Governance, Organization, and Legislation Committee Aug 11, 2026

All right. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Hi everyone. Uh it's been a minute. Welcome to the August 11th meeting of the Governance, Organization, and Legislation Committee. I am Anna. I'm the chair and I'm going to take a minute to call this meeting to order and make sure everyone can hear and all the committee members can hear and be heard. We will check back in with our guests as we as we get to them. But let's start with Lynn Griezmer >> present. Councelor Ryan >> present. >> Uh, councelor Lord >> present. >> And I am present. We do not have councelor Ka Martin with us, but that's okay. We still have a quorum. Um, so little bit of a lighting agenda today, but we've got some definitely some good things to discuss. We are going to start off with a review of article 18 small clean before we we will have public comment, but after that preview of coming attractions. Um we will begin with article 18 small clean energy infrastructure and consolidated permitting for small clean energy infrastructure facilities. Not at all redundant y'all. Um and we will be looking at clarity, consistency and actionability in that. Then we will go to our uh discussion on the resident oversight board. Today's discussion of the resident oversight board is really going to be focusing us on what our actual next steps are in this process um and kind of reggrounding us because it's been a while since we've discussed that. So before we get into those fun topics, let's begin with public comment. If there are any members of the public who would like to make public comment, you can go ahead and raise your hand in Zoom and we will give you uh an heads up before promoting you. Um you'll have up to three minutes to make your public comment. So if you'd like, we have two members of the public here with us right now. If you'd like to make public comment, please raise your hand now. All right. Not seeing any for public comment. So, we are going to move on. Um, and with the best timing of the day award, I would like to welcome sustainability director Stephanie Cherello and building commissioner Rob Moira. Um, who will be joining us to discuss, um, the clean I'm not going to say the whole title. It's real long. Uh, but the clean energy infrastructure bylaw. Um, I had asked if any members of CRC were able to join us, but they um I did not hear back. So, I believe that we will be um that the the staff will have to that the lovely staff folks will have to be able to answer our questions today. Um, and thank you both so much for coming to our meeting. Can we just really quick make sure that your microphones are working? We can hear you. Um, Stephanie and Rob. >> Yep. Present. >> Thank you. >> Hello again. Yep. >> Perfect. Thank you so much. Um so this is just as a reminder uh our review here is really about clarity cons is only about clarity consistency and actionability. Um oh thanks Athena and this bylaw has been in the works and with CRC for quite a while. Um so the version that we have in front of us is um is what they have passed along for recommendation from the council. Um Rob and Stephanie, do you have any sort of introduction or background that you would like to provide before we get into this? And we'll probably just go line by line looking for clarity, consistency, and actionability. Um I I would just maybe very quickly say that um this started with the solar bylaw working group then went to CRC where it got substantially changed but then the state was making changes to the regulatory requirements for um clean energy sighting uh specifically for solar and battery energy storage systems. And so at that point the state provided a template. So the work that had been done prior to that point was then sort of um compared against what the state draft uh model by law was. And so this final version sort of fused the state what the town had been working on and then was reviewed by town council. So I just wanted to give you that background to say that there was a lot of review and revisions. Um so the final version that they have that you have before you was with input from legal counsel as well. >> Thank you. That's a very helpful um background. Commissioner Mora, anything to add? >> No. All right. Um Lynn, hand up, hand down. Any thoughts? >> Hand up. >> Hand up. Okay. Go ahead. I also want to recognize uh the planning board has spent time on this and and I just want to say no matter comments, anything we might say today, this is a really been a labor of love and Stephanie and Bo Rob have also been amazingly involved in it. So I thank you all for you know your patience three years in the making but we're here. So thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh, councelor Ryan. >> So, there's a a huge amount of highly technical language in this document, >> right? >> And um I certainly have zero qualifications for evaluating it. I my question I guess is how much of the language in this document roughly um is uh something new and creative and how much of it is essentially been taken from existing state and other technical documents. Um maybe that question is unanswerable. Um but I'm just curious if anyone can give me any idea of how much of what we're looking at um actually is, shall we say, quote unquote uh new and created by uh CRC andor staff? >> Rob or Stephanie, any any thoughts on that? >> Rob, you want to take a >> You don't have to answer. I mean, it's just it may be a question that simply can't be answered. It also may be a question that doesn't really matter. Um, which is fine. I I have a thick skin. Um, I'm just trying to figure out >> for guess we're going to go through this thing line by line. Yeah. >> Um, we'll talk about this as a committee in just a second. Um, but and I'm not sure you can give us any guidance and say, well, particularly look at this section because this is where we were kind of, you know, crafting entirely new language. Um, but the assumption is that this has been looked over uh seven ways from Sunday um by people who know far more about this than we ever will. So, um if there's any guidance you can give us, I'd appreciate it. If there's none, that's quite all right. Um and if you really don't have anything to say, that's also perfectly quite all right. So, anyway, thank you. >> And and before I go to Rob for I'm sure it's just going to be Rob, you're probably going to be like 37% or whatever, but um I'm just kidding. Uh but I I do say George while I think your question is really valid. I think that there is one piece of this specifically which is the clarity piece that uh regardless of how much is state law or constructed here we need to make sure that this is clear to the average person who's going to need to use it um whether or not I know I know uh we need to do our best to make sure that this is understandable by folks. So, I I think that even if regardless of that, which I still think it's a really valid question, um it's that and we still we still have some clarity things I'm sure we can find. >> Okay. >> Um Commissioner Mora. >> Yeah. So, I wasn't going to address the the percentage question, [laughter] but I you know, I was actually going to address the clarity question. So, uh or a comment. Um, you know, this, as Stephanie mentioned, this bylaw has gone through several versions and, uh, this latest, uh, and very recent, I think, um, uh, version that is in front of you, uh, definitely, uh, clarified and improved a lot of the, uh, questions and concerns that I had with the document. um not only the mer you kind of the merge of the the consolidated permanent requirements and our own local additional requirements but uh just the simple reorganization called simple but you know the tremendous amount of work that I know u counselors and the CRC and the planning board and staff worked on I think really uh you know shaped this into a a really nice uh usable document uh in the condition you can see it and so there isn't really a specific section to to point out to, but I think, you know, as I read it, and I was very critical of it all the way along the process, as I read it now, I think it's in in really good condition. >> Thank you. Uh, Stephanie, >> I just wanted to add to that the um the folks that will be referencing this bylaw will mostly be industry professionals, so they're going to absolutely understand the language. And I think this did help to clarify a lot of the um some of the contrasting conflicting language that sort of happened at some points along the way. I think now has been clarified. So I would say that um industry professionals will not have a challenge with with this bylaw. >> Thank you. All right, folks. Let's um shall we dig in? Anything else before we get going or ready to go? All right, fun part. Um, Athena, are you good to uh capture notes as we go or would you like me to do that? I'm happy to or you can. It doesn't matter. >> I'm I'm ready with notes. >> Amazing. Okay. Um, let's start with the first two, the title and the purpose section. Are there any concerns about clarity, consistency, or actionability in either of those? All right, seeing none, let's get into applicability sections 180201 through 05. I'm assuming that with the legal review or really because you said there's a model bylaw from the state now that this is incorporated that you're not anticipating any issues with the AG who um and review from that office. Is that correct? I guess director Chikarella I think this is more maybe both of you. I don't know, but um other citing bylaws have run into trouble because they've tried to limit in some way. I'm assuming because we used the state's bylaw as a reference point for this, we are safe from that. Commissioner Mora, >> so we've had town attorney review, which you know really helped us um work out some of those questions or potential issues. Our bylaws do not go to the attorney general for final review. Uh so you know we don't we don't get the benefit of those comments uh you know in the final stages before adoption once the council votes on it two weeks later it's uh part of the bylaw. >> All right. So there's not like a chance that they're going to try to hunt it down to figure it out. >> I think so. >> All right. Sounds good. Um Lynn >> in section 18.02 O2 applicability the first paragraph I just think for clarity even though it's fairly obvious that in the parentheses where it says two 2024 climate act that it just say Massachusetts 2024 climate act. