[0:05] [Music]
[0:08] everybody um I think we are ready to go
[0:13] um once again um we've had some
[0:16] technical difficulties here so briefly I
[0:18] will summarize for the recording where
[0:21] we are uh we have done the call to order
[0:25] and roll call for the ches beach board
[0:27] of appeals uh 7 p.m. November 14
[0:30] 2023 we have a quorum on the board we
[0:33] went through some brief announcements uh
[0:35] concerning uh how this meeting is run um
[0:39] and then we reintroduce the continuation
[0:43] of case
[0:52] 2023-the from Mr pounds before we
[0:55] continue Mr
[0:58] pounds announce that date just so people
[1:01] in the public can apologies good idea
[1:03] yes uh one announcement that is
[1:05] important for the recording is that our
[1:07] plan schedule is to resume Thursday
[1:09] January 4th 2024 at 7 pm that's January
[1:14] 4th
[1:15] 2024 uh thank
[1:17] you uh Mr pounds okay Mr chair uh
[1:21] members of the board again uh good
[1:23] evening uh Todd pounds representing the
[1:25] town of Chess be Beach uh ladies and
[1:28] gentlemen uh basically we you know we're
[1:30] here today uh basically to hear uh you
[1:33] know was supposed to be sworn testimony
[1:35] and hearing with regard to this
[1:37] application as it turns out at the
[1:39] beginning of this uh the board uh indeed
[1:43] instructed Mr Blitz whether he was going
[1:45] to have certain Witnesses testify and
[1:47] indeed uh Witnesses got up raised their
[1:51] hand and swore uh took the o to SW to
[1:54] tell the truth uh I remember seeing two
[1:56] people uh uh and nence uh we had sworn
[2:00] in Mr Donovan and also Mr Woodburn uh at
[2:04] that time I didn't really look but I
[2:06] really didn't see Mr Blitz indeed
[2:09] swearing himself in uh at that time Mr
[2:12] Blitz uh then began his testimony which
[2:15] became a narrative in which he began to
[2:17] speak uh and go on uh which has now gone
[2:21] on for about five hours regarding his
[2:23] interpretation and what was supposed to
[2:25] be quote unquote testimony uh at the end
[2:28] of the uh the last hearing at the
[2:30] beginning of the last hearing I made a
[2:32] motion that indeed that was completely
[2:34] improper for Mr Blitz to just uh give a
[2:38] narrative like this uh indeed as a
[2:41] result because it is indeed not
[2:43] testimony he can't sit there and just
[2:45] you know give a narrative and testimony
[2:47] as he's going to be going forward Mr
[2:49] susman then testified didn't testify but
[2:52] he then made the statement uh I think
[2:55] and Leisa if I didn't if I'm
[2:56] paraphrasing that correctly let me know
[2:59] I think that Mr Blitz swore himself in
[3:03] uh and Mr Blitz definitively stated that
[3:06] point yes I swore myself then uh at that
[3:09] time the uh the hearing went on and we
[3:11] spent another couple of hours uh indeed
[3:13] for the rest of the hearing basically
[3:15] you know which is in essence Mr Blitz
[3:18] you know stating his quote narrative
[3:21] which was indeed testimony as evidence
[3:23] now what that why that is that important
[3:25] a narrative is just someone talking okay
[3:27] that is not uh in any way evidence that
[3:30] is not in any way for you to be
[3:32] evaluated as as evidence testimony is
[3:35] evidence that's the reason he has to be
[3:36] sworn at so as it turns out I then uh uh
[3:40] contacted Miss wall and I wanted to
[3:42] indeed verify that indeed Mr litz had
[3:44] sworn himself in and as it turns out he
[3:47] did not um he did not uh swear himself
[3:51] in with with regard to uh that he did
[3:54] not raise his hand and according to the
[3:56] video it did not appear that he said I
[3:58] agree to tell the truth so in essence
[4:01] that is a big problem uh in that we are
[4:04] now five hours which is most of it into
[4:07] is what Mr Blitz was talking about as
[4:09] being a narrative which means that
[4:11] indeed without him swearing himself in
[4:13] none of it is evidence uh I mean none of
[4:16] it is to be considered by you as
[4:18] evidence in the trial that is nothing
[4:20] more than him doing his talking and
[4:23] really it's it's you know maybe
