't happen in the future. We
[26:57] appreciate that. You know, we take these regulations
[27:00] quite seriously. I myself have a 15 year
[27:06] old and a nine year old, and I
[27:07] definitely understand that how our community, you know,
[27:11] people feel if their kids, you know, either
[27:14] smoking or, you know, drinking under the age
[27:17] of 21, I completely understand that being father
[27:21] myself. So I am doing it, plus further
[27:25] I'll do anything in my hands to make
[27:28] sure that these violations don't happen again. Great.
[27:35] Board members, anybody have any other questions? Or
[27:40] would someone like to make a motion? I
[27:49] move to impose the $1,000 fine for this
[27:53] violation of our tobacco regulations and the fine
[27:58] only. I second. Any other comments, discussion, questions?
[28:07] I mean, think actually procedurally we had already
[28:11] done that. Had already I think we talked
[28:13] about it, but I think we didn't vote.
[28:15] That's what Meredith said. Oh, okay. I thought
[28:20] we had separated the fine from the suspension.
[28:26] Any other questions or comments? All in favor,
[28:34] Suzanne? Yes. Dallas? Yes. Janet? Yes. Cynthia? Yes.
[28:41] Joanne? Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you
[28:45] for coming, Mr. Habib. Thank you so much.
[28:47] And Wishing you good luck in the future.
[28:50] Thank you so much. Would someone like to
[28:55] close the hearing? Go ahead. Go ahead, Suzy.
[29:03] Motion to close the hearing. Thanks, Suzanne. Second.
[29:08] Any questions or comments? All in favor, Suzanne?
[29:14] Yes. Dallas? Yes. Janet? Yes. Cynthia? Yes. Joanne,
[29:21] yes. Thank you all. I, I actually do
[29:25] have one comment just, listening to what Mr.
[29:30] Habib said about, you know, wanting to do
[29:33] anything he can to try to make sure
[29:36] that it doesn't happen, particularly sales to minors.
[29:39] And I just really wanna emphasize the idea
[29:43] of training new employees, making them feel what
[29:48] you feel as a father young, you know,
[29:52] of young people. Then periodically checking in with
[30:00] them about it. I 100% agree with that.
[30:04] I'm already have started that. In fact, sometime
[30:07] I use my family members or friends that
[30:09] my employees haven't seen. I send them in
[30:12] the store, hey, try to go. I sent
[30:16] my niece who's 17 years old and I
[30:18] sent her that, hey, try to go biopsy
[30:21] and let's see what happens. And I'm glad
[30:23] that, you know, it was in compliance. So
[30:25] I'm doing stuff like that as well just
[30:27] to make sure that, you know, we are
[30:30] there. Great. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And,
[30:37] mister Habib, if you could turn off your
[30:40] if you could mute and turn off your
[30:41] video, that would be helpful. Thank you. Okay.
[30:52] Is Robin here? Robin's here. Amy, can you
[30:58] unmute Robin and Rachel, please. Our next business
[31:05] is discussing racism at the community gardens. We
[31:08] have Robin McKeown and Rachel Ehrlich with us
[31:15] to present. You have documents you've received regarding
[31:19] this, both a letter that they sent to
[31:22] the board in December, as well as a
[31:24] statement that they proposed that they're looking for
[31:29] our endorsement. So Robin and Rachel, you may
[31:35] take it away. Thank you. Good evening. Thank
[31:39] you, Chair Levin, members of the board for
[31:41] having us tonight to discuss the racial equity
[31:44] initiative at the community garden in Northampton. I'm
[31:48] joined by several community gardeners and community members
[31:50] who are involved in this effort, including, I
[31:53] believe, Ellie Cook as well as Rachel Ehrlich.
[31:55] Ellie and Rachel and I are the three
[31:57] cosigners of the letter submitted to the board
[32:00] last month describing the initiative, its proposal, and
[32:03] the request that the board endorse the proposal.
[32:06] So I'm gonna turn it over here to
[32:08] Rachel to present a summary of the initiative,
[32:10] the proposal, and our request to the board.
[32:12] And following that, we're all available to address
[32:15] any questions you may have. Amy, could you
[32:18] also give Ellie make her co host so
[32:24] she can put on her video and unmute.
[32:28] Is l oh, is Ellie the oh, there
[32:30] we go. The e. Yep. And I see
[32:34] Robin. Where is Rachel? I got I am
[32:37] right here. Nice to meet There you are.
[32:39] Can everyone hear me all right? Yes. Great.
[32:42] Good evening, Chair Levin and other members of
[32:45] the Board of Health. We're really happy to
[32:46] be here. Thank you so much for taking
[32:49] the time to hear from us tonight about
[32:51] the Racial Equity Initiative at the Northampton Community
[32:54] Garden. I'm Rachel Ehrlich. I use sheher pronouns.
[32:57] I'm a gardener at the community garden and
[32:59] part of a group of gardeners that have
[33:01] been working on this initiative. I'm going to
[33:04] present tonight a brief summary of the initiative,
[33:06] its nexus us to public health, and our
[33:09] request for the board's endorsement of our proposal.
[33:12] The Northampton Community Garden is located on Burt's
[33:15] Pit Road. It offers four twenty garden pots,
[33:18] garden by over two fifty gardeners. It's a
[33:21] program of the Parks and Recreation Department, and
[33:24] is managed by a volunteer garden committee and
[33:26] maintained by a community of gardeners. In recent
[33:30] years, multiple black gardeners have left the community
[33:34] gardens because of failures to address concerns of
[33:36] racial bias, and both past and present Black
[33:39] gardeners and other gardeners of color continue to
[33:42] report acts of bias and racism in our
[33:45] garden community. Recognizing the need to address the
[33:49] impacts of racial bias and related issues of
[33:52] safety, access, equity, and dignity on our community,
[33:56] a growing group of gardeners has been working
[33:58] for the past year and a half to
[33:59] ask that the Northampton Community Garden address these
[34:02] issues in both its policies and its practices.
[34:06] This group of gardeners has developed a proposed
[34:08] equity sustainability statement, which you have for adoption
[34:12] by the community garden. You've seen this statement
[34:15] and accompanying FAQs. They were submitted to the
[34:18] board last month as attachments to the letter
[34:21] that we sent. The proposed statement articulates both
[34:24] an explicit commitment to addressing racial equity and
[34:29] importantly establishes a framework for development by the
[34:32] community gardeners of a plan of action. The
[34:35] group's proposal specifically asks that the Northampton Community
[34:38] Guard, one, adopt this equity and sustainability statement,
[34:43] and two, create a dedicated committee position on
[34:47] the garden committee for a volunteer representative to
[34:50] coordinate implementation of specific actions in support of
[34:54] this initiative. Similar initiatives undertaken by other community
[34:59] gardens have resulted in a range of actions,
[35:01] including implementation of frameworks to address equity and
[35:05] access in the assignment of garden plots, development
[35:08] of safety protocols that reflect alternatives to increase
[35:12] police presence, providing educational resources to gardeners, and
[35:16] partnering with local organizations to help amplify and
[35:19] enhance the effectiveness of this work. I want
[35:23] to briefly now summarize the outreach that we've
[35:25] conducted to date. Over the past year and
[35:28] a half, this initiative has included outreach to
[35:31] the Parks and Recreation Department, the Garden Committee,
[35:34] gardeners, and neighbors to the garden, community members,
[35:37] and city representatives. The garden committee and parks
[35:40] and recreation have in the past indicated that
[35:43] they don't have the expertise or capacity to
[35:45] address these issues. And while we have deep
[35:48] respect for their work, we also believe that
[35:50] making real progress on an existing municipal commitment
[35:54] to issues of safety, equity, and dignity cannot
[35:57] be further delayed. So we continue our efforts
[36:00] while we look forward to a future opportunity
[36:02] to work with the garden committee and the
[36:04] parks and recreation toward these goals. In the
[36:08] meantime, this past August, we began additional outreach
[36:11] to gardeners to share the proposal. And despite
[36:14] starting somewhat late in the gardening season, over
[36:17] 20% of gardeners have been already reached and
[36:20] signed on to support of the proposal. This
[36:22] fall and into the winter, we continued a
[36:24] series of informal conversations with community members and
[36:27] city representatives to familiarize themselves with them with
[36:30] the initiative. Responses to all of this outreach
[36:33] has been really overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Finally,
[36:38] and I know thank you so much for
[36:39] continuing to listen. I know I've been talking
[36:41] for a bit. I want to address the
[36:43] nexus to public health. As all of you
[36:45] are aware, the social conditions in the environments
[36:48] where we live, learn, work and recreate affect
[36:51] our health and our quality of life. Racism
[36:54] and racial bias in these environments correlate to
[36:57] significant measurable negative health outcomes. Understanding this, both
[37:02] the City Council and the Board of Health
[37:03] have adopted resolutions that explicitly identify racism as
[37:06] an ongoing public health crisis, identify action at
[37:10] the local level as essential and importantly, commit
[37:13] to ongoing action to address this public health
[37:15] crisis. As you know, the Board of Health's
[37:18] twenty twenty resolution declaring racism a public health
[37:21] emergency acknowledged that the ongoing public health crisis
[37:23] of racism results in health disparities and unequal
[37:26] access. And for those reasons, the board resolved
[37:29] to commit to ongoing work around racial justice.
[37:32] In that context, endorsement of our proposal is
[37:35] aligned with the City Council and the Board
[37:37] of Health's resolutions, and represents a small but
[37:40] real step toward the stated commitment to address
[37:43] the public health crisis of racism in our
[37:44] community. Underscoring this, the racial equity initiative underway
[37:50] at the Community Garden has been presented to
[37:51] the Northampton Human Rights Commission, and the Human
[37:54] Rights Commission has voted to endorse the proposal.
[37:58] Finally, in closing, we're heartened to know that
[38:01] both the City Council and the Board of
[38:03] Health have explicitly committed to addressing racial equity
[38:05] and racial disparities as a public health concern.
[38:09] In keeping with this commitment, we're here tonight
[38:11] to request that the Board of Health stand
[38:13] with the Northampton Human Rights Commission and endorse
[38:16] the proposal that the Northampton Community Garden adopt
[38:19] the equity and sustainability statement with its embedded
[38:22] framework for action and create a dedicated position
[38:26] on the garden committee for a volunteer representative
[38:28] to coordinate implementation of this necessary work. Should
[38:33] the board vote to endorse this proposal, we
[38:35] ask that the board consider summarizing its endorsement
[38:38] in a brief written statement or titled letter.
[38:41] I want to end by thanking you all
[38:43] for your time, and note that there are
[38:44] several of us here tonight who would be
[38:46] happy to answer questions. Thank you again so
[38:48] much for listening. Thank you so much. Board
[38:56] members, does anybody have any questions? We've got
[38:59] Rachel, Robin and Ellie here representing folks from
[39:04] the garden. Any questions? You should have received
[39:07] the copy of the letter as well as
[39:10] the statement that they're asking for us to
[39:13] endorse. Any questions? Comments? I have two questions.
[39:24] As we move forward to try to help
[39:27] address racism as a public health issue, information
[39:31] about what's going on would be very helpful
[39:33] to me. So acknowledging that you've said that
[39:38] there have been events, it would help me
[39:41] to know the nature of these, the context
[39:45] in which they occurred. That would just help
[39:49] me on a personal level. And my second
[39:51] question is, how will our support help your
[39:55] efforts? Those are excellent questions. Thank you so
[40:05] much. Robin, I'm gonna ask you to unmute
[40:07] if it's okay so we can address this
[40:09] together. Robin, would you start by detailing just,
[40:13] so first of all, I wanna say, Chris,
[40:15] thank you so much for your question. We're
[40:17] not in a position, obviously, to detail all
[40:19] of the events that have been experienced by
[40:21] black gardeners or gardeners of color, but we're
[40:24] happy to enumerate an example of the kinds
[40:26] of things that we have heard. Robin, would
[40:29] you take that, and then I'll answer the
[40:30] second part of Chris's question. Sure. I'm aware
[40:35] from conversations with gardeners of color of a
[40:39] range of experiences. And I'll just start with
[40:41] my own experience as a white gardener. I've
[40:43] been a gardener for over ten years. I've
[40:45] spent a lot of time in the garden,
[40:47] and I have never once been questioned as
[40:50] to whether I belong there, when I'm gardening
[40:53] or walking through the garden. The most common
[40:56] story that I've heard is the level of
[40:59] interrogation that gardeners of color experience over time,
[41:03] the questioning about whether they belong, what are
[41:06] they doing in that plot, is it their
[41:08] plot, those types of interactions. There was an
[41:12] event, a little over a year and a
[41:14] half ago that spurred on this current work.
[41:18] A young black child was verbally assaulted and
[41:23] accused of theft. And that event, in combination
[41:29] with others, led to multiple black gardeners leaving
[41:31] the garden, feeling that there was a failure
[41:34] to address both what had transpired in that
[41:37] event and and the larger issue of of
[41:39] racial bias and and white privilege and how
[41:41] all of these things play out in a
[41:42] majority white space, which is what this community
[41:45] garden is. I each of the gardeners of
[41:50] color, past and present, that I have spoken
[41:53] with have had their own story to tell
[41:55] about an experience. And, you know, as Rachel
[42:00] said, it's not my place really to, I
[42:04] think, go much further into their stories and
[42:06] their experiences in the garden. But to say
[42:10] that these are the stories we hear all
[42:13] over our country, right, coming out of majority
[42:16] white spaces. I don't think there's I don't
[42:18] think we're an outlier, in the community garden.
[42:21] But I think that as with the rest
[42:25] of our our community and our communities across
[42:27] this country, we we do need to acknowledge
[42:29] that these things are happening and we need
[42:31] to act. So I hope that answers enough
[42:34] of your question, Chris. Yeah. Regarding the nature
[42:37] and context. I apologize. That's the wrong name.
[42:45] I'm Suzanne. Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm so
[42:48] sorry too. Sorry about that, Suzanne. You have
[42:50] no way of knowing. How would you know?
[42:53] Has to be changed at the beginning of
[42:54] the meeting and skip right past that. That's
[42:58] very helpful to me. In reading through the
[43:03] materials, recognize you need to honor people's privacy
[43:08] and not trigger people by having their particular
[43:13] stories spoken about in public without their consent.