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh, any other concerns under 1802? Okay, let's get Oh, sorry. Go ahead, man. >> Yeah, in the next paragraph. >> Did >> Okay. >> Okay. I I just for my own sake and and understanding, what does inclusive do not apply mean? >> It under Baic. Yes. So I think it's it's meaning 18.07 through 18.17 >> don't apply. >> That's correct. >> Right. >> I thank you. That's all I needed to understand. Thank you. >> No problem. Um okay. Anything else under All right. Let's go to definitions. Um, later on I'm Oops. Go ahead. >> I just want to say generally I This is a confusing way to frame it, but I understand why it is the way it is. Council Ryan, >> uh, I'm not sure when we're going to get there. I'm very excited. I have a list here of seven items. >> Oh, I'm so excited. >> We're now going to reach one of my items. >> Amazing. >> And I'm so excited to get to this. [laughter] >> All right. >> But I'm not sure we're there yet. It's 18.03.15. Ah, >> so when we get there, I'll jump up. But until then, I mean, I will tell you, I did read this today, mind you, lie. Um, and I took a few notes. I didn't come up with much. >> Um, and we'll go through it and I'll hang in here. But the first item I found, and this is really small potatoes, but that's what I figure we're here for. >> Yes. >> 18.03.15. You should add a dash when you finally get there. Uh, it should be per dash. That's my first helpful contribution. >> Great. >> Thank you. Because per by itself is not a word at least in any any English anyway. So that's 18.03.15. >> Perfect. >> And then in 18.0319. >> Okay. >> I believe you should add an I. An is. I think you need a verb. But an a rain event is an event involving more than one. That's There you go. And that's all I have for this section. Maybe somebody else has something else. Looks like Lynn might have something. >> Wait, sorry. I think >> is that a mistake? Take a look. >> I think it's just a rain event involving. >> Okay, take a look. Maybe I misread it. >> Right. Because >> good. It's defining significant storm event. >> Okay, hang on. A rain event, an event involving more than one inch of rainfall in a 24-h hour period. >> I think that they were editing it to include rain. So, it should say a rain event involving more than one inch of rainfall in a 24-hour period. >> It's a definition, right? Significant storm event colon. >> A significant storm event is a rain event. Is it rate? Right. Right. >> So, it would be a rain event involving more than one inch of rainfall. >> You could do that. That's I'm happy with that, too, >> because otherwise you're just defining a rain event. >> Fine. >> In the definition of a storm event. >> Okay. >> So, we're going to delete Athena. Yeah. Right. Okay. >> And my only concern is we not do something that actually changes the technical or >> No, I I don't think it is. I think that I'm going to guess that's that was just a a miss of a deletion. >> Okay. >> Anything else, Council Ren? >> Not in 18.03. >> All right. Thank you for your thorough reading. >> Absolutely. >> Um Lynn, >> you know, later on I'm going to raise a question as to whether or not uh a couple technical terms should be defined up here. They be you kind of get it later at the very end in a chart. And that's specifically the tier one two and three and what what are they? Um and I can be talked out of that. It's just that I didn't until I got to that chart, I had no idea what tier one, two, and three was. >> Okay. Um can you give me the one of the references to it so I can >> Yeah, it's the reference is actually on page 17. Uh is where you actually find the definitions. Um let me see. I think the first time I saw it was on page 4 at the very end, section 18.07. >> Okay, hang on one second because we're going to keep going through and I'll get to that in a second. But your point is that it should be defined up here. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, we might like just make a little note additional definitions and then we'll come back to it at the end. >> Okay. Um Yeah. Could you just add like a comment in maybe? You're suggesting adding >> She's asking >> She's asking to discuss moving the um definition of tier 1, tier 2, tier three. Lynn, I think I'm I'm happy to discuss it further once we have reviewed it, but I don't that's not a definition as much as it's an explanation in my mind. Yeah, I mean it it actually there's again we can wait till later to bring it bring it up and maybe it doesn't belong there, but it >> I found that I didn't know what tier 1, two, and three was until I got to the page 17. >> Okay. >> Let's Yeah, let's talk about it once we have the once we've gotten to the context of it within the bylaw. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Anything else in definitions? Okay, >> my next one. >> Well, hang on. I The only one um Oh, no, never mind. That's fine. Uh let's do 18.04 compliance with laws, ordinances, and regulations. >> I have a comment. No, I don't I don't have any comments there. >> Okay. Council Ryan, anything from your >> Not in 1804. >> All right. Um, okay. My comment, well, Environmental Policy Act, I guess my comment was just about conservation um conservation commission bylaws, but it I see wetlands protection town FCM. They're in the next one. Got it. Okay. Uh, all applicants shall comply. So, we're good with 1804. Okay. 1805. There's a typo. >> Yep. All right. I want to get it. I want to get it. Lyn, >> no. I get that one, too. >> Oh, you saw that one, too. Okay. >> You both get credit. >> Did you see it? >> The intro structure in the title. >> I I'm not going to tell you. Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. >> Oh, you're not going to tell us. Okay, there we go. Thank you. >> I'm facilitating the discussion. [laughter] I >> see it. I see it. >> All right, everybody. Everybody gets a gold sticker for finding something. >> We all found it. Okay. infrastructure. >> Okay, >> we can fix the spelling of that. Thank you very much. Okay, anything else in 1805? >> Yeah. No. >> All right. >> Um 1806. >> There's like a weird spacing thing, but that's >> Yeah, that's throughout. I don't know if anyone wants to bother with it. There are certain places where it is quite irritating. Not in this section, but later where they all run together and it it's not horrible. I mean, it's you can read it, but it >> yeah, >> spacing would be helpful, but >> So, um, if I may, the the town clerk is tasked with um >> good >> with doing the formatting for these. So, when it's integrated into the rest of the zoning bylaws, it'll be fixed. The the formatting will match the existing formatting. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Very good. Um, okay. So, now we're in 1807. This is the first instance of um uh the tears question. I do think it should say tears two and three. Um maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. Feels like it should. Uh, so I think that Lynn, I would in response to your comment from before, I still don't think that tears and then the explanation is a definition. However, I do think that it would help to add a parentheses in appendix or whatever in table what like a reference to send people there. But I would argue that it is not a definition. I'm fine just as long as somebody finds it finds a definition earlier than I did. >> Got it. Um let me go to coun uh commissioner Mora before councelor Ryan and then I'll come back. >> Uh I just wanted to note that the um the tiers are defined under ground mount SPI in article 12. So in the last page of the document not in the embedded in the definitions within the the particular section but in the general definition section it is there. So here could we say C whatever uh for definitions of >> I think so they they had that in an earlier draft and Stephanie might know you know there were a lot of definitions or a lot of terms that were listed in the the definition section and and said see article 12 for the definition and that was removed. So um there's probably several others that would fall into that category if that was done. >> Okay. Again, my job is to make it as clear as possible to the public. It's not to question those issues. >> I think the question is, would the individual by the time they got to this bylaw have already gone through the other items which did define the tiers? Um because if not, like I kind of what Stephanie said before, like this is not necessarily a bylaw that's going to be used on its own. it's going to be used in conjunction with other bylaws pertaining to building things. Um, and so I guess so long as they've already pretty much had to go through something that identifies which tier is applicable, I don't know that it because we have to kind of put this in context, right? Um, but I I'm comfortable if we wanted to add a applicants for tier whatever. Stephanie, do you I'm so sorry. Director Chicarella, do you have any uh insights on on this before we spin ourselves in circles? Um, I think, you know, there were some a it's hard to remember because there were so many conversations and if they took it out, they definitely had a reason why they wanted to take out those specific references to article 12. Um, so I think if it's a consistency issue for you all, then I I don't think it would be problematic to to refer them to definitions in article 12. So I think, you know, again, I sort of I put that to you and I guess Rob has uh more to add on that. So >> thank you. Um, Commissioner Mora. Yeah, I am remembering that I think I commented on this in one of the earlier versions and what they ended up doing was uh in the definition section it says that all capitalized terms used in article 18 are defined in article 12 except as noted below. So you know it does direct the user of the bylaw to article 12 and you know a lot of the general terms best groundmounted SBI you know those are all the terms that are that are being defined in article 12. So, anybody utilizing this bylaw will be directed there to understand what some of these uh terms mean. >> Then I would like to recommend that when the council receives this in their packet, they also receive a link. >> Oh, I see. Article 12 is at the end. Okay, fine. I got it. >> Um, but would you feel better then if we put in a reference to say C article 12? >> It it might be better, but You know, again, I only got to read this this afternoon, so >> Sure. Sure. >> I mean, it does say that here. >> Yeah, >> it it does. And I think that that really takes care of