[4:24] considering his opinion but it indeed is
[4:27] not in any way fore to considered as uh
[4:30] evidence uh or as testimony as a result
[4:33] of his fear to SW SAR himself
[4:39] in now again you know now it's
[4:42] Undisputed that we do have you know uh evidence that came in through the
[4:46] records okay that doesn't apply to these
[4:48] those are records and you can certainly
[4:50] review those records as you think is
[4:53] appropriate but this is primarily
[4:54] talking about what Mr Blitz was talking
[4:56] about uh in essence uh his
[5:00] what I'm going to call a narrative that
[5:01] indeed testimon so basically everything
[5:04] that he has said so far I'm moving to
[5:07] strike because in essence it is not
[5:10] evidence and you're not and and you're
[5:12] not to really consider that at all well
[5:15] here's a problem uh here you have a
[5:18] board and you're into this for five plus
[5:21] hours and I'm asking you for course
[5:23] under the law indeed you're not to be
[5:25] considered anything that is said okay I
[5:28] mean so is a problem for this board
[5:30] because in essence
[5:32] would you know if you're being
[5:34] instructed to indeed not review any type
[5:37] of evidence or anything like that to
[5:39] just open it and close it and pretend
[5:42] like you never heard it well that's
[5:44] almost impossible especially going on
[5:46] for five hours I can certainly
[5:48] understand if it was one comment here
[5:50] which 99% of the time you see that as
[5:52] far as AEM motion to strike a comment a
[5:54] motion five hours it becomes almost
[5:57] impossibility okay but at the same time
[6:00] that's where we are and uh so that's
[6:01] what I'm going to be asking you to do is
[6:03] in essence with this motion to uh uh
[6:07] indeed strike everything that he's
[6:09] indeed said so here's the other problem
[6:12] uh which is as a lawyer okay I consider
[6:16] it a big problem I mean a big problem um
[6:20] Mr Mr Blitz when he was asked by Mr
[6:24] susman did you swear yourself then and
[6:26] he was definitive yes
[6:30] okay it wasn't a I think so I mean if
[6:33] I'm wrong on that we can go back and
[6:35] look at it but it was a yes I did and
[6:37] all sudden the testimony began to
[6:38] proceed the problem is that is a
[6:41] definitive statement by a lawyer to this
[6:43] board during a hearing that's a problem
[6:46] lawyers cannot make you know definitive
[6:48] statements which are in essence
[6:49] misrepresentations to a board you're not
[6:51] supposed to make it anyway especially D
[6:53] to a board during the hearing and that's
[6:56] what's happened so uh where does that leave him what does that leave the
[7:01] board I don't know okay I'll be frank
[7:04] because this all this happened you know
[7:06] I I got it yesterday and in essence I
[7:08] contacted Mr susman this morning first
[7:10] thing this morning was about 7:30 this
[7:12] morning when I sent the email and I said
[7:14] we have a problem okay this is a problem
[7:17] with regard to you know where we are
[7:19] with regard to all this and so uh
[7:21] basically when you came in today we were
[7:23] Mr susman uh Mr Blitz and Miss wall and
[7:26] I were all in the room trying to figure
[7:28] this out and believe me nobody has a
[7:30] solution to this because now we have in
[7:32] essence what I consider a big deal an
[7:35] attorney making a definitive
[7:37] misrepresentation to this board um how
[7:40] that's going to be handled or what what
[7:42] is the consequences of that I'll be
[7:44] frank I don't know but indeed it's a
[7:58] problem
[8:04] so basically you know and the reason I
[8:06] say that okay and I'm going to put it on
[8:08] the record because you you can make what
[8:10] whatever judgment you want to because
[8:12] I'm not sure ethically where we are with
[8:14] all this I mean I don't know because uh
[8:18] you know we have an attorney who's been
[8:21] uh getting a narrative which was
[8:22] supposed to be a statement and testimony
[8:25] the last five hours which now should be
[8:27] stricken and yet the attorney made a
[8:30] misrepresentation to the board yes I was