[43:19] But I had no idea the nature of
[43:23] what you were referring to. So what you
[43:26] have said was very helpful. Rachel, did you
[43:30] want to answer the second question? I'm happy
[43:33] to answer the second question. Change specifically around
[43:40] racism in this country and in our community
[43:42] is slow. And the endorsement of your body
[43:48] in particular in relation to issues of public
[43:51] health and emphasizing that this is a public
[43:54] health issue amplifies this issue in the community,
[43:58] and that is necessary in order for us
[44:00] to continue to spur change. We're trying to
[44:03] put some pressure to move and also create
[44:06] some collaborative bodies that will help us continue
[44:09] to do this work. Robin, did you want
[44:12] to add anything else to the second part
[44:13] of that question? No, that's perfect, Rachel. So
[44:19] I have some questions. I don't know a
[44:25] whole lot about the garden. I'm not a
[44:27] gardener, but I live very close by and
[44:31] walk through there. And my understanding is that
[44:36] the guarding committee itself is all volunteer. So
[44:42] I guess I'm just wondering, I mean, honestly,
[44:46] to me, this is a little bit of
[44:48] a no brainer in terms of what you're
[44:51] asking, but I'm wondering why it I understand
[44:57] the second part about getting the endorsement from
[44:59] the Board of Health, but I'm wondering why
[45:05] the guarding committee just hasn't said, Sure, if
[45:09] you wanna have a representative, great. So that's
[45:13] a question, I guess. I know they're all
[45:15] very hardworking volunteers with good intent, so that's
[45:22] a question. I'm wondering if there are any
[45:29] Black or brown people that are part of
[45:31] your group, thinking about the whole thing of
[45:37] nothing about us without us. It feels a
[45:41] little funny to me if everybody in your
[45:45] group are white people who are saying this
[45:49] is what kind of needs to happen. So
[45:52] there's that. And I guess the third thing
[45:54] is just around governance in general of the
[45:57] guarding committee. Is there a decision making process
[46:02] for how things happen there? What is the
[46:04] governance so that this could move forward? If
[46:10] you don't mind, I'm gonna take your questions
[46:12] a little bit out of order and speak
[46:13] to first the fact that we are a
[46:16] group of white people, although I will say
[46:18] that some gardeners of color have signed on
[46:20] to our initiative, but as a body of
[46:22] people who has been working together, we are
[46:24] the delight people. In no way would we
[46:29] ever presume to speak for or stand in
[46:32] the way of any initiative brought to the
[46:34] garden by people of color. And I firmly
[46:38] believe that this is a white problem that
[46:41] exists in the community garden, and it's time
[46:43] for white people to step up and respond
[46:45] to that problem so that people of color
[46:47] can go about the business of gardening in
[46:50] the garden in a safe and thoughtful and
[46:52] in a way that in which they feel
[46:56] welcomed and white people have not created that.
[46:59] So I agree with what you said, you
[47:03] know, nothing for us without us. I think
[47:07] that that is excellent, and I also believe
[47:11] that it's time for white people to do
[47:12] this work. I will say that at one
[47:16] point in the process, shortly after the incident
[47:19] that Robin mentioned, we were offered to take
[47:23] a seat on the garden committee to speak
[47:27] to issues of racism and racial equity. And
[47:30] that offer was retracted. And we don't really
[47:33] know why that is. The only thing we've
[47:37] heard with regard to why the garden committee
[47:40] has not been able to work with us
[47:43] is a response about capacity and timing. And
[47:46] I think Robin can speak a little bit
[47:48] more to some of the opaqueness of how
[47:50] the garden committee works. Well, my answer to
[47:56] the question about governance structure and how it
[47:58] works is that I I I don't I
[48:00] don't know. I I have the same questions,
[48:04] I think, that you do. I know some
[48:07] of the members of the committee, though I'm
[48:08] not aware of who all of them are.
[48:10] We have, throughout the process of doing this
[48:14] work, reached out a number of times to
[48:16] the committee to share our concerns, to share
[48:18] our suggestions, to share our interest, to provide
[48:21] updates. But, the response we've received is that
[48:26] at one point, it was that they didn't
[48:27] have the expertise to discuss the issue. At
[48:29] another point, it was that they didn't have
[48:31] time to meet with us. So I I
[48:32] I don't know enough about the governance structure
[48:36] or how committee members are selected or how
[48:38] decisions are made to to answer that question.
[48:41] I apologize about that. I wish I did.
[48:44] I just want to Oh, could I say
[48:46] something, Rachel? Are you Okay. Thing number one,
[48:50] it's very opaque. The whole governance governance of
[48:53] the garden committee is opaque. There are a
[48:56] couple of people who seem to be running
[48:59] everything and they get a lot of work
[49:02] done and they're very effective in the actual
[49:05] work of the garden in terms of you
[49:08] know getting the hay the straw to be
[49:10] delivered and the compost and all that and
[49:12] to get people to do some garden work
[49:15] but I'd also like to point out that
[49:17] we have very few black gardeners or brown
[49:20] ones either and I think that a lot
[49:22] of that is because quite a few of
[49:24] them have left and the one I've spoken
[49:30] to a couple of the black gardeners who
[49:32] are actually more than a couple the brown
[49:35] gardeners just aren't interested in getting involved in
[49:38] this They just don't want to. And I
[49:41] spoke to one black gardener and he said
[49:43] he just just was like no because he
[49:48] was I think he was afraid but I
[49:50] don't know that. I've also seen, I've witnessed
[49:54] evidence of this kind of challenging people of
[49:59] color who come to the garden for some
[50:02] reason or another, and they're asked why they're
[50:04] there. And I've seen that happen twice in
[50:07] my time there which I'm sure it's happened
[50:10] more often and we do have one black
[50:13] gardener who thought about leaving when everybody else
[50:16] left but she decided to stay and she
[50:20] has a beautiful garden, amazing garden and she
[50:24] and so does the gentleman who didn't want
[50:27] to be involved and she and there aren't
[50:29] that many there just aren't that many black
[50:32] people. There are quite a few there's like
[50:35] a large contingent of Guatemalan gardeners formerly Guatemalan
[50:41] now American gardeners who are really prolific gardeners
[50:46] wonderful gardeners but they are not just not
[50:49] interested in all the ins and outs of
[50:53] our discussion so that's my been my experience
[50:56] and I walked around asking people to sign
[51:00] so I've had a lot of experience just
[51:03] trying to figure out who was interested and
[51:06] who wasn't or who was afraid and I
[51:09] felt fear you know from the man and
[51:12] from the woman she's willing to join on
[51:15] and I'm pretty sure she will be part
[51:18] of this group our group very soon. So
[51:23] other than that, I mean, think I know
[51:25] of only one other black gardener besides those
[51:28] two I mentioned, and there may be more,
[51:30] but this this is the problem. We're not
[51:32] we're not making it accessible we're not bringing
[51:35] people in and so if we're not bringing
[51:38] people in and people have left it gets
[51:40] wider and wider and wider you know okay
[51:43] so that's really all I had to say
[51:45] I'm sorry. Thanks, Sally. Is it true that
[51:49] the garden falls under Parks and Recreation? That
[51:53] is correct. It's a program of the Department
[51:55] of Parks and Rec. Have you approached them
[51:58] at all about how what what the governance
[52:00] structure is and how one gets on the
[52:02] garden committee and that kind of thing? We
[52:05] all of the conversation that we have had
[52:08] about, our work has been transmitted both to
[52:11] the garden committee and to the parks and
[52:14] rec commissioner. Actually, director of the department. Sorry.
[52:19] And the director of the department of recs.
[52:21] And again, the response back has been minimal
[52:27] at best. Thank you. Any other questions or
[52:32] comments from the board members? I'd just like
[52:38] to comment that the city has a gem
[52:42] with the community garden, this beautiful piece of
[52:46] land. I just want to harken back to
[52:51] some work Grow Food Northampton does, not owned
[52:55] by the city but on city property, and
[52:58] how they outreach to several populations equating food
[53:07] and justice and health as all the same
[53:10] thing. For their plots and their land, the
[53:14] process is completely transparent. As a matter of
[53:17] fact, it's on sliding scale and land is
[53:22] often donated to gardeners of color. Gardeners of
[53:26] color that may not even know how to
[53:28] farm or garden are taught that. And so
[53:31] we have an example in the community. It's
[53:35] a nonprofit. And I just think we have
[53:38] so much potential to do the same thing
[53:41] in the city's community garden. And I just
[53:44] want to harken back to the city council's
[53:47] resolution similar to our resolution. The city council
[53:51] said in 2020 that they were going to
[53:54] establish a department of diversity, equity and inclusion.
[53:58] They never have. So the Human Rights Commission
[54:02] is kind of carrying that and with very
[54:06] little authority. We too adopted a resolution saying
[54:11] linking racism to health. And so I think
[54:17] we have an opportunity here. So I hope
[54:20] we can endorse the recommendations and also perhaps
[54:26] write a letter of support. I'm going to
[54:29] share, see if I can share my screen,
[54:33] and I'll just put up the proposed language.
[54:38] Let's see if this works. Does that work?
[54:55] Okay. So this is the statement that, the
[55:00] garden committee that you guys are looking for
[55:02] us to endorse. And we would put it
[55:05] in a letter form. Joanne, may I add
[55:13] one thing? Sure. Mhmm. Just to clarify, the
[55:17] proposal that we would be looking for you
[55:18] to endorse is essentially two parts. One is,
[55:23] adoption of the statement, and the second is
[55:25] creation of a dedicated seat on the garden
[55:28] committee to essentially lead facilitate implementation of the
[55:32] effort. So there's the two parts to the
[55:34] proposal. Well, I think as part of the
[55:40] in the role of Board of Health, we
[55:42] can choose to adopt a statement. But, I
[55:45] mean, I think we could support the idea
[55:47] of a dedicated position on the garden committee,
[55:49] but obviously we don't have authority over that.
[55:53] My thought was simply endorsement of our proposal.
[55:57] Of course, you don't have authority to enact
[55:58] any of those things. Right. Any other comments?
[56:08] Does anyone want to make a motion? I
[56:19] think your work is certainly in line with
[56:22] the statement that we put together a couple
[56:27] of years ago about racial disparity and health
[56:30] and how they're intertwined. Would anyone like to
[56:37] make a motion? I move that the Board
[56:44] of Health adopt and support the resolution that
[56:48] was presented to us by the, what's called
[56:51] the Community Garden Committee and perhaps write a
[56:58] formal endorsement as well. So you're proposing adopting
[57:03] that statement or acknowledging that statement and supporting
[57:08] the dedicated position on the garden committee, both
[57:11] parts? Yes. With a letter. Did that affect?
[57:19] Yes. Thanks, Joanne. Is there a second for
[57:24] that? I'll second it. Thank you, Dallas. Any
[57:28] other discussion? I guess I just wish we
[57:39] had a little more information from the guarding
[57:44] committee itself or the Parks and Rec, like
[57:51] Because I just don't understand why with the
[57:59] explanation that this group has been given, which
[58:04] is not really an explanation, I I don't
[58:11] know if there's something, if we're going to
[58:13] do this, if we can also in our
[58:18] letter make a statement about how we, I
[58:24] mean, all the boards, everything's interconnected an effort
[58:30] to be a healthy community. So we would
[58:35] want to see, like, the Parks and Rec
[58:41] Committee be involved in this? Do you want
[58:51] to make an amendment to Cynthia's proposal that
[58:57] asks for Parks and Recs to have transparency?
[59:00] Well, I guess I'd like to know what
[59:01] Board members think of that idea. I just
[59:10] think that asking Parks and Rec to come
[59:15] to the Board of Health meeting on this
[59:18] particular issue, think I have to trust the
[59:24] presenters having gone to the Parks and Rec
[59:28] Commission And also, I think you all went
[59:31] to their meetings, right, and made statements. Have
[59:34] you done that, just to clarify? So I
[59:39] can address that. Our anticipated, next stop, and
[59:44] we've been making our choices about who we've
[59:47] spoken with and who we presented to based
[59:49] on really support and recommendations we've been receiving
[59:53] from individuals and representatives throughout the city, I
[59:57] I anticipate our next stop is to go
[1:00:00] back to parks and rec to the Commission.
[1:00:02] HAB We were hoping to be added to
[1:00:04] their agenda I'm not sure that that's going
[1:00:06] to happen, so I expect our next stop
[1:00:08] will be public comment at a Parks and
[1:00:11] Rec Commission meeting. One of the and so
[1:00:16] to be able to appear there with the
[1:00:18] same message we provided to you and to
[1:00:20] indicate support from both the Human Human Rights
[1:00:23] Commission and Board of Health would be powerful,
[1:00:27] I think. But that that is our anticipated
[1:00:30] next stop, if that helps fill in some
[1:00:33] of them. That's good. Yeah. I think that
[1:00:38] that's appropriate. Absolutely, appropriate than perhaps us calling
[1:00:42] in or calling out parks and recs this
[1:00:45] point. Yeah, no, I wasn't suggesting that we
[1:00:48] do that. I just was trying to figure
[1:00:53] out how we do understand them, understand what
[1:00:58] is the perspective. Mhmm. Rachel? It might be
[1:01:06] useful to hear, and I'm sorry that I
[1:01:07] didn't mention this earlier, and I know that
[1:01:09] you're in the middle of a vote, that
[1:01:10] the outreach to the garden committee when black
[1:01:15] gardeners left the garden was significant. Several gardeners
[1:01:20] wrote letters, several garden neighbors wrote letters. There
[1:01:23] was Oh, we've lost you. We lost you
[1:01:38] for a minute, Rachel. Are you back? I'm
[1:01:41] back. I'm back. Can you did you hear
[1:01:44] the part that I said that after several
[1:01:46] black gardeners left the garden? So let me
[1:01:48] reiterate. After several black gardeners left the garden,
[1:01:51] there was tremendous outreach from gardeners and garden
[1:01:55] neighbors to the garden committee to to say
[1:01:59] this is a problem, and there was no
[1:02:01] response to any of those. So, Janet, your
[1:02:06] I share in your being confounded about the
[1:02:09] lack of responsiveness. The only thing that we
[1:02:13] have been told is that it's a capacity
[1:02:14] and timing issue. We haven't heard anything else.
[1:02:18] Dallas? Yeah. Thank you. To me, this feels
[1:02:25] you know, while it's important to know the
[1:02:26] context and important to know what you know,
[1:02:29] how Parks and Rec and others may have
[1:02:31] responded or not or the the garden committee,
[1:02:35] the proposal on the table around the equity
[1:02:38] and sustainable statement in advancing racial equity and
[1:02:41] enhancing the health of the natural environment. I
[1:02:43] mean, that seems like something that would be
[1:02:46] in line of what we voted before as
[1:02:49] a board in our philosophy in general. And
[1:02:52] so regardless of how others may have reacted
[1:02:56] to this, it seems like the proposal on
[1:02:58] the table is in line with what our
[1:03:02] mission generally. Right? Thank you. Any other comments?