it. And um if maybe during a presentation, somebody can just make sure that somebody says, "Oh, and by the way, the changes for the definitions to article 12 are at the end of the document or something like that." >> Okay. >> So, just leave it as is. >> Okay. Perfect. Um, all right. So, we're on section 18.07. >> Yep. >> Anything else here? >> Um, yeah, I do. >> Yeah, I'll read. >> Go ahead. You're good. Go ahead. >> Um, it sometimes I look at lists like AB and then under B there's one and then there's all of A and then there's two, etc. And I I always wonder if in a bylaw it's wise to say something about and any others that might reasonably apply or something like that because you know you we write this bylaw in this time frame and you know a year from now the state might pass yet another something or we might pass another something. And so it's it's finding a way that refers to that. That's all. I have some other questions, but they are not uh they're not uh around this. They're they're really questions for the council. >> So Lynn, you're saying kind of you're suggesting adding a catchall. >> Yeah, exactly. I think um part of what I'm wondering about is one I'm curious about how this list is ordered. And I say that because it's not alphabetical. So I'm looking at item B here, which is physical features. Um and that seems like a catch-all. And I wonder about one either ordering this alphabetically just to make me feel better, but two putting other physical features. Um and then my only addition there is streams is listed twice. And I would propose removing it from physical features because it's already under wetlands, streams, locations of flood planes, and other wet stuff. So I think that would be I'm curious about u moving physical features to the end and having it read other physical features or additional physical features and then include things like natural features, stone walls, other. Are there thoughts on that? Would that be acceptable? >> I think that that you know that really comes on from your experience of being on the conservation commission. I think it's an excellent one. >> I mean, I was just proposed having a whole category called wet stuff. So, I don't know if I would lean on me in that example, but yes. Um, so, so Athena, the change is Sorry, I have mine up and I need to make yours bigger. Um, so item B on this 1B, we're going to move that full thing to be last. We are also deleting streams from it. Um, and then I would I think we're going to say other physical features or additional physical features maybe might be better and then remove streams and the word and the word other again. Sorry. So natural features, stone walls, >> other features. Um, if folks don't feel strongly about alphabetizing this, we don't have to. Otherwise, I'm happy to just tell you the reorder. >> I'd leave it the way it is. >> Fine. Councelor Ry, >> um I have no comment on this. This is fine. >> I have one other one which is um I think for director Chikarelloo. When you talked about existing when you say existing condition plans and you talk about wetlands, streams, flood planes, is the expectation that that is um because this is all on a groundbased survey by a registered land surveyor that that would also suffice for the plans that they'd have to bring by surveyor to the tocom or a similar group or are we talking about separate sets of plans for these items? Like is this all just my my lack of familiarity with um with the plans that you'd receive? A standard set of plans would include all of these things. >> Should include all of these things include all these things. >> One of the things that the um wetlands uh conservation agent, I'm sorry, um she [snorts] had a change of title, Erin Shock, had requested be included. So >> yeah. >> So yes. >> Perfect. Um and then my only other question on this one is with the roads piece. It's a little It reads a little confusing confusingly. Uh it it's uh phrased a bit confus Oh my god, it's too early um for this to be happening. I'm curious if we could say uh roads on the property including right of way of any public road because uh farm or other roads coming after public road any public road I assume that you still want to know private farm roads that might be on the property. So, I I might be being too too nitpicky in an effort to kind of try to be on par with council Ryan here, but should this read all roads on the property, including the right of way of public roads that are contiguous, abuing scenic roads and byways, farm or other roads on the property, or is it It's the word including. Sorry. The word including is what's throwing me off because it reads that a farm road or other road on the property is a public road and that's not necessarily true and I'd want to make sure that if those are important they are logged. Happy to hear Anna this doesn't matter. I'm just being aware of possible accidental loopholes. Any thoughts? No one has any thoughts. You're going to let me keep talking to myself. Okay. Then I'm going to propose a change and you can disagree with me. Um for item Yep. Thank you. roads including the right of way of any public road that is contiguous and then remove the second including. Yeah, >> that's fine. >> Thank you. >> Good, >> Council Ryan. Uh well I'm I'm [clears throat] neck andneck with you to get the award for this year's go committee member of the year. >> Oh you've won it. >> I know as I've got two items now in this section but you have to scroll down >> to uh I and L. So it's way down. There's I. You'll catch this right away. Sure. Ah, you didn't. Okay. Semicolon at the end of I. Thank you. And also L. >> Way to go, George. >> I know. I What do you think? I'm in I'm in the contention now. >> I know. Oh, no. You have the award. >> You already had it. This wasn't a competition. We're all playing. >> It is a competition. Come on. Let's be honest. >> Um, all right. Anything? Wait, was that both of yours, George? Was that two? >> That was the only two I found. But if anyone says others, they can they can rival me here. >> All right. >> Yes, I think everything else was fine as far as I could see. >> Um >> I mean like I was reading this today, so who knows? >> I know. I know. >> It's all right. It's read it sometime. >> I'm going to keep looking through just to make sure my second reading here. Um >> actually Q2. >> Yep. needs it after the word regulations. Oh, I think it goes. Yeah. Right. >> All right. >> Isn't this exciting, Stephanie? >> This is, you know, right now I think I'm in the lead, but I may lose my >> I've been in this for years. This is exciting to me. [laughter] It's nice to have an appreciative audience. We We very much appreciate that. >> Where are we now? Dimensional. >> We're in 1808. Is that right? >> Dimensional standard. >> Hang on. I'm going to make sure I'm going nice and slow through this. I'm do I'm double checking because if I catch something you missed, I feel even better about myself. >> Yeah, I know you will. >> Um, okay. Yes, we can go on to >> uh actually 18.08.02. Are we there yet? >> We're on 18.08 right now. So, anything within 18.08. >> So, there's a period there or something >> where >> standalone and colllocated best installations. Um, sorry. Real >> now I think yeah those I don't know those headers are just left without punctuation. >> Yeah I want to just real quick we sometimes are using zone Oh wait zone I'm assuming that this is a zone one or zone I. Is it zone I or zone one? No, it's zone one. We use Roman numerals on zones and then non- Roman numerals on uh tiers. um on everything else. >> Okay. >> I'm just noting that as something uh I don't like. That's all. >> Okay. >> Unhelpful comment. Sorry. >> Probably based on what our our bylaws say and what the state says. It's I I hear what you're saying. >> Um >> so the question is it's really starts above and08.01. So go up. >> Should there be some kind of punctuation at the end of the that section? So like a semicolon. No, no, no, no. >> Not a semicolon. >> No, no, no. I don't think so. I know. I'm looking to see what the other ones look like. Let's see. >> It's It's not a sentence, so it shouldn't have a >> right. It's not a sentence. >> Period. >> Uh, however, 18083. Well, no, that is a sentence in 1808. So, yes, it's not a sentence. It shouldn't have punctuation. >> That's my take. >> I agree. 18083. However, is a sentence and so it does have punctuation. >> Yeah. >> Um, you could put a se you could put a colon here >> after the word installations. >> I find that very offensive. >> I know, George. I'm trying to make everyone happy and I know what folly that is. >> You just have to take a stand, kiddo. >> Okay. Um, I will say on we do have uh colons in other areas. So, I think we're going to have to figure it out. So, we've got if you want to go so sorry back up to 1807. >> Okay. you have under well if it's the same thing under B >> you have a colon and then under two you've got a semicolon. So it seems like >> the the colon here is introducing a list and the semicolon here is because this is part of a list. >> Yeah, >> right. It's good. >> What fun discussions we have? Okay. Um, all right. So, >> I don't think you have a problem here. I think it's fine. >> Personally, I would rather not because we have to make sure we do it every single place in the whole >> Exactly. Right. So, we're good. >> document. >> We're good. >> All right. Uh, am I on the same page as everybody else? Yeah. 1808. Okay. Um, without anything else in 1808, let's go to 1809. What about 18.09.04 about it? >> I think a colon. No, I don't know. I mean, when you go above access roads has one, clearances doesn't. glare does land clearing and soil erosion don't. >> I think it's because there's a series of multiple paragraphs under it. It's clear. I think I'm not bothered by it. It's mostly clarity so the reader can just follow and not get hopefully lost and there's no contradictions or so. Yeah. >> Um Okay. So, yes colons or no colons? >> No colons. >> Leave it. >> Leave it. Yeah, >> because again it has it varies. It varies here, but I think it's fine. >> All right. Um, so we're good on 1809 signage, >> right? >> So, we're on to 1810. Yep. >> And I have one one point. It actually appears on page 11. And at the very top line, it ends with a statement, a very small quantity generator of hazardous waste. What does very small mean? >> It's like a technical defining term somewhere. It's capitalized. So somewhere there in the definitions >> I think it's probably in CMR Rob. >> Oh