[8:32] on their oath which everyone assumed he
[8:34] was but now was not uh where that leaves
[8:38] us all I don't know um but uh I I did I
[8:43] have contact with the council because my
[8:45] obligation to inform councel indeed of
[8:48] what's going on that's my job that's my
[8:50] lawyer I'm the lawyer they the client
[8:52] and I was told one thing follow the law
[8:55] okay and in essence uh and then in
[8:58] speaking to the mayor I'll be Frank what
[8:59] he said was if you need professional
[9:01] interpretation all this you may need it
[9:04] okay which we may need that too but it's
[9:06] one of these things where uh I'm
[9:09] bringing it up because indeed it is a
[9:10] concern of mine that indeed I think is
[9:13] very
[9:23] valid so you know and and it's one thing
[9:27] that uh uh was brought up but I even
[9:30] have the note here before was brought up
[9:32] about possibly uh trying to say okay
[9:35] well let's swear men now and backdate
[9:39] everything and just say oh okay I'm
[9:41] going to accept everything as it as was
[9:43] as it was done because I indeed you know
[9:45] had it written down here beforehand in
[9:48] preparing my notes the problem is you
[9:50] can't do that you can't just sit there
[9:52] and say because there's very D various
[9:54] Dynamics out there that are indeed
[9:56] there's testimony and then narrative and
[9:59] then say well no I've changed my mind I
[10:01] wanted to be testimony now so you just
[10:03] accept everything as testimony you
[10:04] simply can't do that okay and I can give
[10:06] you an example of it uh let's say you go
[10:09] out and rob a bank and you get caught
[10:11] and you give the money back and you can
[10:13] say oh I gave the money back so all of a
[10:15] sudden it's no longer a problem no it is
[10:17] a problem because that's indeed where
[10:19] the issue comes in so uh so why is all
[10:23] this important because it has to be done
[10:25] right okay and indeed it has not uh
[10:28] especially with the fact that we uh for
[10:32] five hours of what was purported to be
[10:36] testimony which was nothing but
[10:38] narrative in essence which you should be
[10:40] completely ignoring because it it does
[10:42] is not evidence at all and as a result
[10:46] you know by this motion to strike in
[10:48] essence asking you to say no you need to
[10:51] ignore everything you've been hearing
[10:53] and sitting here for the last five years
[10:54] which creates an impossibility but for
[10:56] right now indeed this motion to strike
[11:00] uh is you should ignore everything that
[11:03] uh basically everything you've heard
[11:04] from Mr blitz so far because it's
[11:07] reported to be testimony and it is not
[11:09] thank
[11:11] you um at this point uh Mr Blitz would
[11:14] you like to offer a response sure thank
[11:17] you Eric Blitz on behalf of the Roden
[11:19] reel um I think from the
[11:24] beginning Council for the town has tried
[11:27] to make make this
[11:30] proceeding something that it
[11:32] isn't he's tried to turn this into a
[11:35] trial make objections that wouldn't even
[11:38] be sustained in a trial such as
[11:40] objections to uh government
[11:44] documents um claiming they were hearsay
[11:47] administrative bodies can take in
[11:49] hearsay it's even in your own
[11:51] rules and create a circus-like
[11:53] atmosphere challenging all of our
[11:56] evidence and this is in essence a Hail
[11:59] Mary to try to strike our entire
[12:03] presentation let me be clear I think I
[12:06] was I was sworn
[12:08] in today a half hour before this
[12:12] proceeding I was told that by Mr susman
[12:16] and Mr pounds that somebody believes I
[12:19] wasn't Mr pounds just testified that it
[12:22] was Miss wall she hasn't obviously
[12:24] testified so he's BR bringing in uh
[12:27] information but my point is I don't
[12:31] think it matters because I don't
[12:34] think that in an administrat proceeding
[12:38] what I'm
[12:39] doing is testifying I'm not offering
[12:43] facts of my own recollection or
[12:45] independent judgment I'm submitting
[12:48] documents and while I submit documents
