Governance, Organization, and Legislation Committee Sep 15, 2026

All right. Thank you. >> All right. We're we're recording. Please go ahead. >> Thanks so much. All right, everybody. It is Tuesday, September 15th at 3:31 p.m. I'm going to call this meeting of the Governance, Organization, and Legislation Committee to order. I will begin by calling on each member to make sure that they can hear and be heard and that they are present physically and emotionally. Um, let's start with I know I ask a lot. Uh, let's start with Lynn Griezmer. I'm present. >> Excellent. Thank you. Uh, councelor Lord >> present. >> Uh, councelor Kennart Martin >> present. >> Councelor Ryan. >> Oh, we're gonna I can't hear you. If you are talking, Council Ryan, so we'll check back in with you. Just keep shouting and when we hear you, we will hear you. Oh, there he goes. All right. Um, waiting. He's connecting. All right. Well, we will check back with Council Ryan. So, on the agenda today, as folks in undoubtedly, it's been a long day of meetings, everybody. Um, we are going to talk through the town manager evaluation process and continue discussion of the resident oversight board. We've got minutes to approve. Um, but we will begin with public comment. We do not have any attendees. kind of understand that this was a meeting that we schedu we followed the 48 hour rule, but we scheduled this pretty recently. Um, oh, we had one. We lost her. Um, if any members happen to join the public in the next 30 seconds and would like to make public comment, we are happy to take that public comment. Now, if you are in the audience and would like to make public comment, you can go ahead and raise your hand on Zoom and we will unmute you. You'll have up to three minutes to make your comment. Going once, going twice, gone. Okay, so let's shift to the remainder of our agenda. First up is the town manager evaluation process and timeline. So, first off, um I wanted to begin with a clarification. M >> quickly, can we just confirm that George can hear and be heard? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you so much. George, can you hear us? Can we hear you? >> I may be having connectivity issues here. Um, okay. >> I can see >> names, but I can't see pictures. I can't see images. And I don't know if you can hear me, >> but I can't hear you. >> Okay, we can hear you. It might help to turn your video off. Um, Lynn, could you text George that information? Maybe try turning his video off, but >> Sure. >> Or he's welcome to call in as well, >> right? >> If that would be better. >> Let me just do that. >> Thank you so much for for doing that. Um, I'm gonna shift to the town manager evaluation process and then we'll keep checking in with George until we're able to kind of confirm he can hear. Um, so what I talked with Mandy Joe about, I think that there was some scope creep with the town manager evaluation. >> It looks like I'm having connectivity issues. >> That's okay, George. >> Yeah. Okay, >> Glen, you're muted. So, if you are talking to >> Okay, I'll turn my video off. Okay, my video's off. >> Is this better or worse than having half the microphones not working in the town room? I don't know. But we are we are not we're we're 0 for two on microphones. Um All right, Council Ryan, are you able to hear us at this point? Nope. Okay. Um, Athena, do you recommend that we ask George to call in? What do you recommend we do? >> Um, if you want to give him a minute to to try and resolve his connectivity issues cuz um, then we can wait or >> Oh, he's here again. >> Because I think it will be more disruptive to stop and start and stop and start as he's trying. So, I think maybe ju let's just give him a minute and see if we can get them connected smoothly and then we can stop trying to um we won't have to be interrupted again and again. George, can you hear us? All right, he's connecting here. Let's see. Hello, Council Ryan. Can you hear us now? You're muted, but maybe George, you keep freezing on the screen, so I'm thinking that again. turn off your video and see whether or not we can hear you. >> Sometimes that helps if it's a bandwidth issue, but it's not always a bandwidth issue. >> Right. >> Um All right. So, >> George, you're unmuted and you're not frozen. Can you hear us? It's frozen again. >> I think that we might need to see if he can just call and just stay on the phone and then >> Yeah, that's I just texted that he should go to the phone. >> Okay, we'll try that. Um, all right. So, I'm going to move into the town manager evaluation process. And I know that it is disruptive, but we'll pause once we're able to get councilor Ryan reconnected um and set that way. So with the town manager performance evaluation, we Mandy and I were talking and uh essentially I think that what has happened is that with different folks working on different things over the years. Uh G has been working on updating the town manager performance evaluation, but G doesn't need to propose a timeline or things like that to the town council president. So, what we are going to focus on, which is great because that means we don't need to play the logistics game of when things get sent out. Um, so I learned this just, you know, last night in talking with Mandy before the council meeting. Um, what we do, what Mandy said would be helpful is for Gerald to continue our discussion about the input that we collect from the public, from town staff, and from committees, uh, boards and committees. So, one of the things that she and I talked about was the fact that right now, and and I put these in your packet a little bit late. Apologize for that. But right now, we just send out an email and we say the town council is beginning its annual evaluation of the town manager. We specifically invite you as a board of committee member or as a um uh member of the public to give us your feedback. Um and then as part of your review, we encourage you to consider the following. the performance goals, uh the administrative duties and the self-evaluation. Those are all linked and then um the feedback is provided either on the website in an email or physically mailed in to the town council. Um what Mandy and I were talking about was trying to make it so that we're using one delivery mechanism for everything using Microsoft forms instead of an email. People will always still be able to mail things in. We will navigate that. But it is challenging to have to shut down. Mandy was sharing that it's challenging to have to basically shut out the or change the town manager town council's email for a week um or however longer than a week while we receive these um pieces of feedback. And I've found and other other folks have shared this with me as well that the feedback we receive is not consistent. Right? Some people write one sentence, some people write a paragraph. Um, councelor Ryan, if you're able to unmute and see if we can hear you. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. >> Welcome. >> Yeah. >> So, we're talking through the town council or the town manager evaluation. So what I would propose is that regardless of what we talk what we devise that we offer a link for folks to fill out a form similar to the form that the council fills out in terms of that that delivery mechanism. Um so that we cannot have to have personnel records coming to our emails. um and so that we don't need to shift that around and so that we can frame the questions in a way that is helpful for us as counselors to use. What we what I would like to propose to this group is the uh the town council evaluation of the manager last year had mostly liker scale responses and then we had three open-endedish questions at the end. So we asked, please share up to three idea, three strengths, areas of strengths you observed in the town manager's performance over the past year. Please share up to three areas for improvement. And then are there any other comments you'd like to make regarding the town manager's performance? My proposal to this group for consideration is that we use those three questions as the option for the the public and boards and committees to respond to. and we say as it for the boards and committees and we say as it relates to the work of your board and committee. Um ultimately what we need to get back is something that we're able to use when we are filling out our own performance evaluations. And so I think those three questions allows for folks to share other thoughts that they may have but also focuses a little bit of the feedback in a way that we can then take into account as we're thinking of our own strengths and areas of for improvement. What do folks think of those two those two areas? So, first is delivering it through forms versus an open email. Um that's mostly logistical and then second is um uh the focusing those it on those three questions versus just give us your feedback. Um I will clarify the the forms is uh should be fully ADA accessible um and we're able to link to it on the website. Any thoughts on this pitch specifically for we're talking members of the public and boards and committees? >> Lynn, >> please take Amber first. >> Okay. Councelor Kenner Martin. >> Yeah. Um I mean I 100% agree. It should be come in through a form. Like it seems like it would be really chaotic if it doesn't. So I'm not sure how that's been done all this time, but yeah, definitely forms. Um and then I guess my other thing is just I think that it's good to ask folks to give feedback. that's relevant to like what their interaction has been with the town manager or what his job has been visav what they're trying to do. Um I would say even almost a bit more specific if we can just because I I felt like it's very open-ended and sometimes when something's really open-ended you don't really know what to say. So like a little bit a prompt that's like more like if we could come up with maybe broad categories of like you know that's less like you know what did he do well? What did he not do well? Um, I think it's overwhelming to be that open-ended. So, I Yeah, it's my feedback. >> Thank you. >> Uh, Lynn, >> it I feel similarly I like the idea that we provide some structure, but basically in this case, we're asking for people to write from whole cloth a sentence or two without prompts. Okay? And it means you're going to have to do content analysis. And bluntly, unless we have a lot more responses than we've had in the past, it's hard to justify any kind of content analysis because you don't have enough responses. So, I'm that that's been part of the problem all along. Uh even when we tried to do enumerated um rankings and so forth. So um I mean another let me just throw out another option. Another option is to share the goals and you know have uh people on th on those that are relevant have them it rank overall on the goal. Don't try to break it down cuz I mean it's when we try to break it down