CMR 30. Okay. >> Um any any insights on small amount are we good? >> If it's there then that's fine and it is capitalized as if it is a definition. >> Yeah. It says pursuant to 310 CMR 30. So >> yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> I can check if you want. And in the next paragraph, if we're done with that, I was so excited. I thought I found another one, but I think I'm wrong. Hazardous material shall not be stored in no disturbance areas. So no disturbance is actually a descriptive phrase for an area. It's not because otherwise it's terrible English, but I take it. We want to put in quotes, but apparently no disturbance is describing the area. It's a no disturbance area. Is that >> Yes, >> that is. Should there be a hy a hyphen then? >> Well, or quotation marks. I mean, I think anyone who knows this will probably not troubled by it, but it appears twice there and I wanted to change it and then I realized it's an adjective. It's an adjectable phrase. I guess it's an adjective. >> No disturbance zones. It's defined elsewhere in our bylaw. So, >> I couldn't find it. It's fine. Good. >> I believe that it is within the waters supply protection or wetlands by >> Could we capitalize it? Um, I can look back to confirm that it's in there if you want me to, but it would be capitalized if it's a definition elsewhere in the bylaws. >> Okay. >> Is my understanding. It >> just reads a little oddly and maybe people who know this stuff backwards and forwards would just not even notice it. But for someone who's total neophite, you want to say hazardous materials shall not be stored in any disturbance areas detail. [laughter] That's my English teacher. >> It is uh >> I hear you. That's fine. >> Yeah. I think what what capitalizing it to me makes me read is, oh, this actually has a definition I need to go look up >> um versus just my interpretation of what a >> okay >> zone is um with the hazardous materials within the wetlands. Is this something that if for some reason our wetlands protection bylaws change, we would need to update here as well? I'm presuming this is in keeping with those. Is it can should we just be saying hazardous materials shall be stored in accordance with the um the wetlands bylaw wetlands protection bylaw or is it is this different is this a different number? Um, >> I was trying to find if it said anything about it in our wetlands protection by, but I my search function isn't working. So, I'm not sure if this is a new new item and we're adding it because it's not covered in the wetlands protection bylaw. >> So, this is surface water, not groundwater. So, I'm thinking that doesn't specifically fall under wouldn't be specified in the wetland regulations. I'm thinking that this and Rob maybe you can help me with this here because I'm you know this because we had a confluence of also DPW language for surface water supplies. So I think some of the language might have come from them as well. >> So it's not specifically just the wetland bylaw. >> Yeah. Okay. But we're not going to accidentally run into an issue of us contradicting ourselves. >> I don't >> I I don't think so because I you know we reviewed this as a whole group. >> Yeah. >> W and conservation were in the same room while we were going through this. >> Oh. To be a fly on the wall in that conversation. It was it was a very good collegial effort. >> I'm sure I can imagine how many people needed to be in that room. Thank you all for doing that work. Um, all right, continuing on. Are there any My god, I was so confused and it was because I was looking at the wetlands bylaw. All right, there we go. Now I'm back. Um, 181 [laughter] emergency response plan. >> Yeah, I have one there. I I have just I can raise this at the council meeting, but earlier and I can't find where it is. It did whenever it talked about the fire department being involved, it also talked about police and especially with relationship to emergency response, it seems to me like they would be as in they would be involved as well and and yet they're not. >> Um >> I think that may be a question for Monday night. It might be a question for Monday night that >> I it might be substitive, but Stephanie, if you've got any thoughts that would be helpful to share. >> Yeah, I was going to say that um so fire was very much directly involved >> in reviewing this document and so there are a lot of very specific emergency response protocols that fall under their jurisdiction. Um and I think that's more what this is referring to. So, I I don't think that it would be appropriate for police and I would ask Rob to sort of weigh in on that um opinion as well. >> I >> Well, yeah, I mean the the first section is very specific to a a regulation for the fire department, but the end of the paragraph could, you know, you might even include police and you know, in the emergency responders piece. So, um I I wouldn't see any harm in the last two sentences incorporating police. >> Yeah. I I'm just, you know, I I think about the big fire we had this last fall and um a fall a year ago, I guess it is now. Um and you know, the police were as involved in a very different way, but nevertheless involved. I would I think with this I think the copy of the emergency response plan being given to Ammerst police would be enough in my mind. >> I don't think that they need to be involved in creating one >> if they want one. I guess >> um council Ryan sorry did you have >> that was exactly >> okay >> if that's what you intended and that's that's perfect. I'm I'm I'm we might be treading beyond clarity, consistency, actionability though. So I'll I'll I'll frame it as like this is a an clarity piece of emergency responders includes police here. >> Um >> okay. >> Okay. Anything else with All right. Uh let's go to 18.12. >> I have a question here, but I think it's a Monday night question. You want to wait on it? Okay. Uh 18.13. Okay. Um I'm presuming with with this they're submitting inspection reports to your office, right, Rob? Uh and you distribute. Okay. Um one year post construction of SBI and Bass monthly and within 48 hours of significant storm events. So beginning one year after the construction, you receive the or the third party inspector submits reports to you every month. Is that right? And then if there's a big rain event, you have to do it within 48 hours >> in addition if there's a rain event. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Just making sure we're reading that right. >> Yep. So, >> okay. They submit it every month, but only for a period of time. Um, it doesn't seem to end. Oh, no. For one year, not one year after. So for one year postcon that's a confusing sentence. I I got there I got there but that's a confusing sentence. >> Um I mean it it so let me let me tell you my issue is once you pass that one year it unless there's a significant event like a rain event does that mean there's no more inspection? Um, Rob, >> the way I would read that, yes, >> it then >> I'm going to say I was going to say that's a a good question, but might be a >> it's a Monday night question. >> Might be a substantive one. >> Yeah. >> Um, I will say that we do seem to have significant rain events more often now. Uh, debris cleanup. Uh, we're good on that. Um, just just a real quick note, we are very inconsistent and it drives me bonkers with spelling out one or writing the number one or writing both and clarifying. Um, I I I don't want to do this to us, but I would appreciate an 18 131 13 if we could do the same thing that we do in 181 13 and just say one and then parenthesis with the numerical in it. >> Talking about this one? >> Yeah. Uh, no. Um, down. We're back on 1813. One up. Go up one. There we go. Yeah. >> If I catch it again, I'll note it. But just under the guise of consistency, make my brain stop itching about it. >> Um, okay. >> Anything? >> Okay. uh 1814. So, yep. Okay. Sorry. 1815 No. >> All right. Um 1816. I have question. I generally do have questions about uh where it says remediate the landscape like what that means, but I will leave that up to you all. I don't think it needs to be explicitly stated in a bylaw. because it feels conditional. Okay. Um 1816. >> I only had one. It's at the very end and it was the town shall have the right but not the obligation to remove the SPI or best. So in other words, does that say we could also just walk away from the site and abandon it with all the equipment? I think what it's saying is that should the town choose to do nothing, we can't be sued for that, but that we can go in and remove it ourselves without repercussion. >> Maybe a different framing of what you said, but >> yeah, >> I read it from the other angle of we are not obligated to to spend a lot of money to remove it. Yeah. >> Um, okay. 18. Where are we? 16. Did we just do that? 17. 16. Sorry. And then 17. There we go. Additional design requirements. >> Nope. >> Okay. No. >> Um and 1818. >> Okay. >> The way PAS is defined, it has a small s. >> Where are you >> in the definitions? Stephanie or Rob, do you know if the like official way of writing PAS is with a big S or a little S? >> I think it's with a big S because it's substances is substance substances is in the acronym so it should be a big S. If I'm wrong, Stephanie or Robu, please educate me in that. I >> thought it was a little less in the definitions. Maybe I'm wrong. >> I mean, I whenever I've seen it, it's always been capitalized and I'm looking online, it's always capitalized. >> Is there a reason it's small here? >> I don't know. Um maybe because it's the word substances, but >> but the word substance >> capital too. >> Yeah, >> I think Athena earned a sticker today >> for that fight. So happy >> I win. >> You win, >> George. >> Yeah, she's gonna beat you out, George. >> I know. I know. It's happened. Feel I feel like the red side. [sighs] >> Make a move and then down you go. >> All right. Um, one thing that I think we are inconsistent on. No, maybe we're not. No, we're not. Never mind. Ignore me. Okay. [sighs] So, we're still on the aggro Voltaics. >> We're up to 18 20. >> We're up to 18.2. Yeah. >> Sorry. >> No, you're good. You're good. I was trying to look up how we we seem to refer to MGL a couple different ways, but I I'm going to let it go. Um, okay. 18.2 >> 18.21 >> 18.22. >> No. >> All right, we're on to the tables now. So, >> so my biggest issue is there needs to be a key. >> And so, just just to contextualize this here because we've gotten stuck in this before, they the changes that are being made are in the bold and italicized font. So, as you're looking through it here, so Lynn, you're saying you want a key for Well, I think the definition is in the second column, right? Yes, definition. It It doesn't even say that. It should say definition um or something >> kilowatt limit or kilowatt range or just kilowatt, >> right? because the second column is >> just >> um Lynn, what would what would clarify this for you as you read it? >> Well, first of all, something label that column something I mean whatever it is, kilowatt range or whatever. And then what does SP mean versus SPR? >> Site plan review site plan. I'm just and again I realize, you know, I'm not the engineer coming in to do this. They probably would know what all that meant. >> Well, I think I think that the part because this is just part of the zoning bylaw that that is specified prior. This is just a pull out from the full zoning bylaw. >> I see. Okay. >> Well, [clears throat] >> Director Chello, anything to add on that? If you wanted to add a heading for that column, you could call it capacity range. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Excellent. >> That's better than KW. Thank you. Um, okay. So, yeah, I think just for I think Commissioner Morris, what you were about to say is that this is specified elsewhere in the zoning bylaw. Yes, this is uh an additional uh section to the article 3 use classification table that already exists. >> And at the beginning of that section, it tells you what each of these mean. >> Okay, perfect. >> Thank you. >> And get and is that referred to somewhere here? >> Uh at the top it says proposed changes to other sections of zoning bylaw. >> Oh, you know what? When I printed this that got blacked out. I don't know why. No problem. And then yeah, new section to be added to table three in the bylaw. >> I got it. Thank you. >> No problem. Um All right. Generally, >> and and Lynn, the the table has the um in the actual zoning by it has the it defines what Y and SP stand for. >> That's that's perfect. >> Excellent. Okay. Um let's go on to the second table on page 18 >> again. And what is that column? >> Um, so it's the same. It's the same uh range. >> Yeah, >> I think it would be up one, right? >> And the other one it wasn't, but >> Oh, sorry. I I wondered if it should have been up one. >> I don't know it that it really matters. We've kind of got two different pieces here. >> I think actually no, I think Athena's >> so what what are we using the same words? >> I think it's the same thing, right? It's still a >> limit >> range. Yeah, capacity limit. It's still >> Yeah, it's fine. >> Breaking them out. >> So, we put the word capacity Yep. I think that's good. Okay. >> All right. >> We called one range there. >> You're good. You're good. >> Yeah. So, change it to range. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> All right. And then anything else on this? >> No. >> Okay. So, on the next one, fences. This is just stating that it's going to amend section 6.2 two to add the following the following language saying you got to use 18 for that and then we get into I believe this is additional definitions for article 12 >> and this takes care of my issue earlier so >> great >> we're done >> um and these are new so we should make sure that we we've got the consistency here too um all right >> and these numbers would be filled in when the town clerk or stuff. >> Yes, >> these. >> Perfect. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, um, Athena is do we need different motions to recommend or can we recommend generally all of article 18 and include all of the other changes or do we need separate motions for those like separate ones for the dimensional table or the not dimensional tables the other tables and stuff that aren't part of? >> No, you you can recommend the whole proposal as a package. That's the the best way of doing it. >> Thank you. >> You bet. Um, so when in the motion I shouldn't just read article 18, I should say article 18 and associated changes. >> So if you look at the agenda, the general agenda for today, I can pull it up real quick, too. Um, you'll see that the whole thing. >> Thanks. I had pulled it from somewhere else. That was my fault. >> Athena, did that get changed the way it got changed in agenda setting? >> Um, no, not go's because it was already posted. It's actually it's table three isn't dimensional regulations. It's um >> Yeah, I just had it. Hang on. >> Yeah, [snorts] >> you're going to win. Yeah, >> table. It just says table three. Oh, renewable energy uses. Is that right? >> Good score. Almost back up. They both threedimensional regulations. And then table three dimensional it keeps saying dimensional regulations when I'm in in the zoning bylaw it's called dimensional regulations. All right. I want to get the right word for you. >> No, you're fine. uh section three use classifications and standards. >> So is it zoning table three or section three? >> So can I just read it to you so that you already with a motion you can say >> oh yeah I just wrote the whole thing. I was so ready. Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. So to declare the proposed zoning bylaw article 18 clean energy infrastructure and associated amendments to zoning section 3 use classifications and standards 5.11 renewable energy accessories solar photovol installations/ battery energy storage systems uses 6.2 two fences and article 12 definitions clear, consistent, and actionable as amended at this meeting. >> Uh, so moved. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right, I'm going to go ahead and call the vote. Councelor Ryan, >> I. >> Len Gremer, >> I. >> Councelor Lord, >> I. >> Thank you. And I am an I. All right, that will do it. This will head to the council. Thank you both so much and please as you pass your colleagues in the hall who I know worked really hard on this. Um please also thank them for all of the hard work. I know this has been a this was one of the first things we started working on when I was elected. So um pretty cool to see it back at the council. A little nervous to see it back at the council but uh generally happy that it's come so far. So thank you. Thank you all very much for your work. It is deeply appreciated. >> Um and with that you're free to go unless you want to hang around to talk about resident oversight board. But thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Have a great night. >> Good night. >> All right, friends. It is 7:30. Um, I wanted to Sorry, I need to write this in my notes. Sorry. Okay. I wanted to refocus us on our resident oversight board conversation. Partially because we have not met for over a month. Um, and things may have gotten fuzzy. Um, but also because I think we need to kind of [snorts] figure out a bit more of an action plan and what questions we need answers answered in order to move forward. Um, so I want to start by reggrounding us. We had our conversation with our the attorney. Um, there were a lot of questions that came out of that conversation and one of the things that we talked about doing was looking into other communities who have enacted resident oversight boards to figure out how they've done some of the things that we heard from our legal team weren't really doable. Um, also everything I'm saying right now is my understanding. So please uh correct and amend and add as you see fit. So, one of the things that we've talked about is talking to folks in Cambridge and Boston and Springfield um to hear about their experiences with their ROVs. That's something that I'm um I'm happy to do with Athena. Uh we I think it it's a bit hard to kind of have that uh be a group meeting obviously because they can't necessarily come to our meetings. So I'm happy to go ahead and kind of ask some questions, but I wanted this group to ground in what those questions should focus on um for those communities. I also want us to talk about what are the remaining questions that we have. What do what information do we need in order to move forward so that we can actually get those answers and make a determination? We're a bit spinning on this because I think we were pitched to two options and not a complete proposal. So it's a bit challenging to to kind of move forward in making a decision that was supposed to be more of coming to us as a recommendation. Um and from there I'd like us to define those action steps to move forward. If someone else feels that they are really clear on what we are what the next steps are and that I am wasting time in making this plan, please tell me what your clarity is so that we can go with that. Um, but I'm feeling like we need to kind of ground ourselves a little bit in where we are and what we need to do to move forward. Um, any objection to starting off with what are the remaining questions we need to answer in order to go move forward from here? when >> um I'm more than glad to come up with those questions, but the thing that really struck me as we were meeting with the attorney was looking at the creation of the post commission and timing. And the reason I bring that up is because these three communities that have resident oversight boards were created before the post commission. Okay. And what would be interesting to know is now that the post commission has been created, are they look going to go back and look at their resident oversight boards? Okay. The other piece that struck me is the recommendation that Ammerst have a resident oversight board was made by a committee prior to the creation of the post commission as well. And so I find myself after listening to the attorney totally questioning what what it is we could recommend based because basically we were given two options and I don't think this committee is um should be asked to come up with the creation of an entirely new um proposal for a resident oversight board. That wasn't the charge we were given. The charge we are the the thing we were given I believe was of the two options recommend an option. So that's I really left that meeting with the the bottom line for me was timing and whether timing would change how people look at this. >> Um so I think I I hear you and I I think asking that question uh is going to be interesting. However, I'm curious if we frame it slightly differently because I think it seems clear based on the fact that at least Cambridge and Boston, I was able to find more recent meeting agendas and articles about their work. They're not adjusting how they're working in light of post. Um, they