[12:50] I'm giving you the arguments about why
[12:52] those documents are relevant and
[12:53] pointing out to you the the relevant
[12:56] portions of those documents so when I
[13:00] made arguments about the effect of the
[13:02] charter on the question of whether you
[13:05] had to do a resolution or an ordinance
[13:08] I'm not testifying about that I'm making
[13:10] this this uh Roden reel's
[13:14] presentation Mr pounds kind of bounced
[13:16] back and forth in his objection as to
[13:19] whether I was make doing a narrative or
[13:22] evidence and said well it a narrative is
[13:25] in evidence anyway well then what is the
[13:28] swearing in
[13:29] business about because you don't need to
[13:31] swear in the presentation of the lawyer
[13:35] under land use article
[13:37] 4306 a part party to an appeal can be
[13:41] represented by themselves or by a lawyer
[13:44] I've seen plenty of administrative
[13:46] proceedings where the only person that
[13:48] shows up is the lawyer they present
[13:51] the argument in favor of
[13:54] aarian now I've never really seen
[13:58] lawyers sworn in but you had us all
[14:00] stand up everybody in the room and I
[14:03] think I was standing up and I think I
[14:05] got sworn in but apparently I I did I
[14:09] didn't raise my hand I know that so if
[14:11] you believe that that's necessarily
[14:13] relevant to being sworn in I don't think
[14:15] it is I think I kned my head but
[14:19] when Mr susman I think it wasn't in the
[14:22] second hearing it was in the last
[14:24] hearing asked well weren't you sworn in
[14:28] I thought I was so I said yes my point
[14:32] is he's trying to strike our entire
[14:37] presentation which most of which other
[14:41] than Mr Donovan's testimony in the
[14:43] beginning and Mr Woodburn's testimony
[14:45] have been me introducing a series of
[14:47] documents and explaining to you what law
[14:49] I think applies I think that's very
[14:52] typical presentation made in an
[14:54] administrative hearing where you don't
[14:56] have Rules of Evidence where you take in
[15:00] all the information you can and
[15:01] determine then whether it is relevant to
[15:05] the cause of action or the decision that
[15:07] you need to make you will hear testimony
[15:10] from countless people that will provide
[15:13] information that isn't relevant that is
[15:16] members of the public will often talk
[15:17] about things that aren't really
[15:19] necessarily relevant to the case you let
[15:21] it in why because that's the nature of
[15:23] administrative proceedings so when I'm
[15:26] making arguments about
[15:30] the
[15:31] documents almost all of which were
[15:33] either correspondents or from the town
[15:38] or resolutions minutes we you know
[15:42] plenty of at least three quarters of the
[15:45] exhibits were minutes these are
[15:46] government documents I don't need to
[15:48] swear to them there's no standard by
[15:51] which you have to I mean you overruled
[15:54] all those objections that he was trying
[15:55] to make to prevent those documents from
[15:57] coming in
[16:00] and all I'm doing is presenting the
[16:03] arguments in favor of Roden reel's
[16:07] position that there was an error
[16:09] committed I don't I don't I didn't
[16:11] testify to any independent facts that I
[16:14] can recall I didn't offer any
[16:17] opinions um I think I might have said
[16:21] something about the common way that
[16:26] things happen in um a hearing before I
[16:29] think I made some sort of statement like
[16:31] that so I mean that's kind of typical
[16:34] statements by lawyers as to as to
[16:36] addressing what the case is that's not
[16:38] testimony um but again I think I was
[16:41] testified I um Mr pounds is right that
[16:46] as a member of the bar I am committed to
[16:48] telling you the truth doesn't matter
[16:51] whether I'm test sworn in or not I think
[16:54] I have I don't think there's anything
[16:56] there at the last hearing
[16:59] and this is kind of why I think this is
[17:00] coming up now Mr pound started talking
[17:02] about half truths and he said it about
[17:05] three or four times about things that I