as a council that we got into, you know, 90 responses. So that anyway, I'm just trying to think of some other way to do this. And whether it will increase responses or not, that remains to be seen. So my I I have a few hills that I will fully just flat out die on. Um and one of them is around our use of goals for the town manager. And I think Lynn what you were saying I I disagree with having folks provide I think you were saying numerical feedback on goal areas because we are not providing numerical feedback on goal areas. So I don't think that it's helpful. We are providing numerical feedback on action items. So, I'm wondering if there's a way, you know, if we want it. We do I mean, in the email in the past, it's included a reference to it, but we don't actually call it out as like a please respond to these these areas. Um, you know, I think that if we wanted to, we could t it's going to be more work on the back end for Mandy, but we could target um if there are specific committees that relate to specific goal areas, we could provide those committees with the um with the action items for that area and they could provide their responses there. Um I think that generally though with the committees I I think um hearing their feedback more qualitatively is helpful for us because we wouldn't know why one committee gave a three. Right? We want to and and while I want to cut back on the amount that the council is writing in terms of the long form responses we used to do um I think that for us in our information gathering and our perspective gathering I do think that a more qualitative response is helpful. I don't know that we need to do a data analysis. It I guess I guess it depends on how Mandy plans to use that information which we can ask her. But um but generally speaking, it sounds like we're kind of what we're focusing on now is should we be uh getting more specific than three strengths, three areas of growth in the feedback that we receive and if so, how? So we talked about kind of goal areas, um maybe some customization. Are there other ideas folks have for how to make the feedback ask from our committees and boards and public more specific? Councelor Kennart. >> Um so one other suggestion might be to pull from um not his job description but I guess his duties under the charter. I don't know if that was something that we talked about before. Um and then see which of those would pertain to his work with that particular committee. So it's like you're not evaluating him on like every aspect of his job because like I don't think anybody can you know like especially if you're someone who's serving on a committee cuz you've only seen him in a certain capacity. So like what are the parts of his job due to your job description that pertains to like your work that you've seen and that you can actually provide some actual feedback on. >> Do you think that we should do that differentiation or that they should do that? Like should we present them with all of them and say pick the ones that apply to you or should we try to customize it? >> I mean I I think let them let them >> Yeah, I think so. >> Okay. Okay. So, what we can do is kind of mock that up. Um basically though, what you're saying is really or what you're envisioning is pretty much the same thing as what the council does. Um, it's just that they don't we have to answer everyone. Um, and they wouldn't. Is that true? Kind of the same idea. >> I'm I'm not familiar what the council does since I show it to you. >> It's my first year, but I think um yeah, letting them see what's most relevant to the way worked with him. >> Okay. Um, so this is the form Hang on. I'm trying to Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Trying to find the the uh blank one for you. While I'm pulling this up, um any other thoughts on what goes to staff, >> I think. >> I mean, I'm sorry, not staff. I'm sorry. Boards and committees. Sorry. All right, I'm going to focus this there for a second. So, this is the evaluation. Um, it was in uh forms, but this was kind of the like when we had to spell it all out. Every single area had these five um liker scale options. uh job performance was pulled from the home roll charter and then goal or uh action items. The only hesitation I have Amber I think I agree with you in concept the challenge is that there are so many um there are so many both in the charter and uh in in our goal action items. So I'm wondering if kind of and I think this is sort of what you were saying of maybe could this group go through and highlight the ones that are public facing that are committee facing or just general and and kind of focus them. So like some of these are really staff facing like coordinate the activities of all town agencies that's that's staff facing. Um the uh let's see trying to find an example. I guess this one could members of the public will likewise have thoughts on on this one. The responsible for rental use, maintenance, and repair of town facilities. I don't know. I my my only concern is that it was a long even though it was much faster and I will stand by it. Um, it was a it was a long evaluation because there are so many things we're evaluating on. Um, and so I'm trying to figure out how to kind of focus it a little to make it less like I don't I don't want to accidentally make it more daunting in an effort to make it less daunting. Even though I I think if this is what you're saying, I fully agree of like a blank slate is really hard. Um, >> yeah. Yeah, I mean this would at least give someone an idea of like here's some things that you might consider in picking your things, you know, like cuz I Yeah, like there's a menu of options and then I'm like, okay, I've observed this on this particular item, so that's something I can give feedback on, you know, or like something I have not even been able to observe one way or the other. I can't possibly give any feedback on. >> Yeah. And that we always had that as an option. So, do you want them to have everything like laid out in front of them as as optional to rate uh and then they choose? Or do you want it to just be like here is the job description basically the the tasks, here are the action items, base your responses on that. >> Yeah. As long as we're letting them know that it's not it's not mandatory that you give feedback on all of those. This is just what you can take a look at and say like, okay, this these are things you might have an opinion on because you might have experienced it directly in your work. Other thoughts on this? Okay. So, what I will do for for now um with the um council Ryan, >> I don't know if this is very helpful. But I'm I'd like something that doesn't sp doesn't take a lot of time for people to read and doesn't scare them or at least you know just overwhelm them. I guess not scare isn't the word but overwhelm. >> Yeah. >> Um and I'm sure everyone wants that too. Um but it seems like we struggle to get there. So what we end up doing is just throwing out all this stuff and we say here you read this and pick out what you think is relevant. And I I have to believe that most people just the eyes glaze over. if we could as a group or as a counselor somehow focus on the the kinds of things we'd like to know and then ask them to, you know, direct their answers in that area as opposed to just saying, "Well, here's a job description, >> you know, which is ginormous, and you read it, which I think most people won't, but if they do, fine." And then you respond. It's like, you know, it's just so what I guess the question and maybe now is not the time to ask it. Maybe it's not really anything we can answer, but what do we really want to know? You know, >> George, >> that is exactly the question I wanted us to answer. >> What do we really want to get out of this process? Um, as opposed to just throwing some thing at people and saying, "Well, let's see what they send us." Um, a they don't send us a lot. We don't I don't I mean again correct me here but my sense is we responses are pretty spotty which is perhaps not unusual. >> Um but um I don't think we're making it easier for them. Maybe in the end we'll still only get a few responses >> but if we could just agree as to what we would like to know uh we could fashion a document that might then at least be useful to us. Um, and that's a conversation. I'm not sure. Maybe now's the time to have it. Maybe we need to have it very soon or maybe we don't need to have it. But I asked myself that, what do I want to know from a board or committee about their relationship with Paul? >> Um, and I could think of a couple of things off the top of my head, but we also have other things we have to do today. So anyway, that's my two cents is I feel like, you know, I understand the suggestion that Amber's making and that you're making. It makes, you know, but it's just like popping this down and saying, I know, well, you figured out. >> So, the question that you're asking is the question I think you maybe weren't here right when I was asking because that is the question I want to know. Um, you said you had a couple thoughts. I really would love to hear from everybody on this of like you get the feedback back from our boards and committees and our members of the public. What is in it that is helpful to you as a counselor in filling out your own evaluation? It sounds like some people were saying it is helpful to hear their thoughts on the same metrics that we're using. George, you're saying something different. I'm curious what would be helpful for you to receive or know. >> Well, one thing maybe we're we should just know this anyway, so maybe it's a stupid question, but how much interaction does your border committee actually have with the town manager? Because they work with staff um in most cases. Some have very direct connection and some have very little. Um, some do their own thing and the only connection they have is that Paul appoints people to their body, >> right? >> Um, maybe we're that so one question I would have is, you know, well, how much actual interaction do you have with him? Um, but it maybe what we're looking for is just like with the public, we're looking for just a sort of whether they interact with Paul or not. um as they look at him as the manager of the town um you know what's their impression of him but I think we're looking at it from the board and committee perspective and they're you know so if they're the council on aging um I don't believe Paul attends their meetings um they work through various staff whatever um given what they deal with do they feel the manager and then you know what do we want to know um provides has proper guidance um provides appropriate staff support because in the end he's he's the ultimate responsible party um uh do they feel that he's you know aware of and uh advancing the issues that matter to them as the council on aging or uh you know so >> okay thank