haven't explicitly stated that that I can see. However, they are actively working in the same way they were working before. So, I'm curious if not not the question of are they going back or are they changing it, but have any of their practices shifted? I think is what I'm wondering. Um, did it take anything off their plates or did it kind of duplicate is is what I'm curious about with that. >> Right. The and so that's you asked for a question. So fine, ask the question any way you want, but it's the real issue is how has the post commission changed what they do? Because then when I went on the post commission site, what I saw was an an amazing number of reviews done by the post commission for those three municipalities. So, I'm also wondering how are they um h who's whose word is final here, the post commission or the resident oversight board? And I think I know the answer, but I want to know what they're thinking. Okay. So basically what happens if the post commission and the um local RO come to different conclusions. >> Right. >> Okay. Council Ryan. >> Yeah. Um, I went back and took a look at my notes from the last meeting, which as you know, as as you've noted, has been a while. And my homework, at least part of it, was to look into the post commission, which I did. And I have some perhaps looks like Lynn may have done the same. I have, you know, we're not going to go into it now, but anyway, I thought that was something that we wanted greater clarification on. Um, you know, what are its powers, what are its rules and regulations, who serves on it? um and what is it doing? Um I think the questions that are being raised about you know what happens if post and local RO conflict that definitely needs to be addressed though I think we got somewhat of an answer last time from the attorney. Um, I think looking at the experience of the three communities that currently have an active uh body similar to what we're considering would be productive and um I think that would be and then the question you know have they changed their uh behaviors or their what they're doing um would be a fair question to to ask and to get some sense of what the answer might be. And the third thing that I have in my notes that we haven't mentioned yet is trying to get some idea of the cost. Um it seems that that's a particularly important question since we are reviewing the entire proposal. It's not something that I think should be punted to the finance committee at least not at this stage. We should be able to present to the council what the costs would be for these proposals. And uh I don't think we have any clue at the moment. So those are the three areas sort of the costs um the the the postcommission uh exploration um and the experience of the three communities that currently have bodies such as the one we're considering. I don't know what other questions people have, but those are the three that I came away from and I did do a little uh work and certainly have something to share at some point with the committee when they're ready on the post commission and you know what is what has been doing over the last five years. But I'm happy to do some other work as well. Um but those are the three areas that I identified. I'm wondering if there are other areas um that committee members would also like us to do some uh work in and then we come back. I agree with Anna we should have a framework and uh this is sort of beginnings of a framework so that when we meet we're going to go through one two three and four um and hopefully have some information or maybe even answers that we can then chew on. >> Thank you. Uh, George, I do want to hear what you found in your homework. Um, I think right after we kind of get a little bit further in this discussion, I'll turn to you to to hear that because I think that'll be helpful. Lynn. Um so in addition to those questions it seems to me that it would be useful to see the committee's charge understand how the committee's members are selected understand what training they go through or what kind of expertise they come to the committee with and then um if are they compensated in other words I'm looking at what have been proposed in the two models models that we were given and wondering how they compare to the models that they have that they're following. >> Okay. >> So, Lyn, I'm sorry my mind's going in two directions. One, you mentioned compensation, but the other was simply you wanted to get clarity on their I mean, just help me with what it was. >> Yeah, their charge, their terms, etc. >> Okay. So charge terms, what trainings they go through, >> are they compensated? >> Compensation. >> Um, okay, great. Um, okay. anything else that we want to so I I'm sure that other questions will will emerge naturally in conversation but I want to make sure that if nothing else came out of that we would have enough information from these communities if I asked only the following questions roughly speaking about how is the post commission the the creation and and work of the post commission changed what they do has it at all changed what they do what happens if the post commission the local RO OB come to different conclusions and then some basic information about their ROS such as their charge, the terms, what trainings they go through, are they compensated? >> If we get that, is that all the information that we need from those other communities? Is there anything else that would be helpful for us to know? I will throw one out there. One of the things that we hear a lot about is the impact on kind of quoteunquote community relations or community trust. I'm curious if and I know that this is not necessarily something that you can go out and measure the same way that you can number of calls, but I'm curious if there is a perception of change in the level of community trust since the establishment of the RO. I also recognize this is a subjective question. However, I think it's one that is mentioned a lot and it's worth hearing about their experience. Is that something folks think would be worthwhile to hear about? Okay. anything else that's maybe a less tangible question like the ones we've had before but um other questions that would be helpful to to hear about their experience um council Ryan >> so what about the impact on the uh police department itself on the the men and women who will be u you know subject to a potential RO do we want to hear from them do we want to have some kind now they've sent I believe to this body a a lengthy statement has have others. Um maybe that's sufficient. But um if we're going to talk about impact on the community, uh shouldn't we also discuss what the impact on the uh the police will be? >> Absolutely. I um I think it's fine specifying it. I should clarify. I I count our town staff in our community and I think defining them separately will be No, no, no, no. I got what you're saying. But I think actually teasing the two apart will be helpful. like you're which is I think what you're saying right like impact on the staff through the police and then impact on community members who are not police officers. Okay. Um that led me to my other one which you reminded me which is about union negotiations um and the impact on um union uh contracts and the like there if there has been any >> other items that we want to hear about from these other communities about their experience with their RO. We're going to get everything we need so that everyone will come to the table with a declarative statement on how they're ready to vote by the time we get our answers. >> You certainly don't expect that to happen at the next meeting, right? >> I think it'll take probably at least two more. >> Yeah, I I'm moving as fast as we can, but there are Yes. But Right. Good. I think to to I think it was Lynn's point earlier, this is a hard um a hard spot that we're in and and I think which kind of is getting me to my next question about process which is we need to decide if there is a point where we are going to draft or we are going to send this back to the council and say come up with a different way to bring this to us. Um, and I think this body needs to determine I'm trying to I want to look back Athena, you might be able to find it faster than I can, but I want to look back at the initial referral because it was not just and I I say this not snarkly but but a little bullheadedly. Um, it was not just choose one of the two options. It was a little bit of a messy motion to or come up with a combination or something. Um, and so that that's why the the the piece, where's the exact language? Um, I need to find my carryover report. Sorry. >> I have the um the referral to go was to refer the proposed resident oversight board charge and bylaw to the governance organization and legislation committee with a report and recommendation to the council by April 1st, 20 26. It was it was and in the discussion if folks watched that meeting a while back um in the discussion it was really a it might be a combination it might be something else alto together um and so I think that we need to we could go back to the council and say you need to clarify your referral um and and say are you asking us to create something new or are you asking us to choose um and if they're asking us to choose I think we have significant concerns with both and we can make a recommendation of you need to go back to study um to not study but to to research this and come up with a new proposal or you're asking us to write something new and we need more people or something. I don't know. Councelor Ryan while people mle that. So, you touch on something that I wasn't going to raise, but now that you've sort of raised that I would like to bring. Um, one of the things that many some communities, I don't know how about many, have found very helpful, useful, productive, um, in dealing with these kinds of questions is getting body cameras for their police officers. Um, and certainly that's something that our own, uh, police officers, the union has strongly advocated for. Is that something we can talk about? Is that something we could come back to the council and I mean assuming we can even talk about it, we could say, "Look, one thing that we should definitely do um maybe in addition to um an RO um is to uh begin to think about getting body cameras for our police officers. Um it's something that they very much support. It's something that seems to be um useful in other communities. Um it obviously would have a cost. We'd have to find out what