[17:06] had said and one of them was about his
[17:09] own
[17:10] letter and I literally just read that
[17:13] letter into the record it was his words
[17:16] it was a question of whether the the
[17:17] Planning and Zoning commission also had
[17:18] to approve the ending of the
[17:21] moratorium my
[17:23] point is
[17:25] that it's typical for when making a
[17:29] presentation in an administrative
[17:31] proceeding to decide is this a timeline
[17:36] type case or is this you know just a
[17:40] couple key issues this was a timeline
[17:44] case and I I have taken you through the
[17:47] timeline by showing you what the town
[17:51] did or didn't do by introducing a lot of
[17:55] exhibits that were all admissible
[17:59] I think you only denied one at the end
[18:01] of last hearing that I recall
[18:06] um
[18:08] and the standard for such admission in
[18:12] an administrative proceeding like this
[18:14] is largely relevance so if it's re if
[18:17] it's irrelevant or if it's duplicative
[18:20] but basically everything else comes
[18:22] in
[18:24] so again I think I got sworn in but I I
[18:27] can tell you everything I've told you in
[18:30] this presentation I believe to be
[18:33] accurate and that's true with respect to
[18:35] my commentary about the town Charter or
[18:39] my commentary about um the effect of the
[18:43] land use article on uh whether you have
[18:47] to pass an or a moratorium by an
[18:50] ordinance or
[18:51] resolution that's what lawyers do is
[18:53] make arguments about the the various
[18:55] laws this has largely been a legalist IC
[18:58] case I get that it's not like your
[19:00] standard variance case where you get a
[19:02] lot of testimony about the particular
[19:05] property and you're determining whether
[19:07] a variance should be granted that has a
[19:09] lot more testimony this is a challenge
[19:12] saying that what some what the two
[19:13] administrated bodies did the zoning
[19:16] administrator and the Planning and
[19:17] Zoning commission were improper and
[19:19] illegal and therefore should be remedied
[19:23] it's ultimately a a legal case we have
[19:27] facts and
[19:28] I was ready today to actually have the
[19:31] most testimony you've heard because we
[19:33] were going to have Mr Woodburn and Mr
[19:35] Donovan testify because now that we've I
[19:40] believe
[19:41] established
[19:43] the illegitimacy of the delay in
[19:47] reviewing the site plans that we're now
[19:50] ready to talk about the remedy and
[19:52] because the remedy involves lots of
[19:55] questions
[19:57] of what what what the course of conduct
[19:59] for these properties were and the
[20:01] history that requires testimony so my
[20:04] point is I think I was sworn in I did
[20:07] tell the truth and um I don't think
[20:11] striking all of the presentation which
[20:14] is just that is just a presentation it's
[20:17] not testimony I didn't testify all I I
[20:20] mean I don't know of any particular fact
[20:23] that I gave you that would be something
[20:26] that you would have to test credibility
[20:29] about I if I tell if I say here's a copy
[20:33] of your Charter the way to argue that I
[20:35] presented the incorrect version of the
[20:37] charter is for somebody to say well wait
[20:39] a minute I've got this version of the
[20:41] charter but other than that I'm pointing
[20:44] your pointing your attention to part
[20:46] portions of the charter and saying this
[20:48] is relevance to our argument and that's
[20:51] what I did and this is an administrative
[20:53] proceeding so that you're not trying to
[20:56] convert this into a trial where you have
[20:58] lots of objections over evidence and and
[21:01] lots of back and forth I
[21:03] mean if I had to uh do anything again
[21:06] the one thing I complained about was a
[21:09] cross-examination about um it being
[21:12] argumentative uh Mr pounds made a
[21:14] question and I was saying it was being
[21:16] argumentative and on reflection I was
[21:18] like this isn't a
[21:20] trial just just let him answer the
[21:23] question if he can so anyway that's that
[21:25] would be my point I think um I'm