you um councelor can Martin Yeah, I mean to George's point, I I mean I would be happy to go through the duties and pull out the ones that I think personally might be more relevant to someone who's serving on a board or committee um so that it's not so overwhelming. But I just think that when it comes to evaluations, um you know, we should really stick to like what's in the job description or what's in the goals because I I just I don't think it's fair to evaluate an employee based on something other than that. like well what is you know how does he seem to you or you know like I mean I feel like I know that's not what you're saying but like I just feel like it should be concrete and based in like his actual goals and his job description concretely. I mean, I think that there's always the question too of if there aren't concrete tasks or goal action items that are specific to committees, should we just be soliciting from the public generally? And and kind of we can ask the question of like, do you serve on boards and committees? But I don't know. At this point, we're asking the same questions. And to my knowledge, we don't privilege committee feedback over public feedback. So part of me is is saying like if there isn't is is mulling. I'm not proposing this, but is mulling of if we're not if we don't have anything that is specific to boards and committees, should we have them like should we just put one out there for anyone in the community? Um, just a food for thought, crumb for thought, Lynn. So, one of the things that strikes me is the general public is it's more like how do they feel about the town, not how do they feel about the person running the town? And that's a whole different set of questions. You know, it's it's like what do you think the priority should be for the town? But at that point, we're asking this on behalf of the council, on behalf of the staff, not just to evaluate the town manager. So the reality is the number of people who have enough knowledge to contribute to an evaluation of Paul at in terms of his doing his goals and following his job description is really minimal. It's even minimal among staff. They most of the staff come back and they say they have no basis to answer the question because they don't have a direct interaction with Paul. Their department head does. But that's about it. So I'm you have to understand having done this evaluation and being charged to then write the thing up. First of all, I have a serious problem when you don't have enough responses to be able to make any kind of conclusion. It it it just is scientifically and research absolutely poor practice to take 10 people that responded or even 30 people out of you know 200 and some and say now I see a trend. It's it's it's irresponsible. Okay. And you all know that as well as I do. So that's been one of my biggest problems with the fact that we go out, we ask the community, we ask the staff, we ask the um we ask committee people and we just don't get enough responses to see if there is a trend. Okay. It's the same thing with true public comment. you know, it's probably 5% of the people in Ammerst even know you can make public comment to the town council. Um, so the real quandry for me is I think we could go through the town manager's goals and we might be able to pull out either the goals or the charter responsibilities which basically comprise the job description. we might be able to pull out those things that would be most that the public and committees might know the most about and I I'm more than willing to try that exercise together. Um and then I think we have to test them for what is the question about that you know take infrastructure. So the question is whatever the the goal says but the basic way people see infrastructure in Amorest is it's roads and sidewalks or my my sewer blew up. I mean it that's not helpful to us. I am I'm sorry to be such a I've just wrestled with this for seven years. Just I I just don't like when people look at 30 responses or 10 responses and think they've seen a trend. >> So Lynn, when you say that, I think my question is you've talked about finding the trends and you talked about making the final report. I think for us as um counselors hearing this feedback, I don't know, maybe there's better instruction that we can give to counselors of saying like remember when you're hearing feedback from a few people that this is not indicative of a larger trend, but at the same time I don't want us to cut off mechanisms for hearing information that we wouldn't otherwise hear. And I don't think you're saying that either. Right. >> No, I'm not. I I absolutely believe in public. >> Absolutely. And so so I think like finding that medium it might be about I don't know >> I guess when I think of the staff and public feedback I see it as for us to utilize in completing our evaluations versus something that needs to be compiled like you were saying to put in the final result u the final kind of report. So, um, and frankly, I might not be comfortable with if I were just a member of the public knowing that my my input might be kind of condensed in that way. Um, so I so I I think we could also go through and kind of think through whether or or kind of what we would recommend for Andy in terms of what goes to the to the broader report. What I am hearing though real quick is I would like to take councelor Ken Martin and Lynn's offer up. If you would like to look through the current items, it's in the packet. And um please don't make edits to those documents directly, but download copy or whatever you need to do. Um and and if you could bring that to our next discussion to say if I were to build you a form right now, these are the items that he this is the prompt I want you to think about. Anyone else is welcome to take this assignment on. As I look at these administrative duties and goals, these are the ones that as a counselor, hearing feedback from members of the public and our boards and committees on would be helpful to me. Um, so again, thinking through coming back to what councelor Ryan was saying too, what is it that we need in order to effectively evaluate the town manager? Um, councelor Kon Martin, I I fully agree with you that we cannot go outside of this is a job evaluation, performance evaluation, right? We need to focus it on the job duties and the the um other things, goals. There we go. >> Um, with that said, I want us to focus our attention because I'm I'm going to hold us to time today. Um, I want to focus our attention for a moment on staff. One of the things that is being discussed um Mandy and I actually came to a similar proposal on this or not proposal thought I guess that I will share with you because it's I haven't written it down um which is really about trying to uh using a little bit of logic in the um in the feedback form that we send out. And so what we would try to do is using those goals and those we would do kind of what we were just talking about doing for the public. It's a little bit harder to do it for the public, but of the act of the items from the charter and of the goals, we would kind of parse them out to say which are generally applicable to all staff. And then there are some areas that may have more relevant feedback on some of the action items specifically. So, you know, for example, we had an action item um around uh hang on, I'm scrolling, hang on, complete streets or something like that, right? DPW would be great to hear feedback on that from um the fire department may not know what the progress on that is. So trying to kind of parse out which area is going to respond to which questions so as to not make this again we have so many action items. We will not have as many this year. Bet on that. Um, but so as not to overwhelm folks and and to still get relevant feedback from the folks who know this work day in and day out and do this work day in and day out, I think that it would be helpful for us to focus the staff evaluation. But I want to ask them these same questions. I want to ask them about the action items and about the administrative duties as they pertain to the work that those staff do. I will advocate a little bit for those last three questions to be in there. Um because I do think it can be helpful, but I think that we need to coach the council to say remember one person does not necessarily indicate a broader feeling um as we hear that feedback. >> Right? >> That's my general thought about the approach for staff. I I have not perfectly figured out what it would look like yet, but that's the thought. >> Lynn, yes. >> Yeah. So, let me take your example, the complete streets. Yes, DPW is certainly um the place to go, but even within DPW, there's probably only five people that even know what complete streets are. >> Sure. >> And and so it's and as I think about the complete streets, you know, thing. Um and I know you have you've heard from a couple constituents. I've heard from a couple constituents, but other than that, people don't even know what it means. It's almost like >> you need to ask something that is, you know, should this I'm not suggesting this question, but do you think Ammerst tries hard enough to get as much state money as we can to repair our streets? And it it otherwise that question means nothing. Right. But that's not the same thing that we're about. Like I I I understand why why you're going there and I really struggle to keep that like keep it linked. I mean I think we can give folks the option to not answer every question. Um, and I think what what Mandy was proposing was also that there's a different there's a more thorough so so if we kind of have the broader one for staff and they can skip some if they don't know but then there is one for his direct reports um and Paul's department heads will respond to these questions because they would know the overarching work. So, it could be that we we um divvy it out a little bit more even than that. Um and say like here are the the most the the really kind of maybe not specific project based but maybe staffbased. Um we had a lot of goals around staffing. We had a lot of goals around training things like that this year. uh maybe we focus on those versus the things like complete streets that are are much more specific in terms of action items. We could maybe do that if that seems >> So it let me go ahead Angela you >> councelor kind of Martin go ahead. >> Oh I don't know if I was raising my hand to speak but but since I am um I mean yeah I think like for staff like what we want to know from them is like sort of like you know how is he you know as a manager how is he in like those functions you know and the things that pertain to to running a town and running you know the different departments and so forth. I would be less interested you know to know like okay what is this what does DPW think about complete streets because I like from their