the cost is. Um, but is that something that we can talk about? A, and B, is it something we come back to the council as a possible recommendation even though it's not quote unquote in the charge? >> Um, this committee could discuss whether that can be part of a recommendation. I am not comfortable putting that forward as any sort of, and I don't know that this is what you were suggesting, but in any sort of way suggesting that that is doing what an RO would help to do. No, no, no. I'm not I'm not I'm not making any suggest at all. No, >> I didn't think you were, but I just want to make that clear. So, I think Helsin, I think that that probably is better off. I don't know. I My initial thought is that that is a separate item. Um, the RO was one of many recommendations made regarding policing. body cameras feel more like they fit into that kind of general recommendations about policing, not necessarily this one strategy. So, I would argue that that and I'm arguing this as an individual. I'm happy to to open it up to the comm uh the committee for thoughts, but I'd argue that that would be something that like an individual counselor could bring forward as a proposal uh or suggest in the capital budget process, but not necessarily tied to the RO, if that makes sense. It feels like a separate strategy. >> Is it something that we can or should bring up in discussion at this or a future meeting? Is that something you're comfortable with as chair? Are other committee members open to it? I mean, one of the things that when I think about this, I think of the main or one of these central purposes is to create a greater degree of trust between uh the police department and and the community, particularly the community of color. And so it seems to me this could be considered as a possible uh part of that or it could not. Maybe some would say no it's totally irrelevant. It doesn't make any difference one way or the other um whether you have body cameras or not. Um so if we don't want to take it up fine but I'd like since we're talking about our charge and sort of broad nature of it and the fact that you know we're really kind of struggling to figure out you know are we supposed to do either A or B or can we modify? Can we come back and say well um here's some I don't know. So um but I consider this as a potential um you know proposal to address at least in part the issue of trust between the community of color and the police department. >> I hear you. But I think our charge was to discuss an RO not how to create trust. >> Um and so I don't think that we can kind of come out with a fully separate proposal. Okay. Okay. >> I think that would be a se I think it needs to be its own separate thing. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um I think you know we can there's a possibility that we could reference it as a recommendation to support the work of an RO. Um but I don't think that we can suggest it as a separate item. Um you know >> but it might come up in the process of our discussion. Good. >> Um and if it did we could talk about it or not but it's not right. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, but I think it it needs to be within the context of an RO. >> I hear you. >> Um, so I don't know that my notes are helping me here. Council Ryan, do you want to tell us what you discovered in your homework? >> Sure. For a few minutes. How's the time? At 7:5 a lot of time. We should try to end on time. I think >> um I think a lot of what I'm going to tell people or some of what I'm I'm going to talk about people already know, but the post commission was created in the aftermath of George Floyd. Um it's current executive director served since 2021. Um he's actually an immigrant. Um he came from Mexico. Um he has an rather impressive resume in service to the state on various bodies and boards. Um he actually comes from Mexico. Um they have descertified in the last for five years 87 uh police officers in the Commonwealth and they've suspended 90. Um it seems that the uh rate is somewhat increasing in the last year or two. They do oversee a very large body of police agencies. Um and but as we learned from our lawyer last time, every uh substantial uh complaint uh is by law required to be reported to them by every uh police agency in the Commonwealth. um and within two days um one of the things that clearly is an issue for them, it's raised by um the executive director among others is that they they were looking for funds. I don't know if they got them for a pilot program to do an audit of the agencies that they oversee to make sure that they're actually following the rules and regulations because quite frankly they're relying on the police departments actually following the law. Um and so they would like um some help from the state to to take a closer look to do basically an audit. Um they basically have as I understand it three powers. One is they simply monitor complaints as they come in. They can choose to investigate one on their own. Um and they also can review the findings of a local agency. Um and serious complaints that is involving use of force, excessive use of force and obviously you know serious physical harm or death. um almost always if not always end up in the attorney general's uh ballpark. Um it becomes something that is that that is handled by them. Um their power is the power to suspend um usually with a requirement for retraining um and also the power to descertify which is essentially termination. One issue they do face is that officers in the process in this during this process can choose to retire or resign. And if that happens then the whole process stops and there are cases perhaps more than a few where an officer could choose to retire or resign and then reapply in another police department in the Commonwealth and that the process of u communication and oversight is not perfect. So that's a concern that's been raised uh both by them and by others that um sometimes can happen. Um I did take a look at the nine commissioners that are appointed. Three are appointed by the governor. Three are appointed by the attorney general and three are appointed by both the governor and the attorney general. And um I can give you a brief description of the nine members. Maybe we'll save that for another day. Um but it's a very very impressive group. Um the uh the current chair is a former justice of the superior court of Massachusetts. She served as an assistant US attorney in Boston in the economic crimes unit. Um and she was the director of the department of justice's New England bank fraud desk. One of the members is a licensed social worker, served as the chief victim witness assistance program overseer for Suffach District County. Um another is two of them have police backgrounds. uh one of the two individuals has a police background. Um actually served as a police officer for almost 20 years, but he also represents the police union organizations in collective bargaining negotiations with municipalities around the Commonwealth. A third member actually serves as the minority law enforcement officer, president of the association of minority law enforcement officers and he too is an immigr. He comes from Haiti. Um, we have uh an experienced trial attorney who spent most of her career dealing with civil rights law, discrimination cases, and police misconduct. Um, you have a licensed psychologist who specialized in trauma and behavioral medicine treatments for patients of all ages. Also worked in the in the legal system and also worked with young adolescent girls at risk. you have a uh what is Deborah Hall is a has experience working with survivors of domestic violence and addressing intersection of race, gender and community violence. Um another member is a pastor um in the of the AM Zion church. So it's a very diverse group um has broad amounts of experience. It certainly doesn't seem like a group that is designed to give the police a pass. Um though there are members who serve on it who are one is a police chief um and one is a representative of police union but even in those cases if you look at their resumes they've been involved in a fair amount of community work um and have a pretty impressive police resume um from the side of you know being a progressive um active police force in the 21st century. So anyway um it's an impressive group of nine people. They've been at work for the last five years essentially. Um, and uh, you know, it's that's that's what I learned to date. >> Thank you so much, Council Ran. Uh, Lynn >> George, that was extremely helpful. Um, sorry that my lights going bad. Um, one of the questions I wondered was whether or not there was any evidence that during the certification process, which our police department goes through every 3 years, I believe, um, is there any is there anything raised during that certification process like how many cases have been referred to post etc. And that brings back to me the issue of does the certification process have in it any kind of an audit um responsibility or you know a function that looks like an audit uh where they actually go in and they look at records and so forth. And I I just don't know. I just know that uh not all police departments are certified. Ours is. We were one of the first ones to be certified and we were just reertified I believe >> about a year or two ago. Maybe we're going through it again. I just don't know. So I could and I'm happy to do this if the committee wishes can reach out to the chief and ask those two questions and ask any other questions people would like to know about uh the relationship between the Ammeris Police Department and post both in terms of any cases that have been referred in terms of you know what their role is in the certification process and in terms of audits. Is that something that the chair and or the committee would like me to do? >> George, I think that's fine. Um so to uh if you wanted to reach out and ask those questions about post to the >> chief I think you know there is there is record of Ammerst in the in the in the official records but um it would be helpful to hear it from his perspective >> as well. Um, and we also received a letter from the CSSJC as a town council, um, as public comment to the town council that did reference some items about post. And, you know, it seemed that the biggest concern that that committee had was the definition of a uh, what's the actual word stated? The um, hang on, let me I just had it open. uh definition definition of credible report or like what is the credible report standard? I'm curious if APD in your conversations with the chief if there's a sort of a litmus test that they use or what is it that >> how are they currently determining which reports um that >> what kind of complaints get reported? Is it every single complaint? And if it's not, um, what criteria do they use to determine what gets reported, what doesn't? >> Thank you. That is much more. >> I think there's CMR that addresses that. >> There is, um, at least post post investigates complaints under CMR. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, po post investigates complaints under CMR. And I'm assuming that our our police department does, too. I guess I need to look up the exact text, but like it seems that there or there seems to be feeling from the folks that have written us that there's a gap there that some things aren't getting investigated. And I'm curious about what >> the chief's thoughts are on those complaints that folks have that aren't being investigated. And is there room for a resident oversight board to address those in a helpful way for everyone involved? Councelor Lord, I don't I want to make sure you've had an opportunity to share any thoughts that you might be having on this topic, too. I know we've been chatty tonight, and I want to make sure we aren't uh cutting you out by accident. >> No, I appreciate that. I have not yet done my homework as rigorously as I'd like to. I'm in my last week of class and before our next meeting, I will be caught up and have a lot more to say. >> Understood. Thank you. Um, [sighs and gasps] all right. One of the other pieces that I want to talk about, so there's the response to complaints and then there's also a p Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Athena. >> Um, I I just that question about credible report. It is in 555 CMR 1.01. >> Thank you. >> There's a definition. >> Can you give that again, please? I'm sorry. Um the post in the Massachusetts regulations it's 555 CMR >> uh 1.01. >> Yeah. And then there's also >> Yeah, there's a they're all if you just I just Googled Googled it and it came up pretty quick. Yeah, you can look >> probably on the post page and I just need to do the >> I'm not sure that it is, but it's definitely published in the in the state regulations and it's section 555 is the post commission regulations. It talks about what a credible report, you know, the definition, what it needs to include and so on and then um it goes on to talk about minor and non-minor matters. So, it's it might be worth reading if you're getting into this vein. >> Thank you. Um so, I'm trying to figure out at what point we go back to the council and say we need more help from not just go um and I want to make sure that the questions list that I have for ourselves is going to get us to a point where we are either ready to move forward with an action recommendation or move forward with a recommendation that someone else needs to come forward with a new proposal. Um I don't know that we have enough questions on that yet. I don't know that we have the answers to that yet. So, I wanna I want to hear from you. What information do you need in order to say I'm ready to act on a proposal? We've got questions from other for other communities. We've got cost. Um we've got is it duplicative of post? Once those three things are answered, would folks feel ready to make a recommendation depending on what those answers are or I'm trying to say we we keep getting caught in our talking. Um, and I and I'm trying to not keep us caught in our talking, which is kind of challenging because there's a lot to talk about. So, what qu what else do you need to know in order to move forward with a plan? We've got union stuff here. We got post. We've got uh trainings, cost, community impact. >> I think, excuse me, >> go ahead, Lyn. I think uh that if um councelor Lord is able to um understand better um the position I mean we've we've gotten a a statement and as recently as even tonight uh from um CSSJC and I believe councelor Lord you're the uh liaison to that committee. um you know and where are their thoughts on this and at what point do we it not we go but at what point do we as a council or as a council with CSSJC or the community have a conversation that tries to bring this to resolution. And I I just I feel like part of the reason we are struggling is we don't see a clear resolution. >> I think Lynn, my reading of the CSSJC's letter is very clear on what their thoughts are. >> Um they they and and councelor Lordes liaison, I'll I'll defer to you here, but my reading of their letter has they have five specific asks. um clearly stating that they they would like the RO designed as the CSWG uh designed it. Um so that separate from the from the committee's reports, they would want the RO designed as the CSWG envisioned it. Um granted subpoena power, compelling sworn testimony, and access to documents needed. Uh a board of least five members, four of whom are bipok, two of whom are of African-American descent, as a CSWG remen recommended. um we know at least that one we cannot do because it's illegal. Funding the board um and providing member training and confirming publicly that post does not substitute for nor diminish the need for local oversight. Um I think that it seems very clear to me what where the CSSGC wants go and the council to go. Um, are there additional questions that you don't feel were answered in the letter that you'd like me to ask or like councelor Lord I think would be the appropriate one to ask? >> Put the letter in a packet if that's help. >> I wanted to make sure that uh we respect the fact that councelor Lord wanted to do some catch up before that was absolutely >> I I had read their letter. I was very >> Oh, of course. Of course. Are there any questions that we would like to pass to councelor Lord to bring as liaison to CSSJC as a followup to what they stated? Okay. Um I will put that in the next packet. Uh councelor Ryan >> to answer your original question if I may. I feel that if we can get answers and a thorough discussion of the items that we've listed tonight um over the next meeting or two that would be sufficient for me to move forward with a recommendation um favoring either one or the other of the two models proposed. Um >> I don't see um much sort of that it's either one or the other. Um I think now maybe we'll find one or two places where there might be some accommodation but essentially I think I don't see anything more. I don't see going back to the council and saying well somebody else has to look at this. um we've been tasked with it and that's our job and I think if we can get answers to these questions and have a good thorough discussion and get some public input um I should be able to make a decision at least speaking for myself um for one or the other of the two proposed models. >> All right. Um well from there I'm going to work to wrap us up for the night. Then we've got uh I will um Athena and I I'm going to give Athena most of the credit here have been working on figuring out who to contact and how to reach the other communities. Feel free um in the meantime while we are happy to reach out to the leadership of those groups. Um I would encourage you to please feel free to poke around on their websites. There's a lot of information that's really interesting to look at. Um Boston unsurprisingly for such a large city has a lot of information out there. They actually have several different groups um doing this type of work. Um I know that we will not get to a Boston level at any point that I can think of. However, it's really interesting to look at the different entities that they have and how they're working. Um and Boston did issue their first subpoena uh in Feb January or February of this year. So it's interesting to see kind of the followrough of that. um the first one that I I believe the first yeah it was the first one that they've ever um issued. So um please feel free to and I actually would encourage and ask everyone to please look at those look at those bodies uh read meeting minutes look at their their um agendas and things like that. Um there's some interesting work happening and they're all a little bit different from each other. I have not put together my thoughts and my homework as cohesively as George did, but um I'd like us to to each spend some time poking around. If I let you go early, you can you have 15 whole minutes to do it uh when you still have time blocked off for our meeting. So um anything else on this before we go? I'm I will ask you all your homework is to do some research on those communities. Um and if you have other questions, email them to me as soon as humanly possible. Um, other things coming up for folks on this topic. Okay, we have an approval of minutes on our agenda. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of July 14th? Oh, you met. I wasn't here. Of July 14th, 2026. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Someone second, please. >> I could not find them, so I cannot move. Okay. >> Um, >> well, we may be deadlocked then and need to wait until the next meeting. >> Maybe it was me, but I went on the go website. I couldn't find them. Didn't find them on the agenda. Maybe they're right in front of me. That certainly happened before, but I did not see them. So, I can't I just have to abstain. >> I tricked you. I tricked you all by mistake. I I usually just put in the last meeting date as that the meeting minutes for the next meeting. And um that was the meeting that you didn't have. >> I was right. >> There was no meeting that date. >> Well, the minutes for that should be I still have to read them. [laughter] >> We'll make something up. It'll be like the onion. >> So there are no minutes for the last meeting. >> You can instantly read the the minutes of the meeting. >> I've just read them right now and I [laughter] think they're excellent. >> All right. >> I withdraw my motion. >> Oh, good job. >> All right. That's like those fishing attempts. They get you. Okay. How about this one? Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> I move to adjurnn. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I second. >> All right. Uh, any discussion on this? >> All right. Going to move to a vote. Councelor Lord. >> Hi. >> Uh, Lyn Greer. >> Hi. >> Councelor Ryan. >> Hi. >> And I am an I. Thank you all very much. It is 8:14. We are adjourned. I will see you again soon. Yep. Have a good night. Thank you.