[21:28] certainly willing to uh be sworn in I do
[21:31] not typically I do a lot of zoning cases
[21:34] I've represented Boards of appeal I have
[21:37] never sworn in a lawyer or been required
[21:40] to be sworn in on uh but I'm certainly
[21:43] willing to because I believe everything
[21:45] that I've uh presented to you is the
[21:48] truth and I can tell you that if
[21:52] you believe that everything should be
[21:55] struck then we essentially start over
[21:58] and we do this all over again but I'm
[22:01] going to make the same argument I don't
[22:03] need to be sworn in for that I'm making
[22:05] a
[22:08] presentation thank you very very briefly
[22:11] one
[22:25] moment all right uh Mr pounds very
[22:28] briefly um again your job ultimately is
[22:32] to base a decision based upon evidence
[22:35] uh that's what you're ultimately going
[22:36] to be looking to do and that is
[22:38] ultimately going to be your job
[22:39] basically Mr Blitz was talking about me
[22:42] going back and forth between you know uh
[22:44] testimony and what I call a narrative
[22:47] and what difference does it make well it
[22:48] makes huge difference okay huge
[22:50] difference because the narrative is
[22:52] something that's not evidence that's an
[22:54] opinion that's whatever he wants us to
[22:55] say testimony is evidence so in essence
[22:59] what in uh everything he's been talking
[23:01] about the last five hours as it turns
[23:04] out is is nothing but a narrative is not
[23:07] evidence for you to consider and uh and
[23:11] as a result if it's not testimony then
[23:13] indeed you should not be considering it
[23:16] now you you and you should be ignoring
[23:17] everything that's not evidence indeed if
[23:19] he wants Mr Blitz talks about a number
[23:22] of time of making his argument that's
[23:24] fine you make an argument at the end of
[23:25] the case okay when you present all the
[23:27] evidence you make certain arguments with
[23:29] regard to you know what what the uh
[23:32] evidence shows uh in showing your
[23:34] position that's fine but the problem is that his arguments are during the
[23:38] case and becomes and that is not
[23:40] evidence that becomes a narrative and
[23:42] that's what in essence we've been going
[23:44] through for the last five hours uh so in
[23:47] essence I appreciate Mr Blitz talking
[23:49] about that he uh indeed uh admitted that
[23:51] he did not raise his hand and he cannot
[23:54] testify for sure that indeed I mean is
[23:57] that what he just said that he admits
[23:58] that he did not raise his hand yeah but
[24:00] that's all I said I said I did believe I
[24:02] was sworn in so so in essence uh uh as
[24:08] far as being sworn in um so basically
[24:11] you know and why this is important if
[24:13] it's not evidence that indeed you should
[24:15] not be considering it uh as stated one
[24:17] of the things that I was instructed to
[24:19] do uh is to make sure it's this is done
[24:22] right and uh so that's the reason I'm
[24:24] here this evening ladies and gentlemen
[24:25] thank you very
[24:26] much
[24:28] um thank you all right at this point in
[24:31] time um the board is going to go into a
[24:34] Clos session with legal council to
[24:36] discuss the arguments you've heard um
[24:40] this is from the open meetings act
[24:42] General provision article section
[24:45] 3-35 uh the statutory authority to close
[24:48] session um this me meeting will be
[24:50] closed under the following subsections
[24:51] of the Maryland annotated code General
[24:53] provision article
[24:55] 3305b uh and we are going into close
[24:58] session to consult with Council to
[25:00] obtain legal
[25:02] advice um so what's going to happen here
[25:04] is uh the board will go into the back
[25:06] room and deliberate with our Council and
[25:09] then we will come back out here and
[25:11] announce any decisions that have been
[25:13] made um and unfortunately nothing will
[25:16] happen out here while we are doing that
[25:18] so if if I may clarification uh the
[25:21] board is not going to deliberate with
[25:23] Council going to uh discuss legal issues