staff because I think I feel like if they are told to you know execute that then they will so that's like you know did Paul tell you to do that yes or no you know like you know what I mean like I I don't think that's as useful information I think it's more like how is he as a manager and like does you know is he doing those functions as a good manager that we hope he would do you know so >> I hear you. But in order to do that, we need that in our our action items and goals, right? Um, so I think that's the other piece for us to remember as we write our goals for next year, that if we want to seek that type of feedback, we need to make sure that it's included in our uh in our action items. Um, yeah, when >> if you're going to start breaking down, you know, his direct reports and so forth, now we're really talking about doing a 360 and that's a whole different evaluation. >> Yeah. So, it's it's interesting. I we've this feels so a 360 review, just so folks know, is something in an organization where everybody evaluates um both top down and bottom up, right? That's the kind of biggest picture overview of what a 360 is. We have been attempting that in a way that has been pretty ineffective um in terms of you know how we've been doing this. And so I I think that I I want to get at some of what counselor Hannah Martin is saying without necessarily keeping it that and again this isn't what you're saying but I want to make sure that it's not open-ended in a way that again we need to get something that we can use from this. So, I guess yeah, again, what is what is it that you all need to hear from staff that will help you to fill out the evaluation form as it's written with the with the um action items from the charter and the or sorry that we set and the um the whatchamacallit from the charter itself, job performance. Council Ryan, >> maybe I'm just misharing this, but I'm I'm struggling to at the moment to see why action items and goals are relevant to staff. Um, they're relevant to us because we set the goals and we say, "Paul, we want you to do this, this, this, and this." But, you know, when we're talking about staff, it's not so much I mean, they don't set policy, we do. Um, Paul tells them what they need to accomplish based on the basic directions we give him. So, we're more interested in how he functions as a manager and how they interact with him as a manager. Um, which is not something that's, you know, a specific action item. We don't have an action item which says Paul this uh year we want you to manage your staff really well or better or something. Um it's right I mean so maybe I'm just misunderstanding but it seems to me that action items and goals are over here. Um but with staff at least where my interest or concern is how does he function as a manager which is a generic sort of you know it's not that different from one town to the other. Um and it's in our you know job description and you know we could focus on particular things but am I missing I mean I just don't what how do action items and goals how's that relevant to staff or maybe it isn't maybe you're not saying that but >> um sometimes they are some some more than others. It it really depends on what we vote. Yeah. Sure. I mean I think that we've got things like um continue implementing anti-racism anti-discrimination anti-opression training for current and future employees. So, you know, for staff, it's really a matter of have you >> done this? Has this happened in a way that's been feasible and and attainable for you. I think some of it's a little bit more about how he's made it happen. >> Well, that that particular action item connects with their workplace and hence with Paul's job as the manager of the workplace. Um but generally speaking, don't you think that it's really overall it's just you know how does he function as you know is he a good manager? Does he listen? Do you communicate with him? Does he provide clear direction? um you know uh those kinds of things and the example you gave is is certainly relevant and we we'd certainly like I guess to hear in that particular case um how things are in the workplace because we have set a specific goal for him in the workplace but generally yeah go ahead >> so what I was going to say is just I I think when we think about what is helpful for us to know and we look at what we are then asked to evaluate him on The two relevant portions that are in the charter are supervise, direct and be responsible for the efficient administration of all town agencies placed under the town managers controlled by the charter by measure or otherwise including all officers appointed by the town manager and the officers respective town agencies. Coordinate activities of town agencies and administer uh all provision. I guess maybe less that one, but those first two are um are the closest that we get to be a good manager. Um and so I think that when we're asking these questions, we need to make sure that we're asking them in a way uh that gives us something useful. Um a little bit of what you're saying is up for interpretation, right? and and that's that's a little bit tough of kind of what makes a good manager is there are some common things sure but there are some that are up for interpretation so we really need to go back to the kind of parameters that are set by the charter here and I think if we're going to ask staff those types of questions we need to ask them as they pertain to what we're evaluating him on otherwise we as a council need to vote on exactly what makes a good manager yeah cuz otherwise everyone's going to be looking at different things we're consider considering different things. There is no such thing as common sense in local government. Um, councelor Hannah Martin. >> Yeah, I mean I guess so to tie back the the town manager goals and action items to the staff. I mean I do think that it can be helpful for us to know because you said what information is it helpful for us to know? Um, are there things that the staff may have insight as to whether a goal was accomplished or not that may help us understand why that goal was accomplished or not? you know, is it because, you know, there was short staffing? Is it because there wasn't enough funding? Was it because you're, you know, trying to do multiple jobs? Is it because, you know, whatever. Like, fill in the blank. But like that would be helpful to know like they might insight as to whether a goal was why a goal may have not been accomplished. >> I'm going to maul this one. I ask that you all maul this one. And my homework to you is at our next meeting, I want you to come to the meeting with almost it's almost it feels like a writing prompt. And if you want to do it that way, that's fine. But you get the uh a PDF of feedback from a staff member in town. What does it say that makes you go, "Oh, excellent. I know exactly what how this is going to impact my evaluation. Like they told me this, therefore I'm going to be able to fill out this evaluation better. That's I think that's the prompt. It sounds like there's some I heard some interest in the idea of kind of targeting the feedback we get whether that be by department or whether it be by whether they are a direct report or not. I heard some support for including feedback, offering the opportunity to provide feedback on the goals, some support for focusing more generically on his managerial style. Um, and again, we need to think about that, too, because there are some staff who really don't interact with the town manager on a day-to-day basis, right? And so, don't really know his managerial style. They know the culture that he builds as the lead for the organization. But, um, it's helpful for us to take that into account, too. Thoughts on this? And are we clear on our next steps? So, Lynn and councelor Ker Martin and anyone else who would like to do this said they were going to look through the existing evaluation. um it is in the packet and uh you should please again not in that document but maybe create an do it however you want but if I were you um you can put it in an excel sheet and and note across like who does this uh who does this item pertain to is it public is it committee heads is it or committee members excuse me um is it staff is it specific staff um >> I don't think things made it into the packet yet >> I put them in about 30 minutes ago >> okay Um, so they are there now. Um, and and apologies for that. >> No, it's I didn't get them to you. Sorry. >> It's all good. We we got there. We'll pull we'll get this. Um, all right. And then so that's thing one. Thing two is you get feedback from staff. What is in it that you are able to use and how? Questions on our homework. Okay, great. Um, all right. We are going to shift gears here to the resident oversight board. Um, councelor Ryan, you had asked to start us off on this one today. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, I wanted I thought about what happened last time and I I would like to withdraw my motion. Uh, assuming I can get um a second from the support from the person who seconded it. Um, I made the because my understanding of the motion as it stands is that it leads to a vote. And my concern or my desire was not that we have to vote on one over the other was that we at least start the conversation on one of these and then I feel like we then need to look at the other. We have basically two options in front of us. It's possible we could reject both. It's possible we could come up with some kind of in between, but at the moment it's kind of like A or B. And so just to get it started, I said, "Okay, make a motion. Let's put uh review out there." Um, and it was seconded and we started through that. But if I understand the way it was presented, the way it came out, it then leads at the end to a vote. Do you support this or do you not? And it seems to me that we need to look at both. So um in withdrawing my motion, my purpose is not to start all over again or but but let's just pursue as we have the review model first and then when we're done with that go to the investigative model and go through that and then at that point um and only at that point um should we entertain motions as to voting for one or the other or some other alternative. That's kind of what I'm thinking. I don't want this to lead to a vote where, you know, we've reviewed the review model and now we have to vote and you think, well, we haven't really looked at the other model. That doesn't make any sense. So, that wasn't my intention, but in a sense, that's what I've created. So, I'm asking to withdraw the motion. Um, and hopefully that Lynn will go along with that. But in doing so, I would like us then to continue looking at the one model that we started, but then go to the second one and do that. And at that point, people can make motions or whatever. But so that's why I'm making the motion to withdraw. >> Okay. So