[1:03:08] We do have a proposal on the table.
[1:03:12] Any other discussion? Comments? Board members? Cynthia, do
[1:03:21] you want to restate your or is that
[1:03:24] too hard? I think you wanted to adopt
[1:03:30] the proposal, which was two parts, adopt the
[1:03:33] statement and support their interest in a dedicated
[1:03:41] position on the garden committee, and we would
[1:03:43] put that information in a letter. Was that
[1:03:47] your Well said for the motion. Thank you.
[1:03:52] Point of clarification, letter to whom? I mean,
[1:04:02] I'm just thinking here. I would recommend the
[1:04:05] director of Parks and Recreation and also perhaps
[1:04:10] the mayor. I was going to say Parks
[1:04:14] Recreation, the mayor and city council. I mean,
[1:04:16] this should be sort of. It's my understanding
[1:04:20] that some city councilors are involved in this
[1:04:22] initiative. Robin or Rachel, can you verify that
[1:04:26] or have been made aware of this issue?
[1:04:28] There are a number of city councilors who've
[1:04:30] been made made aware of the issue whom
[1:04:32] we've had informal conversations with. Those that I'm
[1:04:35] aware of have all expressed strong support. I
[1:04:38] believe there are still a handful we may
[1:04:41] not have yet had conversations with, but I
[1:04:44] believe the majority is aware of this initiative.
[1:04:49] All right. Any other questions or comments? You're
[1:04:54] ready for a vote? I'm going go around
[1:04:56] my screen. Suzanne? Yes. Cynthia? Yes. Janet? Yes.
[1:05:05] Dallas? Yes. Joanne? Yes. Thank you very much.
[1:05:10] Thank you all for your hard work. We
[1:05:12] appreciate your coming, and we appreciate all that
[1:05:15] you have done. You've taken a lot of
[1:05:18] time and gathered a lot of people to
[1:05:21] do this work. So thank you. Thank you
[1:05:25] so much. Will formalize that and get a
[1:05:29] copy of that to you. Thank you so
[1:05:32] much to all of you. We really appreciate
[1:05:34] your time and engagement and support. Thank you.
[1:05:38] Thank you so much. Thank you. All right.
[1:05:45] I apologize to the other people on our
[1:05:48] agenda for having to wait around, but we're
[1:05:50] moving along. Amy, do you want to introduce
[1:05:56] Kiko? Hi, Kiko. Welcome. If you'd like to
[1:06:00] introduce yourself, tell us a little bit about
[1:06:02] you and what you do at DHHS. Thanks,
[1:06:06] Amy, and hello, everyone. Thank you, Chair Levin
[1:06:08] and everyone for having me this evening. Can
[1:06:10] you hear me okay? Yes. Okay. So my
[1:06:14] name is Keiko Mallon, and I am the
[1:06:16] Prevention Team Director for the City of Northampton
[1:06:19] Department of Health and Human Services, and I'm
[1:06:21] grateful to Commissioner O'Leary for making some time
[1:06:23] on the agenda for me today. I would
[1:06:28] love to learn more about all of you
[1:06:30] and what you do. I've met Dallas before,
[1:06:32] but everyone else I don't know. But I
[1:06:34] guess my goal here is just to tell
[1:06:36] you a little bit about myself and what
[1:06:38] I do at DHHS. I don't know how
[1:06:41] much background you all have about this work,
[1:06:43] so I'm just going to try to give
[1:06:44] a high level overview. If there are questions,
[1:06:47] please feel free to jump in. Just a
[1:06:50] little bit about myself. I am a seasoned
[1:06:52] public health professional. I've been doing public health
[1:06:54] work for more than three decades. I'm a
[1:06:58] Massachusetts native. I grew up in the Boston
[1:07:00] area, but I moved out West in the
[1:07:02] late 80s. First public health job was working
[1:07:05] for a feminist women's health center in Portland,
[1:07:08] Oregon. We were an abortion provider, so I
[1:07:10] cut my public health teeth on public health
[1:07:12] activism, women's health, and being on the front
[1:07:15] lines of a very controversial line of work.
[1:07:18] From there, did lots of other things, ended
[1:07:20] up in California when I did my master's
[1:07:23] in public health at UC Berkeley, and also
[1:07:25] social work. I have a dual degree. I
[1:07:28] came back to the East Coast actually after
[1:07:30] that, and I was in Vermont for a
[1:07:32] while running a startup nonprofit called Grounds for
[1:07:35] Health, which is still in existence today that
[1:07:37] was founded by Green Mountain Coffee Roasters and
[1:07:40] a couple of other coffee companies in Vermont
[1:07:42] to provide healthcare services to women in coffee
[1:07:45] growing communities. So that was a wonderful I
[1:07:48] really loved being back in New England. California
[1:07:50] called me back. I went back for another
[1:07:52] almost two decades and I'm now back in
[1:07:55] Massachusetts because my mother is getting older and
[1:07:58] felt the need to be closer by. So
[1:08:00] I'm actually living in a big house with
[1:08:02] my husband, my father-in-law, and my mother, which
[1:08:06] has been interesting. In making this huge plan
[1:08:09] to come to Western Mass, I was so
[1:08:11] fortunate to meet Meredith and to be able
[1:08:14] to find this job that I'm now loving
[1:08:17] at the Department of Health and Human Services.
[1:08:19] So my background really is in maternal child
[1:08:21] health. Most of the work that I've done
[1:08:22] is women's health, maternal child health. I'm learning
[1:08:25] about substance misuse prevention, substance use prevention. That's
[1:08:28] the work that our prevention team does. But
[1:08:30] my knowledge of public health principles, my commitment
[1:08:33] to racial equity this last conversation is very
[1:08:36] much in line with so much of the
[1:08:37] work that I've done in public health. My
[1:08:39] last job was working for Alameda County Public
[1:08:41] Health Department, which has a pretty good national
[1:08:44] reputation for being on the cutting edge of
[1:08:46] understanding that public health is social justice and
[1:08:48] that racial justice is integral to ensuring the
[1:08:51] health of all members of our community, that
[1:08:54] no one is free when others are oppressed.
[1:08:56] This is certainly an ideology that I embody
[1:08:58] in all of my work. Getting to know
[1:09:01] the demographics here in Western Mass, which are
[1:09:03] very different from those of Oakland, California, I
[1:09:05] think you can probably imagine. So that's been
[1:09:08] a shift. A big part of my work
[1:09:09] in the past has been looking at the
[1:09:11] disparate rates of infant mortality, that Black babies
[1:09:14] die at two to three times the rate
[1:09:15] of White babies, Black mamas die at three
[1:09:18] to four times the rates of White mamas,
[1:09:19] and how this is something that is a
[1:09:21] result of structural racism and can only be
[1:09:23] addressed by dismantling structural racism. So, is the
[1:09:27] sort of the viewpoint that I bring into
[1:09:29] my work. What I do at the Department
[1:09:31] of Health and Human Services is I have
[1:09:33] five staff who report to me. One of
[1:09:35] them is the Hampshire Hope Coalition Coordinator. So
[1:09:38] Hampshire Hope is our coalition that was founded,
[1:09:40] I believe, in 2015 to address the opioid
[1:09:43] epidemic, a multidisciplinary, very diverse stakeholder organization that's
[1:09:49] been doing incredible work engaging people in the
[1:09:53] community to understand how we can work together
[1:09:55] to reduce deaths from opioid overdoses. Out of
[1:09:59] that program, so the Hampshire Hope coordinator is
[1:10:01] a fairly new person named Taylor McAndrew, who's
[1:10:04] been on the job for about six months.
[1:10:05] She reports to me and is beginning to
[1:10:08] think deeply with the coalition about the opioid
[1:10:10] settlement funds and how those can be used
[1:10:12] to address this ongoing issue in our community
[1:10:16] and really the voices of people who use
[1:10:19] drugs and their families and understanding the best
[1:10:21] way to spend that money, which was people
[1:10:24] who were hurt by what happened in the
[1:10:26] opioid industry are the ones who should be
[1:10:28] helping us to figure out how to spend
[1:10:29] those funds. So excited about that work that
[1:10:32] she'll be thinking about. Out of Hampshire hope
[1:10:34] came a program called the Drug Addiction Recovery
[1:10:36] Team or DART, which is fairly well known
[1:10:39] in Northampton. We've expanded from Northampton out into
[1:10:43] many communities in Hampshire County, as well as
[1:10:46] Hampden County and Berkshire County. The Drug Addiction
[1:10:49] Recovery Team is a post opioid overdose outreach
[1:10:51] effort. So we work with first responders, law
[1:10:54] enforcement, EMS, fire. It varies from community to
[1:10:57] community. The people who are responding to the
[1:11:00] scene of an overdose and helping to get
[1:11:02] that person the attention that he or she
[1:11:05] or they might need. So really very client
[1:11:07] centered, the referral is made into our system,
[1:11:11] and then we connect person with a recovery
[1:11:13] coach who can really understand what that person's
[1:11:16] goals are. Harm reduction focused really just it's
[1:11:19] about saving lives. It's not necessarily about getting
[1:11:21] people to detox or mandating recovery. It's about
[1:11:24] understanding what's going on with folks and connecting
[1:11:27] them to those resources that they most need
[1:11:28] to be the healthiest they can be. That
[1:11:31] program is an amazing program that is going
[1:11:34] through lots of changes now as we expand,
[1:11:36] and we have also two new staff, our
[1:11:39] two DART coordinators who report to me who
[1:11:41] are doing this work and getting to know
[1:11:42] them and getting to know our partners and
[1:11:45] understanding how we can strengthen and further expand
[1:11:47] the DART program has been really interesting for
[1:11:49] me in these last six months that I've
[1:11:51] been on the job. We also have Kara
[1:11:54] McLaughlin, who is the Northampton Prevention Coalition Coordinator.
[1:11:58] So that's our primary prevention coalition. So substance
[1:12:02] use prevention, she works mostly with youth in
[1:12:05] the Northampton Public School System, primarily in the
[1:12:07] high school, but is also engaged with elementary
[1:12:11] school staff and students, as well as the
[1:12:13] middle school. And Kara is also somebody who
[1:12:16] is really a champion for and racial equity
[1:12:19] in our community and involving young people. So
[1:12:23] again, nothing about us without us, really wanting
[1:12:25] to have much more authentic youth engagement on
[1:12:28] the coalition and to encourage everyone to think
[1:12:31] about our privilege as white people. Many of
[1:12:36] us in this work are white people. I'm
[1:12:39] used to working in an environment that's much
[1:12:40] more diverse. So I think we're all really
[1:12:42] thinking about what that means and how we
[1:12:44] can diversify our work workforce, and Cara is
[1:12:46] certainly at the forefront of that conversation. And
[1:12:49] then finally, I work also with Melissa Alouisi,
[1:12:52] who is a brilliant technology manager who is
[1:12:55] helping us to think about our database infrastructure
[1:12:58] and a burgeoning health information exchange data repository
[1:13:02] that will be a place where we can
[1:13:05] sort of collect data sets of publicly available
[1:13:09] de identified data related to opioid overdose, but
[1:13:12] also other public health concerns that the public
[1:13:14] can access. We're working on building that. It's
[1:13:16] a ways off, but she is the person
[1:13:18] championing that and is really doing a wonderful
[1:13:21] job. I didn't mention the names of the
[1:13:23] two DART coordinators. They are Kathy Cotunio and
[1:13:25] Kate Shapiro. So I think that's kind of
[1:13:28] the high level of what I do. I
[1:13:30] also have some responsibility for the Public Health
[1:13:32] Excellence Grant, which I think some of you
[1:13:34] may be familiar with, which is really about
[1:13:36] regional infrastructure building for public health in the
[1:13:40] Commonwealth Of Massachusetts and in Western Mass, where
[1:13:43] we have fewer public health resources compared to
[1:13:46] the Eastern part of the state. So really
[1:13:48] thinking about how we can share our expertise
[1:13:50] in the city of Northampton to help smaller
[1:13:52] boards of health be able to meet the
[1:13:54] public health needs in their communities. I do
[1:13:56] some administrative responsibilities related to that grant. I
[1:13:59] know I'm a fast talker, something that East
[1:14:02] Coast people are a little bit more open
[1:14:03] to than West Coast people, but I hope
[1:14:05] I didn't overwhelm you with too much information.
[1:14:08] That was fairly clear, and I'm happy to
[1:14:10] take any questions. Thank you. That was very
[1:14:13] clear and very comprehensive, and welcome. You. Board
[1:14:18] members, any questions? Do we say your name
[1:14:21] Kiko? It's Kiko. Yeah, Kiko Mallon. Questions? Comments?
[1:14:28] Not a question. Just so happy you're here.
[1:14:31] It's just going to be great to work
[1:14:33] with you. Thank you so much. It's wonderful
[1:14:35] to meet all of you and to listen
[1:14:37] to this conversation today. Really appreciate all of
[1:14:39] your thoughts about these issues. Thank you for
[1:14:43] coming. Sure. Thanks, Kiko. Oh, I forgot one
[1:14:49] thing. Could I if I just could have
[1:14:50] one more minute, which is that February is
[1:14:52] Black History Month. And I was chatting with
[1:14:55] Meredith about what we might do as a
[1:14:58] Department of Health and Human Services to recognize
[1:15:00] that. I'm thinking about it's an opportunity to
[1:15:03] obviously reinvigorate our commitment to racial justice, but
[1:15:06] it's also really an opportunity to celebrate Black
[1:15:08] excellence, Black joy. What is it that we
[1:15:12] want to do? I don't know that we've
[1:15:15] decided just yet. We're thinking about APHA and
[1:15:18] other public health associations will obviously put out
[1:15:22] language and messaging about Black History Month, and
[1:15:25] we may do some posts on our Facebook
[1:15:28] page. There was maybe some thought about a
[1:15:30] proclamation or some kind of statement, So I
[1:15:33] just wanted to raise that as something maybe
[1:15:35] for you all to think about as we
[1:15:37] also figure out what we're doing internally. If
[1:15:42] anybody has any recommendations or thoughts about that,
[1:15:46] we could send them to Kiko or Meredith.
[1:15:48] And if you have a proposal for us,
[1:15:50] why don't you bring that through Meredith, and
[1:15:53] she can send it to us. How's that?
[1:15:55] That sounds great. I'll do that. Thank you.