[25:26] associated with motion and response with
[25:32] councel okay at this point the um uh I
[25:36] guess I will entertain a motion uh by
[25:39] the board to go into closed session I
[25:41] will so move have a second second all in
[25:44] favor roll call roll call all right
[25:48] um uh okay um Mr dhy present Miss
[25:53] Everett present and Mr hunar I am
[25:56] present I take it the presence me I CL
[26:00] session yes all right I all in favor all
[26:04] right we are going into close session
[26:05] and we will resume once that is
[26:26] complet
[52:15] [Music]
[52:20] is the video still going okay okay um so
[52:23] the board of appeals has um closed its
[52:27] closed session um at this point um the
[52:31] board is going to discuss how we want to
[52:34] evaluate the objection uh that has been
[52:38] raised um during the session um and I
[52:43] guess the board will start with a
[52:44] discussion which revolves around
[52:47] reviewing a limited segment of the video
[52:52] uh from our first meeting here I don't
[52:54] have the
[52:56] first for the uh around the swearing in
[52:58] of witnesses and participants um during
[53:02] the first and third session of case 20
[53:08] 23-3 um is there anything the board that
[53:11] I misstated that we want to
[53:16] discuss well I mean I certainly would
[53:19] like to see the video before I made a
[53:24] determination
[53:26] I concur I think that it's important
[53:28] that we watch the video just so we have
[53:30] a clear understanding of what's happened
[53:32] and I think we owe it to
[53:35] everybody all
[53:38] right I agree with both of those so at
[53:41] this point I will entertain a motion
[53:45] that we direct Town staff to um find the
[53:52] appropriate times during previous
[53:53] meeting sessions and and prepare them to
[53:56] be displayed during our next uh our next
[54:01] meeting on the on January 4th
[54:06] um I will entertain a motion to do
[54:10] that I will still move second second all
[54:14] in favor I okay so um with that um
[54:20] during our next session on Thursday
[54:24] January 4th 2024 at 7 pm we'll Begin by
[54:28] reviewing um some
[54:30] select uh sections of the record um from
[54:35] this case around Witnesses being sworn
[54:38] in and testimony being given
[54:42] um okay uh the in that case it is 15
[54:47] after and we go for if I could be
[54:50] briefly heard yes um if you're going to
[54:53] review testimony I think you should
[54:54] review all also the point in time that
[54:57] you were asking me whether I was sworn
[54:59] in because I was just informed that I
[55:01] didn't definitively say what I said was
[55:04] I believe I did you asked whether I was
[55:08] sworn in I believe I did but if you want
[55:09] me to I'll be sworn in right now so it
[55:12] was that statement I don't know whether
[55:14] you really need to see that but my point
[55:16] is this argument about whether I had
[55:19] made some commitment to whether I did I still do believe I got sworn in but um
[55:25] I remember I was standing and I was
[55:27] trying to get West to stand
[55:31] up we will we will get those things for
[55:34] you okay um and
[55:38] uh um I think Town staff is best uh
[55:42] situated to get that queued up we have
[55:44] the records we'll find the point in time
[55:46] if you'd um if there are points that
[55:48] you'd like to highlight or not highlight
[55:50] you are welcome to submit them to Sharon
[55:53] and we will have that queued up for our
[55:55] next meeting
[55:57] um okay uh the we are entirely blocked
[56:02] by this motion so once again I'd like to
[56:04] apologize to members of the public
[56:07] another date you showed up and do not
[56:09] get to speak so we're sorry um but we
[56:14] must um solve this particular issue
[56:17] before we go on uh and in that case
[56:20] there is no more business that the board
[56:22] can take this evening so I will
[56:25] entertain a motion to adjourn and then
[56:28] resume on Thursday January 4th 2024 at
[56:31] 700 p.m.
[56:33] do I move to adjourn have a second that all in favor all right we
[56:39] are adjourned thank you
[56:53] everybody