I I agree with withdrawing the motion, but I'd like to speak to it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh I do think that it is important for us to not just go to the places in these models where we think there's the sticking point. I think it's important for us to understand each of the models. So last week because maybe because of the motion or whatever, right away we dove into um you know whatever. We dove into the the worst review model >> and but we did it in a way that basically didn't allow for discussion of other pieces of the model that might also be useful to look at. So I I just want to make sure we broaden how we discuss the models, not just the sticking points. >> Could you be more specific on what areas you >> No, I mean for I'll give you an example. In both models, I honestly feel we don't need seven people. I think we could easily go to five. >> Okay. >> So we will get to those. I I however I think as as chair where I'm trying to focus the direction is I'd like to get us to a point where we are reviewing one charge one set of practices um and so I am starting with the sticky part because I know that we will go back to all of those other things and some of those items may be dependent on the decision that we make in terms of uh the the model that we move forward with. So, I I am gonna keep us in the in the part where we disagree, but I would like to assure folks that I'm not uh I won't I'm not skipping those items. Um I think that I want to or what I know is that I'd like to start with the points that are are most challenging so that we can look at something that feels um like what we normally look at versus kind of uh that I'm not speaking articulately, sorry. um that looks like a charge and not uh focus on um items that are are going to be discussed regardless of which option we go with. Um but I haven't I have not forgotten that and we absolutely will go back through what councelor Ryan said. Um I want to emphasize that we're going to the activity at hand here. Um, I'm going to ask for everyone to say to to work with me on if we're looking at a review model, what is it that you would need in order to get to a yes. Um, and without just saying an investigatory model or if we were looking at their investigatory model to say no investigations, I want you to think about what is there in this document that would help you to feel better about this model. And why I say that is because again I this committee is is very uniquely positioned where we've got, you know, two folks leaning one way, two folks leaning another, and one person in the middle, right? Um I think that this committee is is in a good spot to figure out the right combination of items to move forward with recommending to the C town council, but we all have to kind of look at the drawing board and say, "These are the pieces that I think are most important and why." um so that we can create that new item. So we are going to go through review first. We will then go to investigatory before we vote on either um and we're going to have a chance to say you know if this were the model presented to you. What are your concerns with it? What would you change? What would you what would you uh add? Does that make sense? >> Everybody on board. >> I'm wondering again if I may. You >> may. And we got this as attachment A is both of them put together. Attachment B is just the review board and attachment C I believe is just the investigator. Is that right? >> So attachment A is the >> some kind of combination. It's a combined options one and two. I don't know why they did this. Um and I assume it's just a cut and paste job. I assume there's no difference between A, B and C. It's just A kind of interweavves the two options and hence each time we go through what we're looking at right now, we come to a point where it's either A or B and then we start talking. >> Um, but we also have two other attachments that just present the review model straight up and the investigatory model straight up. And I guess I'm wondering why are we, you know, are we just starting with A because it's A. Does it make sense for us just to start with I mean just look at the review model attached with B and go through it. >> Yep. >> Um >> I I think you're right and I was truly just saying A was first. So I was starting there. So I think you're right. Let's look at B. It's which is >> that makes sense. >> Because it'll keep us more focused on on this. So >> for the next hour, what we're going to talk about is attach. We're starting with BC because it's B. There's no other reason why. Um, >> and we're going to start with B. And I want us to look at like, okay, >> pretend this is what was presented to us for substantive review. I want us to talk through it. Um, Lynn, maybe this will get to your your your pieces of it. I think George, I aed us to not have to do the same thing twice, but we can figure it out. So um if we go through option B, we are not just focusing on the differentiation points. That's I guess that's the big >> right. That's the difference. And you may decide you'd rather do it the other way. Um this way we're going to go through it basically section by section, line by line. Um if we do it the other way, we're going to look just at the kind of division points and uh we're going to skip over a lot of stuff. >> All right? and then we'll come back to it. So >> let's let's start with B and what I'll do is when we move to our discussion on in the the investigatory model I will move over all of the edits that on the where the text is exactly the same. I will remark up the other text. Does that work? Okay. So hey Joel, excellent news. We just got handed this proposal. Let's review it. Um any issues with a >> No. Okay. So, let's go into B. This is just the purpose. I just don't like the double including, but that's >> I don't either. >> Me being picky. >> It's all right. That's what we do here. So, if you would like to take it out or make your suggestion, >> that's my suggestion. >> I would just say, you know, including black, indigenous, youth, and people of color or something. I if you want to include just >> leading up to the acronym. >> Yeah. Right. Oh, I see. Of course. Yes. Got it. >> No worries. Um, okay. >> All right. So this part the RB shall receive and review of complaints from residents regarding interactions with APD and crest including instances of discourtesy. >> All right. So there we right away have I think a question. I do I don't >> what's your question? Um this already assumes that in addition to uh sending complaint to the APD which already has you know a setup process um if I understand what it's saying residents can come directly to the RO and um say I have this interaction with an police officer with a crest person and um I want to submit a complaint or I you know submit a complaint to you the RO. Um, one option is that one thought is that no, the RO does not um, take complaints. What it does is it reviews everything that goes through the APD, but it does not receive complaints from residents. Um, I'm not saying that's what we should do, but that's my first question because if it comes to the RO, say, you know, Joe Smith says, I had this incident with a police officer and I I'm filing complaint with you. Mhm. >> Um, right away we have the question, does RO then begin a its own investigation, its own? But no, it's it's a review process, not an investigatory process. So it simply sends this on to the APD which then conducts its internal review its internal processes and then the RO reviews that what what that is what that what they do. So here's the first question. Um, do we want is this document saying do we want an IND, you know, RO getting complaints in addition to police and uh, you know, whatever. I mean, that's the question. >> Thank you, councelor Kenner Martin. Yeah, I think this is actually a point that we addressed in our last meeting and I thought that we had pretty much had consensus that the RO even in this model could receive the complaints, but yes, it might entail them just forwarding them basically to the APD and then reviewing whatever the APD does. So, I think we had discussed that we definitely wanted the RO to be able to receive them even if they ended up having to be sent to the APD. So, Amber, what determines and maybe the answer is it's their own internal policies and procedures that that's a separate part of this document. What determines whether they uh send it to APD or they keep it themselves or are you saying that that's not an option? In other words, if it comes to them, um it goes to the APD. I I think in this model, yes, I think that's what we talked about that it would have to be that way because it doesn't have the ability to investigate. So, what what would they do with a complaint? They'd have to send it to APD. >> Uh, so, >> Council Ryan, I'm going to Can you hold your followup for a second? >> Okay. >> Sorry, Lynn. Go ahead. >> Um, no, continue this because my mind's another point about this. >> Great. We'll f staying on this question for now. Council Ryan, go ahead. >> So I think that the idea of having complaints coming to RO as opposed to police is to allow people who are not comfortable going to the police a place where they can go to make a complaint. And I understand that and I think that could be a good reason for why we should do this. But it also seems that there is no way that anyone can guarantee anyone's anonymity. And I just hope that that's understood or maybe somebody can explain to me how no it can be their anonymity can be protected. But if the idea is this is a place where you can come and make a complaint um that will be addressed because we're going to take it to APD and we're going to obviously follow through on it, but you don't have to interact with the police directly. So I take it that's the purpose of allowing this in in C. >> I'm gonna raise my I'm gonna raise my hand here even though I can't really raise my hand. Um so I think this is one of the points where I struggled as well. I think there is space here for someone to literally have the the separation of not needing to email or walk into the police station. um and if that's what they need to otherwise file the same complaint that they would file to APD. This seems like a small lift. My question comes in around anonymous complaints. We are not in a giant massive city where things can truly in my mind be really anonymous, right? If someone has a specific complaint about a specific incident. However, I do think that if someone wants to share a complaint anonymously, what the RO in my mind could do in those instances is hear that complaint and kind of note the overall cultural or behavioral or policy or practice-based uh issues at the core of it and make recommendations to crest or APD on, hey, you know, uh with with policies or practices pertaining to um motor vehicle stops. We've