[1:15:57] Great. Thank you so much. All right. Darrell,
[1:16:04] thanks for staying with us. No problem. All
[1:16:09] right. Next on our agenda is to review
[1:16:12] the model, state tobacco regulation recommendations. And so
[1:16:24] we got a lot of information and some
[1:16:26] confusing documents. So we have a document that's
[1:16:32] called twenty twenty two model regs. And that
[1:16:35] has some checkboxes on that front page. And
[1:16:38] then we got one that was 2023. And
[1:16:42] it's a little confusing because there was nothing
[1:16:44] checked on the front of that one. But
[1:16:47] I think I reviewed this with Meredith and
[1:16:51] I think we're going to use the 2023
[1:16:53] document. And what I did is I sort
[1:16:56] of checked off the boxes on that front
[1:16:59] page. So let me see if I can,
[1:17:01] we can use that front page as sort
[1:17:04] of a way to frame our discussion, of
[1:17:07] take a topic, one topic at a time.
[1:17:10] Cynthia? Yes. Joanne, can I just give a
[1:17:14] little background for our Yes, yes, sure? So
[1:17:19] this is really making the sausage, Janet, and
[1:17:24] Dallas. So What we have done up to
[1:17:26] this point has been a little bit different.
[1:17:30] To let you know, Cheryl Sabara has been
[1:17:33] in the tobacco world work for many, many
[1:17:36] years. Forty five. Oh, jeez. Okay. Hi, Janet.
[1:17:43] I worked with her for the first ten
[1:17:46] of them maybe. And the reason Cheryl's here
[1:17:50] is because she has so much history. And
[1:17:52] the reason we do what we do here
[1:17:54] is that Meredith reminded me today we had
[1:17:57] regs in 2012, '20 '14, '20 '15, '20
[1:18:01] '18 and 2020. So about every two years
[1:18:06] what happens is the tobacco companies get smart
[1:18:10] and then people like Cheryl go to court
[1:18:13] and find out if we could just tweak
[1:18:15] our language a little bit we wouldn't have
[1:18:17] lost so many cases. And so that's why
[1:18:19] Cheryl is here. And so I think I'm
[1:18:22] going to steal your word Cheryl, this is
[1:18:24] a whack a mo game doing this kind
[1:18:27] of policy. We do it on a regular
[1:18:30] basis. It appears to be pretty tedious but
[1:18:33] I think the way it's outlined tonight, what
[1:18:37] our history in Northampton has been is that
[1:18:40] we're a little bit more aggressive in our
[1:18:44] tobacco regulations. Is that the right word Cheryl?
[1:18:48] Yes, although the state law was much more
[1:18:52] comprehensive than we ever anticipated it would be.
[1:18:56] And when did state law get updated? That
[1:18:59] was just this fall? It was passed by
[1:19:01] It was signed by Governor Baker in November
[1:19:04] of twenty nineteen. It went into effect immediately
[1:19:08] as to the electronic nicotine delivery systems. The
[1:19:12] combustible pieces went into effect in June of
[1:19:15] twenty twenty. Oh, I thought it was more
[1:19:18] recent than that. Well, COVID makes it seem
[1:19:21] much more recent because there wasn't a lot
[1:19:24] of activity, when the law actually went into
[1:19:27] effect because no one was going into stores.
[1:19:30] Yeah. So just to give you that history,
[1:19:33] the state had a set of regulations but
[1:19:36] we always had a stronger set in this
[1:19:39] community because we really take serious the impact
[1:19:43] of tobacco on children. So now the state
[1:19:46] has kind of upped its game, but we
[1:19:48] want to make sure that our regulations reflect
[1:19:52] with this board how we want to approach
[1:19:54] this particular issue. I just wanted to give
[1:19:57] you that background. Suzanne has been here forever.
[1:20:00] She knows how we tweak these things and
[1:20:04] we have some opportunities tonight to do some
[1:20:07] different things. Just wanted to provide you with
[1:20:10] that because I know there were a lot
[1:20:11] of documents going back and forth But I
[1:20:14] think the latest latest one you got that
[1:20:16] says yes and no and may not have
[1:20:18] colors on it. I think, we could walk
[1:20:20] through that. So thank you for that time.
[1:20:23] Yeah. So Cheryl has been our guide and
[1:20:26] we often and usually take her recommendations. I'm
[1:20:30] going to share let's try my share my
[1:20:33] screen again. So this is the 2023 sample
[1:20:44] regulations. And what I did is I answered
[1:20:47] these yesno questions. Meredith put it in this
[1:20:51] format basically to say which things we already
[1:20:55] have in our regulations and which things we
[1:20:57] need to discuss. So if it says yes,
[1:21:01] that means we've already approved it and it's
[1:21:03] in our current local regs. And if it's
[1:21:07] no, that it's something we need to address
[1:21:09] whether we want to include it or how
[1:21:11] we want to include it. So Meredith suggested
[1:21:15] that we go through this checklist. I thought
[1:21:17] we'd do that first and then we can
[1:21:20] go through the document. And I have colors
[1:21:22] on my document. I don't know if you
[1:21:24] do, but I have green and yellow, yellow
[1:21:27] being the state regs and green being the
[1:21:31] proposed local regs. But we can do that
[1:21:33] in a minute. I'm sorry, Joanne. Meredith asked
[1:21:37] me to remind everyone that we are not
[1:21:39] voting on anything. We are just having a
[1:21:42] discussion about a direction and then we'll get
[1:21:46] a draft and then probably another draft. So
[1:21:49] there's no votes tonight. That's the way I
[1:21:52] understand it, right? Right. Yeah. So once we
[1:21:55] sort of have this discussion and sort of
[1:21:57] have a proposal of what we would want
[1:21:59] to include in our new regs, Meredith will
[1:22:02] put it all together. And we'll have a
[1:22:04] draft document. And we can discuss that. And
[1:22:08] we're not actually going to vote on it
[1:22:10] until we have a hearing, a forum, a
[1:22:12] public forum, so we can get input from
[1:22:16] the public. And that would be the time
[1:22:18] that we vote. But we would probably want
[1:22:20] to come to a consensus on what we
[1:22:22] are interested in including in our proposal that
[1:22:25] goes that gets presented to the public. Does
[1:22:29] that sound right, Cheryl? Yes. So let's go
[1:22:33] through these. No permit renewal if there's an
[1:22:37] outstanding fine. We already have that in our
[1:22:41] regs. Unless someone has a problem with that,
[1:22:44] I don't think we need to have any
[1:22:46] further discussion. Just stop me if you have
[1:22:48] a question. No permit renewal if three sales
[1:22:51] to persons 21. I believe we already have
[1:22:54] that in our regs. I need to I
[1:22:58] don't think you do. But we can check
[1:23:03] on that. Okay. Because that's a relatively new
[1:23:07] strategy. Do you have any comments on We
[1:23:12] had started going through this before. I can't
[1:23:16] see the top of this. Is this still
[1:23:17] say 2022 on it? This top of this
[1:23:20] one is the 2023. It's slightly different. This
[1:23:24] the last thing that got sent out? Yes.
[1:23:27] Just went with the agenda, but there were
[1:23:30] lots of documents. At least on my computer,
[1:23:33] they end up all over the page and
[1:23:35] I miss some of them. A little confusing,
[1:23:37] but I do, I have, when we started
[1:23:41] going over the same thing that said 2022
[1:23:44] on the top. They really are the same.
[1:23:46] It did say that we had discussed that
[1:23:50] we did have that number two. That's what
[1:23:53] Meredith has said. What I have for your
[1:23:57] 2022 says you don't. But I can just
[1:24:02] follow-up with that. That's no big deal. Okay.
[1:24:05] Well, let's talk about it. How do people
[1:24:07] feel about that? If there's three sales to
[1:24:09] persons 21, which we think is sort of
[1:24:11] a big no no, Do we not renew
[1:24:19] their permit? Cheryl, the state regs are thirty
[1:24:24] six months? The state regs are thirty six
[1:24:27] months and what you would do before you
[1:24:30] would not renew a permit, you would have
[1:24:32] them in for a hearing determine whether or
[1:24:35] But if our regs say that the, what
[1:24:42] do you call it, tolling? Tolling period. The
[1:24:44] tolling period. That's a question you're going to
[1:24:47] have to decide. Right, because like in the
[1:24:50] case we just discussed, if the three times
[1:24:54] happened over a period of eight years, that's
[1:24:56] a very different thing to consider than if
[1:24:59] it happened over a period of thirty six
[1:25:02] months. That's one of the issues that you
[1:25:05] need to think about. You want to keep,
[1:25:08] well, we're jumping all over right now, there
[1:25:13] are two potentials here. Number one, you could
[1:25:18] go with the state penalty and tolling period
[1:25:22] if you want for all of the sections
[1:25:26] that are in the state law, And you
[1:25:29] could continue doing what you do locally, which
[1:25:33] is no tolling period for those that are
[1:25:37] unique to Northampton. That's one approach. The other
[1:25:41] approach would be to get rid of tolling
[1:25:44] periods altogether and just go back to the
[1:25:48] beginning of time and if, you know, there
[1:25:51] are three violations in twenty years or whatever,
[1:25:58] you know, you could do it that way.
[1:26:01] It's really up to you how you want
[1:26:03] to do that. Do you have any, do
[1:26:06] you have a recommendation? Well, I mean, years
[1:26:10] is a long time. I don't know. It
[1:26:17] would really be up to you and your
[1:26:19] staff. Do you have records that would go
[1:26:22] back? I mean, how long do your records
[1:26:25] go back? I don't know. You know, and
[1:26:30] how long do they go back for each
[1:26:33] retailer? Is it different? I don't know. So,
[1:26:38] I've been asked this question once before and
[1:26:41] now I think it's probably, it was probably
[1:26:43] Lisa, my colleague from MMA, that asked it
[1:26:46] because of you. We don't have any municipalities
[1:26:50] that don't have any tolling period. In fact,
[1:26:53] most municipalities had either twenty four or thirty
[1:26:57] six months. Now they can, the twenty four
[1:27:01] months are invalid because they're less strict than
[1:27:05] the state. But again, you know, I it's
[1:27:07] it's up to you. You don't have, you
[1:27:10] could have, you know, forty eight month, you
[1:27:13] could have a four year instead of a
[1:27:14] three year. It's really your decision. It's it's
[1:27:19] not frequent that we, well, we haven't seen
[1:27:25] no tolling period at all. But except in
[1:27:30] Northampton. I guess our goal was just not
[1:27:34] to continue to permit recurrent offenders like what's
[1:27:40] going to change? Well, that is why and
[1:27:44] I checked your regulation does not have it.
[1:27:47] Your current regulation does not have it. But
[1:27:50] if someone sells three times within a three
[1:27:54] year period, that's egregious and you may want
[1:27:58] to revoke that permit, not suspend it, but
[1:28:01] revoke it. There's another section in the new
[1:28:05] regulation that would say if there's any, if
[1:28:08] if the board thinks any violations, if if
[1:28:12] you have four or more violations and they're
[1:28:14] egregious, then you may want to revoke it.
[1:28:18] I mean, it's, there are two different sections
[1:28:21] that deal with revocations of permits. So it's,
[1:28:28] you may just want to reconsider it, whether
[1:28:30] you want to do no time limit at
[1:28:35] all, or you want to stay with what
[1:28:37] the state law says. I'm looking at the
[1:28:42] proposed regulations here in the case of four
[1:28:45] violations or repeated egregious violations of any section
[1:28:50] of the regulation as determined by the Board
[1:28:53] of Health and what we put in here
[1:28:56] is within a thirty six month period, the
[1:28:59] board shall hold a hearing, and after the
[1:29:01] hearing, may permanently revoke the tobacco sales permit.
[1:29:04] That's a pretty big stick if you're going
[1:29:07] to permanently revoke it. What do you consider
[1:29:09] egregious? Are there some things that are more
[1:29:11] egregious than others? Well, yeah. I mean, I
[1:29:14] think not having signs up is probably not
[1:29:17] egregious. I think selling to someone under the
[1:29:21] age of 21 once a year is pretty
[1:29:26] egregious. I think selling flavored tobacco products is
[1:29:31] pretty egregious and what we're seeing, what's happening
[1:29:34] now is that because the law is so
[1:29:38] strict, the state law is so strict, those
[1:29:41] stores that are tobacconists, you call them, we
[1:29:44] call them adult only retail tobacco stores, those
[1:29:47] stores now cannot sell flavored products. So the
[1:29:51] only advantage they have over a regular convenience
[1:29:57] store is that they can sell high test
[1:29:59] liquid nicotine. That's it. They can't sell anything
[1:30:02] else. So what we're seeing across the state
[1:30:06] is we're seeing these stores, needing to either
[1:30:12] change their business plan or they're selling illegal
[1:30:15] product product because they can't survive as a
[1:30:19] smoke shop that can only sell unless they're
[1:30:22] high end tobacconists that sell, you know, that
[1:30:25] have always sold, you know, high expensive cigars.
[1:30:30] Otherwise, smaller tobacconists, their business plan is not,
[1:30:36] has been basically wiped out by the new
[1:30:38] state law. Cheryl, would we not have to
[1:30:42] define egregious, which sounds like a complicated matter?
[1:30:49] Well, egregious is one of those words that
[1:30:52] I would not have used, but for violations
[1:30:56] or repeated violations. So if, you know, we
[1:31:01] have some really unfortunately, we have some stores
[1:31:06] that are selling out of the back windows.
[1:31:10] They're hiding their flavored tobacco products in microwaves,
[1:31:16] and taking them out when they know people
[1:31:18] that are coming in. They're selling tobacco that
[1:31:23] doesn't have any excise stamps on it or
[1:31:26] that has out of state excise stamps on
[1:31:29] them. The DOR is confiscating cases and cases
[1:31:35] of menthol tobacco. So, think it's egregious is
[1:31:41] really, it's hard when you see it, you
[1:31:45] know it. When they've been reported to the
[1:31:49] Department of Revenue and, you know, you're getting
[1:31:52] calls and complaints about them. You know, we
[1:31:55] caught a furniture store selling flavored tobacco products
[1:31:59] to the kids that knew to go to
[1:32:01] that furniture store after school. So if it
[1:32:05] walks like a duck and talks like a
[1:32:06] duck, it's a duck and that's where the
[1:32:10] egregious piece comes in. So, I would go
[1:32:15] ahead. I'm sorry, go ahead, Suzanne. I was
[1:32:17] gonna say, if we're at the point of
[1:32:22] contemplating withdrawal of a licensure, think there would
[1:32:30] be substantial pushback if we had not defined
[1:32:34] egregious. I hope we don't get there, but
[1:32:39] that all leads me to the fact that
[1:32:43] I think that we had, I go back
[1:32:47] to a wise person, Cheryl Sabaro, who once
[1:32:49] said earlier on this call, we're all about
[1:32:52] compliance. Compliance, right. Not being punitive. And I
[1:32:59] think that there's trying to get to compliance
[1:33:05] and the other is confusing people who have
[1:33:08] to follow these regulations. And I think when
[1:33:10] we diverge from the state regs, especially updated
[1:33:15] state regs, we cause confusion, which does not
[1:33:21] help compliance. Correct. So by and large, unless
[1:33:26] there's something that really jumps out at me
[1:33:29] in this list, my perspective is to go
[1:33:34] with the new regs. Well, I think it's
[1:33:39] not really a question of going with the
[1:33:41] new regs. We have to take the state
[1:33:43] regs. No, I mean not going any stricter.