heard complaints in the area of without getting into specifics. Um I'm curious if the RO might be able to serve in that capacity to share with APD and crest. This is kind of the this is the type of of complaint that we're getting that folks don't feel comfortable coming filing an official form for. Um I I'm curious if there is a space for that with the anonymous complaints. I don't think that it is feasible to do true anonymous complaints that get into the specifics of an incident um without people knowing what's going on. We don't have a huge police force. I just don't think that's possible. So um I could be wrong and I'm happy to hear that, but that that's where I think space for anonymous complaints is important, but that the RO's role in that is to look for the the bigger picture and think through there. Um, Lynn, >> uh, frankly, my comment was I don't see how any of this guarantees a non anonymity. >> I don't think we're saying it would. I I yeah I mean I think we need to realize that this does not address the legitimate concern of retaliation because um the individual I mean you can describe an incident or a set of incidents in as generic a term as possible but people will figure it out. But I think though what the what I'm hoping or my vision here is that the RO looks at the complaint and it hears the complaint that was submitted to them. So say I submit a complaint anonymously to the RO talking about an an a time when I was pulled over and it was very, you know, something happened that was really unnerving to me. >> I share that anonymously because I'm fearful of retaliation. I am not expecting the RO to go to APD or a crest and say uh we received a complaint about someone who was pulled over and this happened. What I would like the ROB to do in this instance is to say, can we look at the processes and procedures around traffic stops and how those are handled and then say, you know, it might be helpful if you put in a a practice or policy around, you know, uh what to do if I'm making something fully making something up. What to do if there's a dog in the car, right? Like, and just make sure that your officers are clear. um if someone has a service animal or something like that, right? Um there are spaces where that still isn't going to be perfectly anonymous, but they're not trying to respond to the specific complaint. They're looking at the bigger picture practices and policies that shape the behavior of our public safety agencies. >> But how is that different than the charge to CSSJC to review police policies? because it is focusing on the com on the it uh the policies based on the complaints that come in. It's not it's it's us giving them a direction to go in versus to review every single policy or practice. >> I want to can I tease this out a little bit? It's interesting. You're offering a space here and we've heard this I think from one or two other folks who've commented uh to us through email and maybe this isn't quite what they had in mind. Maybe it is. But you're saying that there's you you want to create a distinction between a actual form of complaint that the APD runs through its processes and eventually uh issues a finding and then under under the review model um the RO uh can and probably will take a look at the record and have access to all relevant documents da da da da and uh that's what right but you're saying another poss another avenue which isn't quite as elaborate or formal is that individuals could just come to the RO uh you're suggesting anonymously though I wonder anyway they can come and just say I want to tell you about experience I had and the RB just listens and um that's it they're not going to this doesn't get sent to APD it's not going to go through any uh process of review by anybody except the RP is going to listen um or maybe it's just an email maybe that it's not a human being talking to them but it's something somebody sends to them, a letter, an email, whatever, whatever it is, um they're just going to listen. And um over time, if they get a bunch of these, I guess what you're suggesting is if there's some kind of pattern, but at least it's a place where people can come and sort of vent. Um my only concern, and I'm saying I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. U my concern with that is what if they start saying officer X officer Y and you if this is in public which it would be um now somebody's publicly being you know right so that's going to that's the only concern I have um is that then it would lead to some kind of more formal process which is not what you're you're describing. So I I like the idea of trying to create an al you know a second track that's not as um doesn't lead to the formal review process but can you do that in such a way that it doesn't um start naming names because then people's reputations and and you know that's not right. So is that what you have in mind? Um >> kind of. Um, >> yeah, >> sort of. I I mean, I'm still processing it through, too, right? Like, I I'm trying to >> reckon with the different thoughts that I have, which I want there to be an avenue for anonymous reporting. Um, I feel strongly about that because I think that there's a lot of important reasons why someone might want to be anonymous. And at the same time, I am I want the complaints to be able to make a difference, right? um or or lead to to change where it's where it's possible to make that happen. I do not want to create a venting chamber. I don't think that that's helpful. Um I think that what I what I'm asking of the ROB in those instances are to kind of try to >> try to anonymize it. It comes to them anonymously, so they don't know. And I'm asking them to look for the underlying issue. Um, and if it is about a specific officer, kind of clarifying with I don't know if it's the chief or whoever their their their person is that they're going to be talking to to say, you know, is it a practice or is this a written policy to do XYZ? Um, it's not a I don't think that there is ever going to be a perfect beautiful system here because we're we're already in messy systems. But um I I'm trying to figure out a way to have there be anonymous complaints in existence uh or the the the avenue for those that lead to a proposal or or recommendation or whatever for not not disciplinary action. That is not what I am suggesting. But what I am suggesting is that the RO encourages the the APD or crest to examine or re revise or something like that how they go about this specific part of their work. Um and makes recommendations for what they would consider in that review. I'm muddling y'all. I'm muddling. Councelor Ko Martin. >> Yeah. I just wanted to suggest process-wise that maybe we just leave this item as it is and when we get into powers and responsibilities I think we'll be able to hash more of the specifics out. But I think we do agree that it should receive and review complaints. Like I don't think anyone I mean correct me if I'm wrong. I think most people or everyone on this call agrees that it shall re receive and review complaints and then we get more into the details of that in section three. >> But we're so close to solving it. I hear you. I hear you. Well, again, I actually don't agree. Um uh they receive complaints. What they review are what uh the police department does. They review the internal police um uh reviews. That's what they do. That's what a review model does. It doesn't do its own reviews. It doesn't say, "Okay, so and so just sent us a complaint and we're going to review that." No. So and so sent us a complaint. um it goes to the APD. The APD conducts its internal processes, then they issue their report. We then review that. So, if that's what this says, fine. But that's not what it says. And so, it sounds like they get um you know, complaints and they review them. Um what it should say if I understand well it should say is the RO shall um receive and review complaints um submit it to the APD or crest um and and shall receive those shall review uh them once they've been uh gone through the the appropriate internal process in for Crest it's through HR and through police it's through their internal uh system of review that's what they review um if we're describing do some other thing then we should talk about it. But >> so so your hangup or the hangup here is on the word receive. Is that right? >> Yeah. The way this reads prime is that they receive and review complaints. In fact um they don't receive complaints um or if they do uh they send them on to APD and then they wait to see what happens. And what they review is what the APD andor HR does. That's what they review. >> Yeah. I mean, I just I think it it's covered under section three and I think it's it's more spelled out there and if we want to tweak that, we should tweak that. I just I think we're spending a lot of time on this initial thing and we're not really I mean I I think the purpose of section 3 is to go into those details and make clear what that means. >> Okay, let's >> George, are you comfortable moving to the next? >> No, but let's move ahead. So um the RB will share information, educate and create conversational I read this as controversial at first and I was like excuse me u the RB shall receive and review complaints from res wait no share information educate and create conversational uh opportunities to address the perception belief and facts regarding the work and actions of APD and crest. I actually don't like this one. No, it's >> I don't think that it's the should we should be tasking our RO with sharing perceptions and beliefs and facts regarding the work and actions of APD and Crest. >> I agree. >> I think that they have enough other things to do. They can share their their own work, but I don't think that we need a PR team or a media team of uh through our RO to talk about APD and Crest. >> Um that's how I read this. If I'm if I'm understanding this in a in a weird way, but right now this is this is confusing to me as to why this would be in there. >> I agree. I think that this places a excessive uh responsibility on a committee that's for all intents and purposes volunteer. >> Well, it's not even clear what it actually is saying in English. Um, right. So, it's a kind of jumbled up mess of a sentence. Um it's clear they'll share information about what about what they do about um you know their work. They'll educate the public about what they do and their work. >> Well that's not what this says but >> well yeah and then I mean that's part of the problem is it's vague and then it says and it will create opportunities for people to talk to each other. It will create uh venues for conversation that would allow people to I mean that's I assume this was trying to say create opportunities for people to talk about uh their thoughts about the APD and crest >> right I mean is that yeah >> but the reality is what um the DEI department has done