[1:33:47] We've always gone stricter. Half of our statement
[1:33:50] has been things other than And Cheryl's recommendation
[1:33:57] have been items that have not been in
[1:34:00] the state reg. So we've always done that.
[1:34:04] Can I jump in for a second? I
[1:34:05] know that, when we, do adapt regulations and
[1:34:09] we go to the hearing and it passes
[1:34:11] that the plan would be to have like
[1:34:14] a really strong education plan to like get
[1:34:17] them there because it is confusing for them.
[1:34:21] They're still confused on no menthol so we
[1:34:23] want to you know really do our best
[1:34:26] to to get them there. And then I
[1:34:28] know I'm jumping because Cheryl said we're still
[1:34:31] up at like, I think number two. But
[1:34:33] Cynthia, when we talked to Meredith today and
[1:34:36] we talked about the first violation, the state
[1:34:39] says one in seven, she was clear on
[1:34:41] saying one and second violation, seven days and
[1:34:44] third violation, thirty days. She wanted to say
[1:34:47] fourth violation would be permit revocation. That whether
[1:34:54] regardless of egregious, that would be her step
[1:34:59] as far as, like, the the violations that
[1:35:04] then will match up, I think, with the
[1:35:06] fines. Well, and then you need to consider
[1:35:10] if you don't have a tolling period, it's
[1:35:13] four violations from the beginning of time. Yeah.
[1:35:16] And I think that's what Suzanne was getting
[1:35:19] at, was saying we're about compliance, not about
[1:35:22] punishment. If someone hasn't had an offense for
[1:35:25] ten years and then has one that's technically
[1:35:29] a fourth offense, but they happened back in
[1:35:33] the 30s, do you really, does that, is
[1:35:38] that, are you getting compliance there or are
[1:35:41] you punishing? Right, right. Well, I think we
[1:35:44] would start fresh from these new regs. So,
[1:35:47] me just tell you what Conquer did a
[1:35:49] couple of nights ago. They did something that
[1:35:52] Suzanne has sort of suggested here. They have
[1:35:57] asked me to draft a reg that just
[1:36:00] incorporates the state law and that also has
[1:36:04] whatever is currently in existence in your own
[1:36:09] regulation, your own local strategies that are already
[1:36:15] in this reg. And that's what they wanted
[1:36:18] to do first. And they wanted to vote
[1:36:22] on that. And then, you know, a little
[1:36:25] bit, you know, further down the line, they
[1:36:28] would consider looking at other issues. And one
[1:36:32] of the reasons they wanted to do that
[1:36:34] is because right now, every retailer in Northampton
[1:36:40] has to comply with the state law, whether
[1:36:43] it's in your regulations or not. And Donna
[1:36:45] can attest to that. The collaborative and Meredith,
[1:36:51] there's been a lot of education, a lot
[1:36:53] of outreach, a lot of visits about what
[1:36:56] the state law says. Everyone's aware of what
[1:37:00] the state law says or should be because
[1:37:02] they've received written information, emails, and in person
[1:37:07] visits. So if you did just adopt the
[1:37:11] state, incorporate the state sections into what you
[1:37:16] currently have, you could do that even without,
[1:37:19] you could do it by voting, but you
[1:37:22] wouldn't even need to hold a public hearing
[1:37:23] because you're not changing anything. You're just incorporating
[1:37:28] what is already the law and then ones
[1:37:31] that have been the law since 2020. That's
[1:37:34] one approach that's pretty simple. Although in your
[1:37:43] case you would have to determine what you
[1:37:44] want to do with that tolling period. So
[1:37:48] I'm a little confused. Are you proposing that
[1:37:52] we keep our local regs and sort of
[1:37:55] mix in the state regs, which is what
[1:37:56] we're I'm saying that's an easy way to
[1:37:59] do it, but it doesn't incorporate some of
[1:38:03] the new strategies that we have. But it
[1:38:06] doesn't eliminate the strategies we've already put in
[1:38:10] place. It does not eliminate them at all,
[1:38:14] but it doesn't add some of the strategies,
[1:38:18] like the density strategies that are out there
[1:38:20] now. It doesn't incorporate them, you know, then
[1:38:25] you can do it the traditional way and
[1:38:27] just we'll look at all of this, we'll
[1:38:30] have a few working sessions, we'll go through
[1:38:32] it. There aren't that many new strategies that
[1:38:36] are in here for you because you've adopted
[1:38:40] a lot of these already. So it's up
[1:38:43] to you how you want to do this.
[1:38:46] And I know we're just on number two
[1:38:50] now. Yeah. There's so much to discuss. It
[1:38:55] seems to me that the tolling period's really
[1:38:58] crucial. It is. In all of these in
[1:39:03] all of It is. Mean, shouldn't we start
[1:39:06] with that knowing and making a decision about
[1:39:11] that? I that would be a prudent way
[1:39:14] to approach it because that really colors everything.
[1:39:19] Right. If I can just jump in for
[1:39:23] one second, I want to reiterate something that
[1:39:25] Cheryl just brought up, being a tobacco control
[1:39:27] officer with the Pioneer Valley Tobacco Control, we
[1:39:31] visit each and every store in Western Mass,
[1:39:34] 29 towns, actually 31 towns now, multiple times
[1:39:39] throughout the year. Not only educating, we're visiting
[1:39:43] and doing price checks for the state. We're
[1:39:45] bringing youth in to try and purchase tobacco.
[1:39:48] But the education part of it is the
[1:39:49] biggest part we do. And we spend a
[1:39:51] lot of time with the owners and the
[1:39:53] clerks, any anybody who's working at the store,
[1:39:56] answering questions, pointing out some of the items
[1:40:01] that they're carrying that may be, something they
[1:40:04] shouldn't have on their shelves, including still menthol
[1:40:06] and flavored items as they've known, you know,
[1:40:09] in three years now. So, we're repeating and
[1:40:12] repeating and repeating and repeating, the same information
[1:40:16] over and over. So, that egregious word comes
[1:40:18] in because I think mainly because, you know,
[1:40:22] you still get after all this education over
[1:40:25] and over and over multiple times throughout the
[1:40:26] year, they still say, oh, I didn't know.
[1:40:29] So, it's hard to really, you know, say,
[1:40:32] Oh, okay. So, how do we get that
[1:40:34] point across? We really do spend a lot
[1:40:39] of time with each and every one of
[1:40:40] them. We give out our cards, we give
[1:40:42] them our personal numbers, you know, we're constantly
[1:40:45] bringing in, guidance, you know, handouts, you know,
[1:40:49] answering any questions they might have, any anything
[1:40:52] at any time. If they have even a,
[1:40:55] you know, a vendor in the store saying,
[1:40:57] You can buy these, go ahead. You know,
[1:40:58] you can carry these. Don't worry about it.
[1:40:59] It's not in your estate laws. They can
[1:41:02] call us and say, Hey, before I purchase
[1:41:04] this, what do you think about this? Are
[1:41:05] they pulling the wool over our eyes? So,
[1:41:07] I mean, we really are out there giving
[1:41:09] them an abundance of education on where these
[1:41:12] laws are and even their local laws. Thank
[1:41:18] you. So, where to start? Well, I think
[1:41:29] Janet is on to something, but I think
[1:41:32] we can go through the checklist if you
[1:41:35] want to share your screen again. I think
[1:41:39] we if we just concentrate on these strategies
[1:41:44] and whether you have them or don't have
[1:41:46] them, I think that's a good idea. And
[1:41:50] is that this is, is that how you
[1:41:56] circle these? Because normally when we circle these,
[1:41:58] we circle these as to this is what
[1:42:00] I like to include in the regulation. This
[1:42:03] is whether they're currently in our policy or
[1:42:08] not. So I think number two is written
[1:42:10] wrong, as you say, that you think that's
[1:42:12] not currently in our policy. Number three is
[1:42:16] wrong, and number three is wrong also. We
[1:42:19] do have a cap, but I guess we
[1:42:22] do a Yes. Yeah. We do, but the
[1:42:24] question was whether we wanted to modify that.
[1:42:28] Okay. Well, you have a simple cap and
[1:42:30] you have the reducing cap. Okay. And I
[1:42:36] don't know you have a different license for
[1:42:38] a tobacconist than you do for a retail
[1:42:42] tobacco store. We do. Yep. I don't know
[1:42:52] what the difference is because I don't see
[1:42:55] a difference in the capping, but we can
[1:42:58] look at it. But you do. You have
[1:43:00] a separate, you have a tobacconist establishment permit
[1:43:03] holder and a regular permit holder. Oh, it's
[1:43:08] not clear whether that includes both? The cap
[1:43:11] includes both? No, the tobacco establishment is your
[1:43:18] definition of tobacconist, which is a store that
[1:43:23] doesn't allow anyone in who's 21. So you
[1:43:28] have two different permits and then you have
[1:43:30] a permit holder. So you have a tobacconist
[1:43:33] permit holder and a permit holder. I'm not
[1:43:37] sure why you have two. Well, think the
[1:43:42] tobacconists used to be able to sell flavors.
[1:43:44] Is that right? Yes, they did use to
[1:43:46] be able to sell flavors. Right. So maybe
[1:43:50] that's why you, but so did the, well,
[1:43:53] so did the convenience stores, but I, that's
[1:43:55] all right. Well, we can work on, I
[1:43:58] don't know that you need two separate permits
[1:43:59] is what I'm Unless you want to cap
[1:44:04] the number of tobacconists in the town versus
[1:44:08] the number of permit holders. Sounds like the
[1:44:11] new regulations cap Make it so strict. Yeah.
[1:44:16] There's no advantage to being a tobacconist anymore
[1:44:20] Unless you're a high end cigar shop and
[1:44:24] then you've always been that. I think Meredith
[1:44:28] wanted to look at what was our cap
[1:44:30] and then if we were under our cap,
[1:44:33] could we reduce it to where we were
[1:44:36] now? So say our cap is 20 and
[1:44:39] we only have 16 permits out there, let's
[1:44:41] reduce it to 16 and then we could
[1:44:43] always keep going if that's what we wanted
[1:44:45] to do, or we could stay there. I
[1:44:47] I Yeah. What we norm what the normal
[1:44:49] language is is that you set a cap
[1:44:52] and then the way you do it, also
[1:44:54] have the advanced cap so you would retire
[1:44:57] permits that were not that were returned because
[1:45:01] the person doesn't sell tobacco anymore or they
[1:45:04] close the business and don't sell it to
[1:45:07] someone else who wants a convenience store. And
[1:45:09] then you put language in there that says
[1:45:12] and the number of permits shall be reduced
[1:45:17] based on the number of permits that have
[1:45:19] been turned in. Right now your reg says
[1:45:21] 29. Right. I remember discussion about the difficulty
[1:45:30] in reducing the cap upon a sale of
[1:45:35] a business. We've cleaned that up. Okay. In
[1:45:39] the new language, it's much more clear. This
[1:45:44] is why I advocate starting from the position
[1:45:48] of the new state regs. Yeah, but the
[1:45:50] new state regs, of course, doesn't, don't address
[1:45:53] capping in the new state regs. So we've
[1:45:57] cleaned up, the TA providers have cleaned up
[1:46:00] the language on the capping section that I
[1:46:04] think will make you very happy because it
[1:46:05] it it's much cleaner. And you clearly, I
[1:46:09] don't think you have 29 anymore, right? Yeah,
[1:46:13] I don't think so. Yeah, so you would
[1:46:15] start with whatever the current number is. At
[1:46:18] one of the meetings I was at, and
[1:46:20] I've only been to a few, I think
[1:46:23] Meredith must have said that we have 24
[1:46:25] currently. Okay, that would make sense. So we
[1:46:30] could start there and then decrease them as
[1:46:32] they get returned. It seems as though we
[1:46:35] have decreased that cap every single time we
[1:46:38] have revisited these regs. Yeah. Which is great
[1:46:41] news. Which is great. That's a success. Absolutely.
[1:46:46] So if a business is sold, they can
[1:46:49] still transfer that license? The business, and this
[1:46:53] is a political decision, if the business is
[1:46:57] sold, let's say one convenience store is selling
[1:47:01] their entire business to a new owner. Okay.
[1:47:06] The new owner has the ability to capture
[1:47:08] that permit because when you're selling your business,
[1:47:12] you're selling your business with all the permits
[1:47:14] that you have. So, Newburyport tried years ago
[1:47:20] to change that and say once the business
[1:47:22] was sold, the permit gets retired and caught
[1:47:25] so much heat for it because the person
[1:47:27] who was selling their business had certain permits
[1:47:31] that allowed that business to operate. If they
[1:47:35] got rid of the tobacco sales permit, then
[1:47:37] that business wasn't as valuable as it was
[1:47:41] when it had the tobacco sales permit. So,
[1:47:43] as much as we might want to say
[1:47:45] we can't convert to a new owner, it
[1:47:49] just doesn't work politically. As long as it's
[1:47:52] a bonafide purchaser for value. You don't want
[1:47:55] sham sale. You want to make sure it's
[1:47:57] a real person who's coming in and buying
[1:48:00] it and someone's not just transferring it to
[1:48:02] their spouse or their child or something along
[1:48:05] those lines. I think our regs say that
[1:48:07] they can do that, but they have to
[1:48:09] reapply. Yes. We just clean the language up
[1:48:12] so that it's much easier to make sense
[1:48:16] of. So can I do we want to
[1:48:21] agree on that about reducing to whatever our
[1:48:24] current number is? Any comments on that? That's
[1:48:32] been our history and it's worked well for
[1:48:34] us. Yeah. Anybody else? You can't reduce it
[1:48:37] lower than what you currently have because then
[1:48:40] somebody has to turn in their permit for
[1:48:43] Yeah, I think actually one year we did
[1:48:45] the number we had plus one or something
[1:48:48] like that. Yeah, yeah, probably. Any other comments
[1:48:53] about that? Recommendation about no new permits within
[1:49:01] 500 feet of a school. We don't have
[1:49:03] that. No, we don't. Permits within existing within
[1:49:08] certain number of feet of an existing permitee.
[1:49:11] So those are density strategies. Meredith thought we
[1:49:16] should hold off on those because looking at
[1:49:21] environmental justice considerations. Yep. It's a thought and
[1:49:27] what you usually will find and DPH can
[1:49:33] run this for you is when you look
[1:49:36] at where your sales permits are and you
[1:49:39] map it out, you'll see that they're normally
[1:49:42] clustered in EJ districts. That's where you see
[1:49:48] the most permits, which is why there's the
[1:49:53] no new permit within x number of feet
[1:49:56] from an existing one to try to get
[1:49:58] to those clusters. But I get that. If
[1:50:02] you wanna wait on those two, then wait
[1:50:05] on those two. Cheryl, am I understanding that
[1:50:09] the four and five are not in the
[1:50:11] new state regs? Yes, those are local. Are
[1:50:16] local. Those are local strategies. All the capping
[1:50:18] strategies are local. Okay. So the things that
[1:50:23] we do currently have is the ban of
[1:50:26] smoking bars. It's not in this regulation. It's
[1:50:28] in our indirect It's in your secondhand smoke
[1:50:30] regulation. Minimum cigar packaging You have that. Pricing.
[1:50:37] Banning blunt wraps, we have that. You have
[1:50:39] that. Banning free distribution, we have that. You
[1:50:43] have the coupons. You have the self-service. You
[1:50:47] don't have an exemption for tobacconists, but I
[1:50:50] don't think you I don't know. I mean,
[1:50:52] the reason we added that exemption language is
[1:50:56] just because now that youth can't get into
[1:51:00] those stores, is there a rationale anymore for
[1:51:03] banning self-service displays? That's a decision you can
[1:51:09] make. And with some of these that you
[1:51:12] already have, we do have some better language,
[1:51:16] but it's the same regulation. So that's what's
[1:51:21] highlighted in green in the rest of this
[1:51:23] document is sort of Yeah, the green are
[1:51:25] the local strategies, know, statewide the local strategies.
[1:51:32] Yellow are the ones that are in the
[1:51:35] state law. So number 12. We have educational
[1:51:43] institutions. Right. Then the finding structure. That's the
[1:51:49] big one. It's a big one and the
[1:51:51] tolling period. Thirteen and fourteen. We want to
[1:51:55] align our finding structure to be the same
[1:52:00] as the state and basically I think Meredith's
[1:52:05] proposal is you take the state regs and
[1:52:08] our local regs and make them one document
[1:52:11] so that local stores have one document to
[1:52:14] look at. It's all in one place and
[1:52:18] our finding structure would be at the end
[1:52:20] and it's the same as the state structure.
[1:52:24] So it's not so confusing. Like, you know,
[1:52:26] we were all confused with this last hearing
[1:52:28] because is it a state reg or a
[1:52:30] local reg and all that stuff. So I
[1:52:33] think that's the proposals we do what the
[1:52:36] state does. Does that sound right, Cheryl? Yeah,
[1:52:40] that's what what many people are doing. Some
[1:52:43] municipalities like Medford, for instance, their Board of
[1:52:47] Health did not want to find someone a
[1:52:53] thousand dollars for a local penal for a
[1:52:57] local violation because they were concerned that these
[1:53:01] fines are so high and most of their
[1:53:04] stores are mom and pop stores. So they
[1:53:08] wanted to separate them out because their board
[1:53:11] was very concerned about the high level of
[1:53:15] fines. The other option the rationale behind unifying
[1:53:20] them is that it's really hard for a
[1:53:23] collaborative that has 31 different municipalities to know
[1:53:30] which are the local strategies versus the state
[1:53:35] strategies if they're working with an old regulation.
[1:53:40] Our new regulation, we have a program that
[1:53:45] we divide them out so that it's very
[1:53:47] clear for your tobacco inspectors to see which
[1:53:52] are state and which are local. So those
[1:53:56] are the pros and cons of both of
[1:53:58] them. So the fining structure is not in
[1:54:03] the new state regs? Yes, it is. Oh,
[1:54:06] it is. It is. The fining structure for
[1:54:09] the violations of the state law are 1,000,
[1:54:14] two thousand, five thousand. You determine the days
[1:54:20] of suspension, but it's 1,000, 2 thousand, 5
[1:54:24] thousand. So that's for selling to someone 21,
[1:54:28] not having the signage, selling flavored tobacco products,
[1:54:32] not having the manufacturer's letters, it's it's it's
[1:54:36] for almost any everything. Ban on free distribution,
[1:54:40] self-service out of package, those are all state
[1:54:43] laws. Selling without a permit, having a high
[1:54:47] nicotine contact in electronic delivery systems, most of
[1:54:52] the stuff is pursuant to the state law.
[1:54:57] The ones that wouldn't be are the sale
[1:54:59] of blunt wraps, ban on smoking bars, that
[1:55:04] those are local, the regulation of cigars, having
[1:55:08] tobacco sales in healthcare institutions and educational institutions,
[1:55:14] a requirement of displaying the mass DOR licenses,
[1:55:19] you know, violating the density minimums, those would
[1:55:25] be local. So the vast majority are state
[1:55:28] and then there are like a dozen or
[1:55:31] so local penalties. It would seem to me
[1:55:35] having two different fining structures would be extraordinarily
[1:55:40] confusing to us going forward and to the
[1:55:44] people with these licenses. Yeah, I yeah, that's
[1:55:48] what most people think. Are most municipalities keeping
[1:55:54] these documents separate or are they merging them
[1:55:57] into one? They're merging them. Janet? I guess
[1:56:03] I'm unclear about the idea of the two
[1:56:06] in terms of the fines with what you
[1:56:08] just said about, I think you said Medford.
[1:56:11] Because doesn't Medford, like all of us have
[1:56:15] to, I mean, might feel that it's too
[1:56:19] high a fine, but they still have to
[1:56:22] fine. Oh yeah, they have to fine at
[1:56:24] the 1,000, 2 thousand 5 thousand, except for
[1:56:28] the ones that I just talked about. Instance,
[1:56:31] they have a cigar packaging regulation that's not
[1:56:34] in the state law. So if you violate
[1:56:37] the cigar packaging regulation, you can get a
[1:56:40] $100 fine because it's not part of the
[1:56:42] state law. Okay. But so did they keep
[1:56:45] it as two separate documents or not? No,
[1:56:48] they put it in one document. Right. And
[1:56:50] then I can't share my screen right now,
[1:56:53] but then we have a list of which
[1:56:55] policies are subject to the state law fines
[1:56:59] and which are subject to the local regulation
[1:57:01] fines. So even though they thought that a
[1:57:04] thousand is too much. They can't do anything
[1:57:07] about that. I just wanted to be clear
[1:57:09] about that. Yeah, except if it's just a
[1:57:12] local strategy, not a state one. And we
[1:57:15] put them in one document. You still are
[1:57:17] just gonna have one document. You're just gonna
[1:57:19] have two columns with which fines are state
[1:57:22] fines and which fines are just local. And
[1:57:24] is your organization willing to actually put that
[1:57:28] document together? We've already done it. I mean,
[1:57:31] for us. Meredith sent you over a sample
[1:57:38] template. Oh, yeah. Just scroll down and you'll
[1:57:41] see it. It all the way up to
[1:57:43] 13. Yeah. So this combines so that what's
[1:57:47] in green is Key local. And what's yellow
[1:57:51] is mandatory is from the state. So But
[1:57:53] keep going. Go. Go. Go. Go. All the
[1:57:56] way down to 13, and you'll see how
[1:57:58] it's set up, Janet. The fines? Yes. I
[1:58:03] mean, it just So here you go, next
[1:58:04] page. So here's what we did. Again, we
[1:58:07] should have only one document. This is one
[1:58:10] document. But here it is. If you go
[1:58:12] with not unifying the fines, then you have
[1:58:16] a list that we created this list. Obviously,
[1:58:19] that's all the state fines, which is the
[1:58:22] same for everyone. And then the local policies
[1:58:25] are going to be unique to Northampton, whatever
[1:58:28] Northampton has, which isn't hard for us to
[1:58:32] take out. Right, so as long we decide
[1:58:37] that we wanna stick with all of what
[1:58:39] the state says and not go Then we
[1:58:42] take out both of these columns. Right. The
[1:58:45] columns are there for those folks like Medford
[1:58:49] who want separate finding structures. So now I'm
[1:58:54] confused, Ian, because I thought what you're saying
[1:58:56] is we wouldn't have, we'd have the same
[1:58:59] finding structure for all the things that are
[1:59:01] under state reg. Yes. But then for additional
[1:59:05] things, we have to have our own finding
[1:59:07] structure because you don't have a finding structure
[1:59:09] for things that aren't in the state regs.
[1:59:11] No, I'm making it more confusing than it
[1:59:14] needs to be. You can have these fines
[1:59:18] have to be 1,000, 2 thousand, 3 thousand
[1:59:21] for those that are state. Those that are
[1:59:24] in your local regulation, you can either choose
[1:59:28] to make all the fines the same as
[1:59:31] the state's or you have the legal authority
[1:59:35] to make your own violations 100, two hundred,
[1:59:40] three hundred or whatever. You can do whatever
[1:59:42] you want with ones that with violations that
[1:59:45] are not state violations. Right. Is that clear?
[1:59:51] Yeah. Okay. And then we put it all
[1:59:53] on one document. You put it up like
[1:59:55] this. You put it all on one document.
[1:59:59] Then you will have, if you see, you
[2:00:02] know, we say for the violations of all
[2:00:04] sections specific to Northampton, the fines are one,
[2:00:10] two, and three, or whatever it is. And
[2:00:13] then there's a section that says for those
[2:00:15] that are state violations, the fines are this.
[2:00:18] And the state one is going to be
[2:00:19] above that, I think. I think it'll be
[2:00:21] on page 11 or something. Yes. And we
[2:00:24] specify here, if you go back down, I'm
[2:00:28] sorry. If you go back down under the
[2:00:31] penalty section, you'll see violations. And then we
[2:00:35] have option one, which is to have state
[2:00:39] local distinctions between the fines. And then we
[2:00:43] have an option two, which is to have
[2:00:47] unified fines. Option two. Unified fines. And you
[2:01:01] don't need to make this decision tonight. You
[2:01:03] know, I can draft a regulation for you
[2:01:06] that has both of these options and you
[2:01:08] can decide, you know, when you're good and
[2:01:11] ready, what you what you wanna do. You
[2:01:18] want me to go home, I'm sure. Or
[2:01:22] just leave the meeting. So do you have
[2:01:25] a recommendation? So you said Medford is having
[2:01:29] their own? Well, I think it's much easier
[2:01:33] to just have a unified finding structure, especially
[2:01:37] since the vast majority of the regulations are
[2:01:39] going to be state violations anyway. But it's
[2:01:43] also, you know, you're increasing a fine from
[2:01:46] $100 for not selling cigars in the right
[2:01:51] packaging to a thousand. So, you know, it's
[2:01:55] unfortunately or fortunately for me, it's a decision
[2:01:59] that you need to make. Can I ask
[2:02:03] Donna a question about that Donna as far
[2:02:05] as like writing up that order to correct
[2:02:07] cease and desist stopping selling flavored tobacco and
[2:02:12] then defining both the state fines at a
[2:02:15] different price and then the local fines at
[2:02:19] their currently lower price? Does that make it
[2:02:22] more difficult or does it make sense? No,
[2:02:26] no, makes it more difficult as long as
[2:02:27] it's clear in the regulation on what the
[2:02:30] fine structure is and what falls under those.
[2:02:33] It's pretty clear. Okay. That's why we did
[2:02:37] the columns so that an inspector would have
[2:02:39] the regulation and could see which is which.
[2:02:44] Where it gets tough is when you have
[2:02:46] different, communities, different municipalities that are doing different
[2:02:50] things. Just got to familiarize yourself with what
[2:02:53] they're doing, and take a look at that.
[2:02:54] Which is challenging. Yeah, it is. That's where
[2:02:56] it gets confusing. And the suspension periods we
[2:03:02] decide? Yeah, the state requires that they be
[2:03:07] not less than or not, yeah, for a
[2:03:11] second offense, it's not less than one or
[2:03:15] more than seven unless a municipality wants them
[2:03:18] to be higher. So they give a lot
[2:03:22] of leeway on, except for that first sale
[2:03:25] to someone under 20 one. So yeah, you
[2:03:28] can set them. I think Meredith talked about
[2:03:32] where first violation says one to seven. She
[2:03:34] was just thinking one and then second violation
[2:03:37] seven. I think that makes perfect sense. And
[2:03:40] the third thirty. Third thirty. And then fourth,
[2:03:43] she really was talking about bringing them in
[2:03:46] to see whether they want to revoke the
[2:03:48] permit. And we have municipalities that have revoked
[2:03:53] permits, which has never happened before. We have
[2:03:57] this non no tolling period, but I've been
[2:04:00] on this board. I don't know how many
[2:04:02] years it is now. Fourteen, fifteen years. We've
[2:04:05] never revoked one. But we could have today.
[2:04:11] We could have in the hearing. Yeah. Based
[2:04:14] on So, I mean, it just shows how
[2:04:20] having a lack of a tolling period means
[2:04:26] you could be giving different judgments to different
[2:04:31] establishments based on number of years or how
[2:04:35] closely they're clustered or whatever, which is a
[2:04:39] judgment call. It's cleaner if we just use
[2:04:44] a unified finding structure does anyone have any
[2:04:55] thoughts about the tolling period because our current
[2:04:57] regs say no tolling period but it is
[2:05:00] pretty harsh Any other thoughts on that? Has
[2:05:08] it ever gotten in the way of anything
[2:05:10] that we tried to do? I would have
[2:05:17] to I think the way to I'm wondering,
[2:05:21] and I don't know the answer to this,
[2:05:23] but I'm wondering if Northampton is actually looked
[2:05:28] at when someone violates the law, if they
[2:05:31] actually look at the previous offenses. I don't
[2:05:34] know. And I don't know if Donna would
[2:05:36] know, because I don't think she's You've been
[2:05:39] doing this for a few years, right? Yeah,
[2:05:41] I've been doing the control of the CCO
[2:05:44] for about five years, but not at Northampton.
[2:05:47] Yeah, so going back, I don't remember Meredith
[2:05:51] ever mentioning to me a revocation because someone
[2:05:57] had three offenses that went back. No, no.