is try to create that exact conversation. And the question is whether or not the people that really need to be in the conversation show up. I've gone to a couple of their sessions. I haven't gone recently, >> but >> I'm less worried about that, Lynn, if I can just steer us back. I'm I'm less worried about that uh in terms of getting folks to show up. I think that that's a different topic. But I I think that for right now, George, I agree with what you were saying on the intent of this was to provide an avenue for folks to share perceptions that isn't filing a complaint. >> I understand why that is here. I also think to Lynn's earlier point um that the CSSJC is is part of their purview is to Lyn you mentioned I haven't pulled up their charge recently but is to review uh policies and practices. Is that right? Or policies and procedures. >> That's one of the things that they're supposed to do. Yes. >> So I think that there's this feels more closely aligned with the work of the CSSJC and I think that the RO could be I don't know. I I go either direction either way. I think this needs to be rephrased. I don't think that this is getting at what it's >> if if I'm correct in assuming its intention, which is always a risky thing. >> Um, but if its intention is to just say is to say that the ROB will be complaints received create avenues for feedback regarding the work of our public safety agencies. >> That does seem right. That seems like that's really not what they should be doing. They're not PR outfit, right? Um >> I worry about the scope of this and the job that we're creating. >> Is it would it be okay to just change it to may instead of will. >> No, I I think you have to be very clear what a committee is. >> Yeah. Right. >> Doing or not doing. >> This is not clear. Amber, I mean, if you could clarify it for us, that'd be great. But that the second part or the third part seems basically saying they should sort of be the uh public media face of the police department press. >> No, I don't I don't think it should that but I mean I think if they did want to have a community forum to discuss, you know, something related to that topic, I think they should be allowed to have a community forum. I just don't think they should be >> I don't think they should be obligated to because to Lynn's point, they are volunteers and we don't want to add a million tasks to their plate. I just would like to see them have the option if they wanted to like do something like that, you know. >> Okay. >> So, I think I'm gonna make a note here and we can think about how to rephrase this. I agree with Council K Martin. I think that there is a space for if if there's general when we talk about looking for those overarching themes and stuff like that. If there isn't a specific complaint, um maybe there's space for that. I still want to once we are done, if this stays in in some iteration, I think we need to look really closely at this charge and the CSSJC charge to make sure we're not tasking two committees with the same work. Um, and and kind of double duty here. So, I think that what I'm going to put in my notes here is um we had general concern with how this is phrased. Committee members discuss the opportunity for an ROB to hold um public forums um and hear feedback that may not be in the form of a complaint. >> Yeah. Whole public forums on matters related to um their work or to the to uh police and community relations. Something like that. That and I like May. I think May is softens it a bit. >> Um but the first part again is not I don't think it's controversial. It just says that um well actually we would like them to um educate the public and share information with them about what they do and and and then they may if they wish um create forums or you know whatever. Um but yeah we should come back to this >> and again this doesn't say anything about the RO sharing the work that the RO does. This says that they are sharing the work and actions of APD and Crest. >> Yeah the third part yes but what about share information? You think that the first two uh phrases or verbs share and educate? Yeah the first part that's all part >> share information educate and create conversational opportunities. It's doing these three things about this >> about public forums basically >> to address the perception, belief and facts regarding the market actions. I >> D is about public forums basically. >> What qualifies them to do this? >> What do you mean what qualifies them to hear? Wait, hang on. Hang on. I'm going to back us up for a second. What we have talked about as a committee is what we're t we're not talking about this sentence exactly. We're talking about a public forum. Reframing this to say the RO can hold public forums to hear feedback on perceptions about uh or concerns that the community has regarding APD and Crest. Sorry, go ahead with your comment. I just wanted to make sure it doesn't seem like we sentence. I don't see this group as as I don't see us recruiting people that are so talented that they can do all of these things. I mean th this is the kind of thing that Pamela Young has been trying to do and you know she's trained for it. So I I'm I'm just trying if somebody said to me as part of my council responsibilities as an elected or an appointed individual, whatever, is to go out and help people understand what local government is about. I'd say, "Wait a minute. I'm running for office to do this. Maybe I don't mind doing that, but I don't see it as my job description. >> Len, this is a body that has oversight. We're imagining it has oversight in some sense over our public safety personnel in police and crest, right? >> It's an oversight board. >> It has some kind of >> Right. And um why shouldn't there be in the charge something to the effect that if they so choose they can hold a public forum uh on some aspect of the of what they deal with which is you know the policies and actions and and etc of the police department as an oversight board. I don't see I mean maybe they'll never do it but I don't see why they couldn't or why we wouldn't encourage them to do that if we felt it was appropriate. >> I'm going to start having us raise hands again if we get too chitty chatty so let's let's um focus ourselves and I want to also make sure that I've made space councelor Lord you're the leaders on CSSJC and we're talking a lot about their charge in this so I'd love to hear your thoughts as well as we as we continue on councelor Kenna Martin. Yeah, I I think we just keep it with the may language and maybe again we bump it down to section three. Um as something that they may do if they want to um as opposed to right in the purpose because I think if we put it in the purpose it's really like highlighting it and being like this is you know it's maybe elevating it a bit more than we want to since it's not going to be an expectation. It's going to be just we want them to have the ability to do so if they find it to be necessary for their work or if they, you know, feel it's important. >> Okay. Um Lynn, >> that's fine. >> Okay. >> I I think we have to come back to it though. >> We're definitely not done. I think we're so where we're landed on this is that we will we would like to change we will generally think moving this to section three so it's not as kind of prominent as the purpose of this body more of as an opportunity that they could have if they choose to offer it. Does that sound >> right to folks or aligned with our discussion? Okay. >> I don't agree but I'll I'll stick with that later. Well, I I mean, you don't agree with moving it or do you don't agree with the just the the general concept? >> I agree that we have to come back to this. >> Okay. So, um so far we're we're just uh pointing out more things for us to do later, but that's okay. We'll I'll be I'll be okay with that. >> That's what we're >> Let's shift to composition and appointment. I think this is kind of likely the easiest piece. So members shall demonstrate a commitment to pursuing the goals of the RB described in section 1B with integrity. Uh the selection process shall evaluate each candidate's ability to approach oversight duties impartially and work collaboratively with all stakeholders. Any issues there? >> I would take out with integrity. I think that's just assumed, but I don't quite see what it's what's adding to it. Um is that to eliminate people who won't do it with integrity? I mean the point is members shall demonstrate a commitment to pursuing the goals of the ROB described in section 1B. What does with integrity add to that? And how would that I mean just I I'm asking I you know >> No, I hear you. I think I'm going to I'm going to show it with the track changes and if anyone has other >> we'll come back to we'll come back to >> Yeah, >> everyone gets one more of those. Everyone gets to say it one time and then we're not coming back to anything else. I'm just kidding. You can say it as much as you want, but um any objections to deleting that? I mean, it I I don't disagree. I think it's it's kind of flowery. Like, it's nice, but I agree with you. It doesn't actually add anything substantive to this demographic diversity. Appointments to the RB shall strive to achieve diversity across age, gender identity, ethnicity, race, college student status, socioeconomic status, disability status, and professional background, including nonprofits, faith communities, business, education, and youth advocacy. Why do we have if we say age, doesn't that include college students? >> No, because college students are not all the same age. >> Okay. And we Okay. I mean, I understand that we want college students. That's not what my issue is. >> My issue is why do you have to say it? But go ahead. >> Because I think you can have you could have a group with plenty of age diversity and still have no students on it. All right. >> Representation and expertise. Lynn, you had mentioned something in this one already. The RO shall consist of seven Ammeris residents broadly representative of the community, including but not limited to individuals with knowledge in civil and human rights, social justice, mental health, law, and public safety. Membership shall reflect lived experiences and expertise in civil and human rights, law enforcement, oversight, advocacy, and community engagement. Uh, councelor Ka Martin, what do you got? >> Yeah. So, one thing, one change that I wanted to raise as possible change would be based on I think I was reading the Springfield um bylaw presentation about their board and I think they had said no more than two um former law enforcement officials or retired law enforcement. So, I just wanted to raise that because I thought that was a good that's a good flag. Um I don't know if that's something that we could include um in this All right. So, this is the proposed addition. >> I I actually believe that that uh increases confidence