[2:06:00] I don't recall that either. I haven't I've
[2:06:02] looked back at some of the violations that
[2:06:04] have happened in the city and I've never
[2:06:06] seen where that's ever happened. Yeah. So I
[2:06:09] don't know whether you've been She has looked
[2:06:12] back like in this case, we did hear
[2:06:15] that there were two violations in the I
[2:06:17] don't know how far back they go. And
[2:06:20] I think moving forward, if we did it,
[2:06:22] we would start fresh. Everyone would have to
[2:06:24] start fresh because it's all new. But I
[2:06:28] guess that brings up the question is having
[2:06:30] no tolling period, is that fair? Well, you're
[2:06:35] also, I think, gonna have to look at
[2:06:37] what the violation actually is because selling to
[2:06:41] someone 21 is a relatively new law. So
[2:06:46] are you gonna go you probably could go
[2:06:48] back to someone 18 with not too much
[2:06:52] resistance, but selling flavored tobacco products, you did
[2:06:58] it in 2020. So there wasn't that law
[2:07:02] in effect fifty years ago. So would you
[2:07:08] know, I don't know how I mean, you'd
[2:07:09] have to look at what the violation is.
[2:07:13] Then years and years ago, the violation was
[2:07:15] just selling to someone 18. There weren't all
[2:07:19] of these other do you have a permit?
[2:07:21] Do you sell flavor? Do you sell e
[2:07:24] cigarettes? They didn't exist. So the tolling period,
[2:07:28] someone could argue that, wait a minute, isn't
[2:07:33] a second violation because never because it's a
[2:07:40] new law. I mean, could be argued. I
[2:07:43] mean, defend against that by saying, look, but
[2:07:47] you've had violations for tobacco sales before. But
[2:07:50] I don't. And so, the other thing I
[2:07:53] can mention too, is that we also get
[2:07:55] notices from state, who do their own, and
[2:07:59] also FDA who go in and do their
[2:08:01] own. So, they will let us know that
[2:08:03] they've had a sale. So, it may not
[2:08:05] be us locally doing it and it may
[2:08:07] not be the coalition doing it, but, we're
[2:08:10] getting notices that it's happening elsewhere also. Are
[2:08:13] sales happening. And as far as the tolling
[2:08:15] period, when, you know, I do a lot
[2:08:16] of hearings in a lot of different towns
[2:08:18] and when the, where the tolling period kind
[2:08:21] of comes into play is when, you know,
[2:08:23] they have repeat offenders and they're trying to
[2:08:25] go back to see when the last sale
[2:08:26] was. And when they have that tolling period
[2:08:28] in place, it never fails. They just missed
[2:08:30] it by a day or a week. And
[2:08:32] they're like, well, we got to throw that
[2:08:35] one out because we just passed that thirty
[2:08:38] six month mark. What about the fact that
[2:08:42] I think with this last one that we
[2:08:44] had, there was more than one violation. So
[2:08:48] are those count, is it I mean, you
[2:08:51] went in, Donna, at one time, but there
[2:08:54] were many violations. So municipalities do that. They
[2:08:57] compile. So if you go in and you
[2:08:59] find multiple violations, they can say, here's number
[2:09:01] one, here's number two, here's number three, boom,
[2:09:04] you're already at that Right, so then you
[2:09:06] get to keep that. Most municipalities don't stack
[2:09:11] them unless it's a really bad actor, but
[2:09:14] that's certainly up to you whether you want
[2:09:16] to stack them or not. It sounds harsh
[2:09:23] what we're doing but it also gives us
[2:09:26] a history right? I mean as opposed to
[2:09:30] the clock stopped and now we have a
[2:09:32] clean slate is I don't know it's a
[2:09:36] little bothersome to me. Well you could also
[2:09:39] increase the tolling period if you want to
[2:09:43] five years or to ten years. I'm just
[2:09:47] concerned with no tolling period at all. Okay.
[2:09:51] But you could certainly you could be stricter
[2:09:54] than the state law and have a much
[2:09:56] longer tolling period if you want. Our local
[2:10:04] regs as they are now, is it may
[2:10:07] suspend and not shall? It shall. No, it
[2:10:10] shall. It is shall. Okay. Because I was
[2:10:12] wondering why maybe that's why we didn't have
[2:10:14] suspensions because we could make that discretion. But
[2:10:16] if it was shall, then So we gave
[2:10:23] an exemption to our own regs earlier this
[2:10:26] evening. Well, because the regs, the violation was
[2:10:33] on the state regs and the state regs
[2:10:35] were new. Right. That was Meredith's recommendation. Yeah,
[2:10:39] that make, that's what everyone has been doing.
[2:10:42] Okay. Shell and may could be very important
[2:10:51] if we don't have a tolling period and
[2:10:56] we purposely closed shell because we didn't want
[2:10:59] to have the wiggle room to be swayed
[2:11:04] by one factor or another. We wanted to
[2:11:08] be make sure we were fair to everyone.
[2:11:14] That's why you have Shell. So I think
[2:11:25] the two issues that are still outstanding are
[2:11:28] the tolling period and whether we're going to
[2:11:31] keep the state fines for everything or have
[2:11:33] our own fines. Yep. And you've already you've
[2:11:38] got the cap. We know we want to
[2:11:40] reduce the core number and then we want
[2:11:43] to clean up the language. We're going to
[2:11:46] hold off on the buffer zone around schools
[2:11:50] and around new retailers. I don't know whether
[2:11:54] you want to increase the the price amount
[2:11:57] for the minimum cigar packaging. Oh, that was
[2:12:01] a yeah. Yeah. We tied it to the
[2:12:03] consumer price index and it went up. Cheryl,
[2:12:10] if we specify a price, do we need
[2:12:18] to redo the regs every time we change
[2:12:21] that price? You would need to amend the
[2:12:26] reg because it's now a stricter Well, it's
[2:12:33] tied to the consumer price index. Okay, well
[2:12:35] that So you wouldn't need to because it
[2:12:36] says right in it, it's tied to the
[2:12:38] consumer price index. So no, you wouldn't need
[2:12:41] to do that. You would just send a
[2:12:42] notice to all the retailers saying due to
[2:12:45] the CPI, the prices are now this because
[2:12:49] they know it's tied to the consumer price
[2:12:51] index. That's the adjustment that I was looking
[2:12:56] for. Yeah. Or else we have to have
[2:12:58] a new hearing? No, you don't have to
[2:13:03] do that. Even though it's stricture, but you
[2:13:06] would want to send a letter out to
[2:13:07] them. Sure. All right, I think it's reasonable
[2:13:12] to include that. So tolling period, fining, suspensions,
[2:13:24] and revoking where we're stuck. And it's just
[2:13:36] a draft, right? You might want to talk
[2:13:39] more to Meredith about that and see what
[2:13:45] she thinks. Amy? Because I'm just not certain.
[2:13:54] And again, she would know and Donna would
[2:13:56] know much better than I am, whether you've
[2:13:58] run into cases where you've had to go
[2:14:00] back like twenty years and see what the
[2:14:04] violations have been. I just don't do you
[2:14:07] know Donna whether you've. Yeah, we haven't had
[2:14:11] to go back twenty years, but I don't
[2:14:12] think we would be able to find that
[2:14:14] much history. That's what I'm thinking. You're sort
[2:14:20] of saying even logistically it doesn't make sense.
[2:14:23] Logistically you should have some kind of cap
[2:14:25] on it. Every time someone has come to
[2:14:29] us I just know no matter who the
[2:14:32] inspector was there always was a history. It
[2:14:37] seems like we had the history I don't
[2:14:40] know if the filing system has changed or
[2:14:43] whatever. Well, you would have had the history
[2:14:46] for, let's see, how many Dennis Lacourse did
[2:14:50] some of your inspections, right? Would be records
[2:14:54] of that. Before Dennis, I don't know. Well,
[2:15:00] let's put it, tobacco control, the regulation started
[2:15:04] in about 1994. So I think that's when
[2:15:10] the history probably, the history wouldn't go back
[2:15:13] before that, put it that way. Yeah. Sure.
[2:15:17] Yeah. Most of our stores probably have new
[2:15:18] owners since then, but Yeah. Not all. True.
[2:15:24] So then you'd have to take that into
[2:15:26] consideration because the violation goes with the owner.
[2:15:29] Right. Instead of saying amount of years, can
[2:15:34] we say going back say till 2010, like
[2:15:38] put a year on it? Sure, you can
[2:15:41] do anything. So it'll keep getting longer as
[2:15:45] time goes on, but it wouldn't be anything
[2:15:48] prior to your You could do that. For
[2:15:52] some reason, and I don't know what it
[2:15:54] is, Amy, when you and I were meeting
[2:15:57] with Meredith today, she was, no, we're gonna
[2:16:01] continue our current practice. Well, then that's why
[2:16:04] I said you may wanna talk to because
[2:16:06] they have a reason and she may have
[2:16:10] a strategy and a standard operating procedure for
[2:16:13] this that we just don't know. Yeah. I
[2:16:17] mean, far as fines go, I would say
[2:16:19] let's go with the state fines. They're higher,
[2:16:22] You know, let's just go with that. They
[2:16:24] are. It is easier. Easier. I I mean,
[2:16:27] I feel comfortable with that. With the unified,
[2:16:30] right? Yeah. And then we'll take the lower
[2:16:34] end of the suspensions of one, seven and
[2:16:36] thirty. Mhmm. And potentially the fourth as a
[2:16:42] permit revocation. Mhmm. And we can take out
[2:16:45] the word egregious. Because his hand doesn't like
[2:16:50] this. Well, just think I don't blame you.
[2:16:54] If it's not defined, I think people can
[2:16:57] always protest it and I would prefer it
[2:17:00] to be cleaner. You know, Suzanne, that word
[2:17:04] came up again this afternoon when Amy and
[2:17:06] I were talking Meredith and Donna you probably
[2:17:10] know this that each inspector sort of has
[2:17:13] a sense of what's egregious or not and
[2:17:17] know and it's one of those gut level
[2:17:20] things and to put a definition around it
[2:17:24] it's situational it is contextual. Oh I appreciate
[2:17:30] that but if we're going to have the
[2:17:36] our penalties based on egregious and we haven't
[2:17:41] defined it, I think that's problematic. I totally
[2:17:44] agree with you. It's just funny the word
[2:17:46] just keeps coming up. Well, I guess the
[2:17:49] question is, you know, if someone's having a
[2:17:51] fourth violation and where you know can revoke
[2:17:54] their permit, and their only violation is that
[2:17:57] they charge $2.50 a whatever a cigar instead
[2:18:02] of $2.90. Are we going to feel good
[2:18:04] about that? Well, believe the language for that,
[2:18:08] for the egregious section, says May. May permanently
[2:18:18] revoke. So there's discretion there with the egregious
[2:18:22] piece. So if we're for violations of not
[2:18:25] having a sign or selling a single cigar,
[2:18:29] you may revoke it. You don't have to
[2:18:31] revoke it. Mhmm. That's the only place where
[2:18:35] it says May. And what about like the
[2:18:44] signs, signage? The signage drives me crazy. Because
[2:18:50] not only, you know, the DPH, when they
[2:18:54] draft, when DPH drafted the regulations that accompany
[2:18:58] this law, they added an additional $50 fine
[2:19:02] for not having the signs. So it's technically
[2:19:05] a thousand dollars and a thousand $50 if
[2:19:08] you don't have these signs, which we testified
[2:19:12] in opposition to that, but they left it
[2:19:14] in. When I say we, was at the
[2:19:17] time it was I testified in opposition to
[2:19:19] it and DJ did at the public council
[2:19:22] hearing, but they left it in. So, yeah.
[2:19:34] It seems silly to me. But again, inspectors
[2:19:38] do, and I'm sure Donna does it as
[2:19:39] well, if they don't have the signs, you
[2:19:41] go in and you bring them the sign.
[2:19:44] You don't fine them a thousand dollars and
[2:19:46] a thousand $50, you just bring them the
[2:19:48] sign and they put it Don't you think
[2:19:51] Donna it's more like when you go in
[2:19:53] and you find menthol and you find this
[2:19:56] and you find the no excise and then
[2:19:58] they don't have the signs then you. Right,
[2:20:00] then it almost seems blatant that they're just
[2:20:03] like you know, I'm with Charlotte, the sign
[2:20:06] thing can drive you crazy. You know, there's
[2:20:09] always a reason why they don't have them,
[2:20:10] either they took them down to paint or
[2:20:12] they fell down, they needed a new one,
[2:20:13] it wore out, it's behind something. It's, you
[2:20:15] know, lottery comes in and covers it. So,
[2:20:17] try to peel it, it's gone. So, I
[2:20:20] go through signage. I think the state wants
[2:20:22] to kill me for how much signage I
[2:20:24] go through, but I carry it with me
[2:20:26] every time I go out and I hand
[2:20:28] them out like it's candy. It's, one of
[2:20:32] those things. You just got to keep giving
[2:20:34] them to them. So you, so basically you
[2:20:36] wouldn't cite someone for just that. You just
[2:20:40] give them a sign. No, I would give
[2:20:41] them a sign. And we always put it
[2:20:43] in their notes, you know, when we're educating
[2:20:44] them, know, when we're putting it into post
[2:20:45] or putting it in our reports, we do
[2:20:47] say delivered signage, delivered signage. So, you can
[2:20:50] always go back and look and see that
[2:20:51] history is there. You know, if you were
[2:20:53] trying to come up with, you know, where
[2:20:56] do we go with this? If you're having
[2:20:57] a hearing, where do we go with this?
[2:20:58] You can look at the history and see,
[2:21:01] you know, and kind of use some of
[2:21:02] that to your advantage to say, okay, we've
[2:21:04] been in your store 18 times in the
[2:21:06] last three years, and we've given you signs
[2:21:09] 15 of those 18 times. What gives? So
[2:21:13] even though we don't have discretion, you know,
[2:21:16] our regs will say shall fine or shall
[2:21:19] whatever, you have a lot of discretion in
[2:21:22] what you present to us, right? What's education
[2:21:25] and what's what you cite. So that's where
[2:21:29] the discretion comes in. Right. And and municipalities
[2:21:32] are different. Some municipalities are to say, hey,
[2:21:34] we just want you to go in, give
[2:21:35] them that education. If you find things, let
[2:21:37] us know. But we're not out handing out
[2:21:39] tickets and and saying, you know, we got
[2:21:41] you again. We got got you again. We're
[2:21:43] educating, educating, giving them the tools they need.
[2:21:46] And then, you know, the municipalities take it
[2:21:48] from there. Oh, how do you keep it
[2:21:51] straight? Yeah. And do you have municipalities that
[2:21:56] will tell you that even when it comes
[2:21:58] to selling to underage? They don't want you
[2:22:02] to give they don't want you to fine?
[2:22:03] Yeah, we don't do it there. It's up
[2:22:06] to them. Actually make the decision on whether
[2:22:08] the fine is going to happen. And I
[2:22:15] have many towns there are a few towns
[2:22:17] out here in Western Mass that have hold
[2:22:19] permits. Just that's it. They've had more than
[2:22:25] two or three sales too underage. There's no
[2:22:30] questioning. It's in their regs and they pull
[2:22:33] it. They even discuss it. It's a third
[2:22:36] hit and it's done. It sends a pretty
[2:22:41] strong message to the other establishments in their
[2:22:44] towns. I mean, it does, you know, the
[2:22:47] news spreads like wildfire. They talk to each
[2:22:49] other. It's strict, but it's the way they
[2:22:56] chose to write their own. Right. That's the
[2:22:59] end of a business. And it so depends
[2:23:03] on the municipality, I guess, and how they
[2:23:05] feel about it because then other ones will
[2:23:07] say don't even find them. Does the finding,
[2:23:13] do you know this Cheryl, does the fine,
[2:23:15] the fee, does it go into the general
[2:23:17] fund of the municipal? It goes into the
[2:23:18] general fund unless you've set up a special
[2:23:21] fund, a revolving fund for tobacco. And I
[2:23:24] don't think you've done that in Northampton. Yes,
[2:23:27] I mean, you'd set up a special fund
[2:23:29] like maybe for education or would go back
[2:23:31] to the department. You would set up a
[2:23:32] fund that would help you, that would give
[2:23:36] you more resources to use in your time.
[2:23:40] But most of the if you don't have
[2:23:42] a special fund set up, it goes into
[2:23:44] the general fund for the All right. It
[2:23:51] sounds like we need more time to talk
[2:23:55] about fines and suspensions and tolling period. And
[2:24:02] I can start working on the draft and
[2:24:05] I can speak with Meredith and she can
[2:24:08] tell me why, well, and you guys can
[2:24:10] also tell me why she feels strongly that
[2:24:13] she doesn't want a tolling carrier. There's some
[2:24:15] reason, I'm sure. I can't say why. I
[2:24:23] just know that as a group in the
[2:24:25] past, we wanted to be generally strict and
[2:24:28] didn't want repeat offenders to just continue business
[2:24:31] as usual, pay a fine and keep doing
[2:24:33] it. But logistically keeping records, it sounds like
[2:24:39] we really wanna make sure that we do
[2:24:41] it right. We need more information about that.
[2:24:46] Any other comments? I think we could probably
[2:24:52] finish this discussion now and know that Cheryl
[2:24:56] and Meredith would make up a draft, then
[2:24:58] we'll just continue the discussion again. Yeah. We
[2:25:02] just have something to work from. Great. Donna,
[2:25:07] One thing. One of the other forms that,
[2:25:11] Meredith sent you, know she sent you many,
[2:25:13] so they're a bit confusing. She did send
[2:25:14] one that was highlighted in yellow and green
[2:25:17] that, we had done, comparing our regulations to
[2:25:20] the state regulations. And a lot of the
[2:25:22] highlighted yellow are the things that, really just
[2:25:25] changes the language of what's in our regulations
[2:25:29] right So, it's not necessarily adding anything, it's
[2:25:31] just changing the language. And that's really important
[2:25:33] to know because, really making it Yeah, because
[2:25:37] we've run into a lot of, you know,
[2:25:39] what really is a flavor and what really
[2:25:40] is an enhancer and what really is a
[2:25:42] blunt wrap? What really is manufacturer of letter?
[2:25:45] Right, right. So, just clarifies, you know, what
[2:25:49] that means. You know, we're constantly telling them
[2:25:52] what it is and explaining to them what
[2:25:53] it is. But, you know, when you go
[2:25:55] back and you read the regulation, it's really
[2:25:57] not clear. So it sounds like the state
[2:26:04] regs have helped clean up our language quite
[2:26:07] a bit. Yes. Good. Well, you, Cheryl and
[2:26:13] Donna. Thank you so much for your Thank
[2:26:15] you. Guidance. And it's complicated subject, for sure.
[2:26:20] Sure is. We will take it up again.
[2:26:24] Okay. Thank you. Thanks, folks. So much. You.
[2:26:27] Good to see you, Cheryl. Bye bye. All
[2:26:32] right, any closing thoughts about this topic? We'll
[2:26:37] discuss it again. We can take as much
[2:26:40] time as we want. To get it right
[2:26:44] before we have a public forum on it,
[2:26:48] and the only urgency is the fact that
[2:26:51] we now have state regs and our own
[2:26:54] local regs that are different. We have no
[2:26:56] tolling period. There's these two different sets of
[2:26:59] fines, and it's sort of complicated to manage
[2:27:03] for us if there's violation between now and
[2:27:06] when we finalize our regs. So, it'd be
[2:27:12] good to get it together soon. Any other
[2:27:16] thoughts about that? The only other question I
[2:27:20] have is that I noticed a gas station
[2:27:22] Speedway closed so they must have been selling
[2:27:25] tobacco. They weren't? No, I think it had
[2:27:29] more to do with their gas pumps required
[2:27:32] a lot of upgrading and the financial cost
[2:27:36] to that. Yeah. It wasn't why as much
[2:27:39] as if there was another license available. Is
[2:27:43] that the one on Route 10? King Street.
[2:27:51] What happens in the just like you said,
[2:27:53] Joanne, what happens in the interim while we're
[2:27:55] deciding this? Do we just defer to state
[2:27:56] regs at this point like we did today
[2:27:59] because the citation was under state regs if
[2:28:02] there is a violation? I think if there's
[2:28:06] a violation of state regs, we have to
[2:28:08] do what the state says. And if there's
[2:28:10] a violation of local regs, we use our
[2:28:12] current policy. Okay. I think so. It really
[2:28:16] depends what they're cited for. As long as
[2:28:19] it's stricter. As long as it's stricter, you
[2:28:24] said? As long as ours are stricter than
[2:28:26] the states, we can go with ours. Okay.
[2:28:29] We can't be more lenient than the state.
[2:28:32] Yeah. If ours are above and beyond, then
[2:28:34] we do that. But if they didn't violate
[2:28:37] a state reg, they don't have to have
[2:28:39] the state penalty. I think that's I think
[2:28:42] that's how I understand it. Yeah. All right
[2:28:47] so it's to be continued next time. Shall
[2:28:51] we do minutes? Did everyone have a chance
[2:28:53] to look at minutes? November minutes do want
[2:28:59] me to bring them up. Anybody have any
[2:29:03] comments about them let's see if I have
[2:29:05] a couple. Me see if I can find
[2:29:12] them I thought I had them here a
[2:29:14] second. Okay. One second. Where's my share screen?
[2:29:36] It's covering up my share screen. Okay. Suzanne?
[2:29:58] New business first paragraph. I think it would
[2:30:02] be very helpful if in the second line,
[2:30:05] if after COVID wastewater, if it said virus
[2:30:10] concentration. Rather than just wastewater. That is true
[2:30:19] also for the December minutes. Okay. Okay, and
[2:30:31] also in that paragraph, I think it would
[2:30:33] be very helpful if the sentence about flu,
[2:30:37] Elliot reported that seven cases of flu, if
[2:30:40] that came at the end, because the following
[2:30:44] two sentences are about COVID again. Yep. Okay.
[2:31:04] And then discussion of future board under new
[2:31:09] business third paragraph. There. The last sentence, Commissioner
[2:31:19] O'Leary. I didn't even notice that suggested having
[2:31:24] a consultant. And that's what I have. This
[2:31:30] is just a suggestion this doesn't have to
[2:31:32] be done. But as I was looking through
[2:31:34] the department updates, it seemed to me that
[2:31:37] it would be much easier to read if
[2:31:40] the department update dates were bulleted. Because this
[2:31:43] is a paragraph of a lot of unrelated
[2:31:46] topics. Not to change anything but it for
[2:31:50] the future. Okay. Okay. That's it. Okay. Anybody
[2:32:00] else. I'll do the bullets. Is it ready?
[2:32:11] Yep. Does anybody wanna make a motion? I
[2:32:18] make a motion to accept the minutes. Second.
[2:32:24] With edits? With the edits, yes. Any other
[2:32:30] discussion? And all in favor? Dallas? Yep. Suzanne?
[2:32:38] Yes. Janet? Yes. Cynthia? Yes. Joanne? Yes. Thank
[2:32:44] you. And December. Let's see if I can
[2:32:48] find December minutes. Okay. Anybody? Suzanne, do you
[2:33:32] have something else? Yeah, I have just a
[2:33:35] couple. Data updates three, roman numeral three the
[2:33:44] second there is was increased I think it
[2:33:50] should the is should probably go And then
[2:33:54] there should be an and there. No. And
[2:34:00] then also the next line is the wastewater
[2:34:04] virus concentration again. Yeah. Alright. Anything else? Spelling.
[2:34:32] I'm sorry. Old business. I'll fix the spelling
[2:34:37] of concentration. I'm sorry. Old business Roman numeral
[2:34:48] five. Doctor Levin, Cheryl Savaro unable to and
[2:34:57] that the state had just released new model
[2:35:01] regulations. That's it. Alright. Anybody else? If you
[2:35:10] go up to Jim's Variety, I think there's
[2:35:14] an apostrophe after Jim and Jim's. Another grammar
[2:35:20] snob, yay. And I can't recall, so I
[2:35:26] don't know, but I can't recall if counselor
[2:35:28] Mayori also talked about gender affirming care or
[2:35:30] if that was brought up by myself. But,
[2:35:37] yeah, I don't know if there's an edit
[2:35:39] there necessarily. I think that was brought up
[2:35:45] by you and she thought that that might
[2:35:47] be included in her work. Did she say
[2:35:49] that? I just know as a result of
[2:35:52] this, Elliot had created a separate webpage on
[2:35:56] the city's website for gender affirming care, but
[2:35:59] I cannot recall if that was included in
[2:36:01] this discussion. We did talk about putting information
[2:36:06] on the website. And that is up now,
[2:36:11] by the way. Right. Should I put that
[2:36:14] in here? The city information about reproductive health
[2:36:22] care and gender affirming care will be put
[2:36:24] on the city website. Or is on our
[2:36:31] website? It's on the city northamptonma.gov. Oh, it
[2:36:37] is? Okay. Great. The link to it for
[2:36:40] gender affirming care. And then on the sidebar,
[2:36:43] there's also abortion. That sound look right? Yep.
[2:37:03] Mhmm. Anything else? Okay. I might actually sorry.
[2:37:12] I might go back up and put information
[2:37:18] about abortion and reproductive healthcare or just reproductive
[2:37:22] healthcare and strike women's. Okay. Okay, anything else?
[2:37:35] Great. Anybody want to make a motion? I
[2:37:39] motion to approve the minutes as edited. Second.
[2:37:44] Any other discussion? All in favor, Dallas? Yes.
[2:37:55] Suzanne? Yes. Janet? Yes. Cynthia? Yes. Joanne? Yes.
[2:38:03] Thank you. I think oh, the last thing
[2:38:06] to we were gonna go over the calendar.
[2:38:13] So, Janet, you had some conflicts? I do.
[2:38:17] I it was travel that was planned before
[2:38:21] I had the meeting dates for both, unfortunately,
[2:38:25] both February and March. I'm not expecting you
[2:38:29] to change the meeting unless it's problematic for
[2:38:32] others as well. That's it for the year.
[2:38:41] I can't find that document. Meredith was going
[2:38:44] to send it out, but I don't think
[2:38:45] she sent it to me. Does anybody else
[2:38:49] have it? No, but I have a conflict
[2:38:51] in July. So I guess that brings up
[2:38:55] the question which has come up before if
[2:38:57] someone has a conflict do we try to
[2:39:00] move the date, or if only one person
[2:39:03] has a conflict we keep the date. We
[2:39:06] certainly want to have a quorum and it's
[2:39:08] certainly helpful for a lot of us and
[2:39:13] Meredith's office and and to have some regularity
[2:39:16] and predictability and for the public as well.
[2:39:22] How would you like to handle that? I
[2:39:28] I don't think you should move it for
[2:39:29] one person because you'll still have a quorum.
[2:39:33] Mhmm. It becomes very complicated to find another
[2:39:38] date that we all can agree upon. It
[2:39:47] makes we we have a full board now.
[2:39:49] Right? Yes. It makes sense now that we
[2:39:52] have a full board and a schedule for
[2:39:55] the year that we would all be able
[2:39:58] to plan out for the entire year. Mhmm.
[2:40:01] Right. Right. Yep. I would agree not to
[2:40:06] change it. So if someone can't come, they
[2:40:14] should let me know because then if I
[2:40:15] hear from two people then then maybe we
[2:40:18] would consider changing it. A quorum is three,
[2:40:21] right? So we need at least three. I
[2:40:24] guess we could go forward with three, although
[2:40:25] we wouldn't necessarily feel good about voting when
[2:40:29] almost half of us are gone, but, it's
[2:40:34] it would be legal. So I think if
[2:40:40] one person's out, we'll keep it the same.
[2:40:42] If two people are out, we could put
[2:40:44] out a notice and see if there's an
[2:40:46] easy fix. And if there isn't, then we'd
[2:40:50] leave it. And if three people are out,
[2:40:51] we can't really have the meeting. All right.
[2:40:57] So our next scheduled meeting is February 16.
[2:41:03] So right now, everyone can come except for
[2:41:05] Janet. And we'll talk a lot more about
[2:41:09] tobacco. Okay. Anything else? Thank you for all
[2:41:20] your work tonight. It was a lot. Thank
[2:41:22] you. Thank you. Thank all. Alright. We'll see
[2:41:27] you next time. Alright. Feel better. Do we
[2:41:29] have to move to adjourn? Oh, yeah. Move
[2:41:32] to adjourn. Second. Let's race to be to
[2:41:38] second that. Any discussion? All in favor? Dallas?
[2:41:43] Aye. Yes. Suzanne? Yes. Janet? Yes. Cynthia? Yes.
[2:41:50] Joanne, yes. We do it verbally because the
[2:41:53] recording has to hear it, So can't can't
[2:41:56] record our waves. Okay. Thank you, Amy. Alright.
[2:42:00] Thank you. You guys have a good night.
[2:42:02] Bye, everyone.