in the group. >> Any opposite more? Oh my god. I meant to do an A y'all. That was not an accident. I promise. Or that was an accident. >> Uh I would like to Yeah, if I may. Um >> go ahead on on this edition. >> On this >> Okay. Okay. Otherwise, no. Then go ahead. I'm hearing no objections to that. So, go ahead, Council Ryan. >> Seven. Should I would like to make five? >> Let's talk about it. Why do you want to make it five? >> Um, we have a hard time filling comm I mean, right now in TSO, we're spending uh as not as much time as I'd like because we have other things going on, but we have been spending a fair amount of time looking at boards and committees and the demands at places. And um I five seems perfectly adequate. Um and it's very hard to fill often sometimes um the manager struggles to fill these bodies. Um and why seven? Um so I I think partly it's to uh a general sort of desire on my part to try and maybe make some of these bodies a little bit smaller that still uh are more than adequate to do the job they need to do. Um so I would I would like to say five. I I I totally support that. >> Any disagreement to changing it to five? All right. Uh appointment members shall be appointed by the town manager and confirmed by the town council for staggered three-year terms with initial appointment of two members for one year, two members for two years, and three members for three years. We'd have to change this. >> Yes, we would. >> They shall no longer they shall serve no longer than two terms and will and will receive a stipen for their service. Let me do some quick math here. We say one member. >> We could just take out the staggered terms, but I mean why? Help me see why there should be staggered terms. >> Oh my gosh. I strongly advocate for staggered terms. >> I totally agree with staggered terms. >> Okay. All right. >> So it be one for one year, two for two, and >> two. Yeah. One, two, and two. Right. >> Perfect. >> Okay. Um serve no longer than two terms. Any issues there? >> No. >> Nope. >> Receive a stipen for their service. >> I object to that. >> Okay. Talk about it. Talk about why. >> Uh where else do we provide stipens for service for volunteer boards and committees? I think it's a school committee and that's it. And that's that's an elective body. >> The town council, but we're an elected body. >> We're an elected body. These are elected bodies that have um and it's not to say these aren't important but I know who's going to decide which body is you know uh ZBA uh planning board concom um CPA um we have a whole host of bodies that meet often year round um certainly planning board CBA does um this body um I have no idea how often it will meet um but I think it creates a bad precedent and um so I do not support a stipen. >> Councelor Kenner Martin. >> Um I I do support a stipend and it's it's because of the particular mission of this body and I think the representation that we're looking for would be really hard to get in some cases if we don't offer a stipend. Um you know if we want people who are diverse in all the ways that we hope that they will be diverse. So, I I would advocate for having a stipen, especially if this is something that's going to be a lot of hours of commitment. >> Counselor Lord. >> Yes. I'm I'm not sure if I'm mistaken, but I do believe the CSWG received a stipen and I don't know that that was problematic. Um, am I correct? Do you remember that? I don't think you raise a bunch of problems about why do they >> and truthfully I really wish we could compensate um people for their labor when that is that would be a barrier to being able to serve. So, I'm in support of uh stipen >> Lynn. >> I would rather see us create a fund that reimburses for things like child care, elder care, um other expenses that they might incur by being on the committee. Uh and frankly, I wish we would do that for any of our committees. Um and I but I think that that the question that I have is we want that kind of diversity on every committee we have. So I could argue that we therefore should provide stipens for every committee. If if we if if if we only want diversity for this committee, then I don't think we're being true to our own statements of wanting a diverse town. Um, I also struggle with the concept of stipens for one body, um, especially when it's doing similar work or or adjacent work to other Sorry. Hey, my dog decided to eat out of the trash. Um, to other similar similar entities. Um, I think that I I don't think that it's feasible for us to provide uh stipens to every committee even though that is what I would would like to see. Um, and to be honest, we also don't know how much work this committee will have um yet, right? And and while I'm certain there is plenty for them to do, we don't know what that looks like. And um, similar to Concom, similar to other agencies that hear that have hearings or hear complaints uh, that were varies over time, right? And so I I think that the decision should be made either on mass or not um at all. I I do worry about the um uh privileging some committees over another given that we do have we have some committees that are not doing the critical work uh to keep our town functioning and and make our town well and we have some other committees that are and and I think that that's where I I'm struggling here. Um, I agree, Lynn. I would like to emphasize that other aspects that might otherwise be limiting for folks to applying committees, including um possibly like a technology fund for folks to apply for funding for supplies that they might need for virtual meetings or um a a care fund, things like that would be something I would agree for, but I and I think that it should be available to residents serving on any committee. Um I I struggle to know why this particular committee when it's doing similar work but also just in my my mind also very important work as other committees are um should receive those stipens versus others. Councelor K Martin. Yeah, I think we should um go back and and ask that question of the consultants that helped put this together or possibly the working group of why they included that because I think we might find that it is a best practice for these types of boards um for for the reasons that I mentioned. And I mean I think in the absence of having enough funds to do stipens for every board or committee, then I think we have to do what anyone does who has limited resources, I think we have to prioritize who gets them. And I I think we've already done that by giving it to council and to school committee. And I think that this would be another priority of who should get them because um it's first of all it's a time commitment issue and second of all it's how critical is the diverse participation to its mission. Um and so you have to prioritize unfortunately I wish we could give it to everybody but we've already prioritized by who we're giving it to now. Well, we didn't that's it's a they're different types of bodies though. Elected body versus versus appointed town committees in my brain are different types of entities. Um I hear what you're saying. I think I I disagree with that premise though. Um so can we ask the consultants? I will I will talk to um Athena and Paul about if this is possible. I think generally we've had a lot of questions for the consultants but um as to why things were put in here um but I and I'm not clear on what access to them that we have. Councelor Ryan >> I may be mistaken but my understanding from Paul is the consultants are no longer part of this process. They have done their work and they are no longer being paid. Um one could perhaps go through the record. Maybe there someone can track down um a recording or a statement or you know um and I'm sure there are reasons why they put this in um but the fact that they have reasons I mean we've already found a number of things that in this document that we've had to change um so we're not bound um by anything um that they have decided. I don't think they're available for consultation at this point, but someone perhaps could track down their reasoning or perhaps point to a best practice, which certainly would be something we could consider, but um the fact that it's a best practice still doesn't convince me that Amoris can or should do this um given our realities that we face and and so on. So um I don't think we can go to the consultants. Um I don't think there somebody can't pick up the phone and say you know tell us what you think. Um they give us a report um and we have that. So, >> so what ultimately can happen is if it comes out of this committee with a with a divided decision on that piece um or however it comes out of this committee um we can include it in the report that the council should plan to discuss this particular aspect of it whether we keep it in in counselor's advocate to take it out or whether we take it out and counselors advocate to put it in. Um either way, uh that is something that we can kind of we'll likely have to take a vote one way or another on this and um then we can but we we should if we're split on it make sure that the council discusses it. Um so I'm not going to make us vote on it right now, but folks feel free to to take some time and and do some thinking on that topic. It's 510. We're going to work for a little bit longer and then um we'll break on this today. Let's talk through expertise requirements. Um, this is I think maybe where we should have put this piece. >> Yeah, I think you're right. I wasn't looking ahead. >> No, me either. I just agree. >> That's good. Yeah, >> but but let's still start here. Split it. I'm going to move it just for the second just so it's all one page. At least one member shall have expertise in law enforcement or criminal justice. and at least one member shall have demonstrated expertise in civil rights, human rights, and or community advocacy. No member shall be a current or former police officer. Um, so we said no more than two members. So that's a discussion. Uh, no member shall be a staff member of Crest or an immediate family member of a police officer or Crest staff. So we had initially said something different than that. Um, is are there rules about town employees serving on committees anyway? >> No, they can't. >> Yeah. So I don't think this is relevant. Um, police officer does not specify town of Ammerst. So I can leave that on there for now for discussion. So do we want our initial thought that we had ear that councelor Kenner Martin proposed earlier no more than two current or former law enforcement prof professionals or do we want to go with no member no current or former police officers or families of police officers or crest staff? I like the I like what uh Amber has suggested here. >> Uh can I get clarification? Um >> correct. >> Is this saying that no one can serve on this body who has ever been or is currently a police officer? >> Correct. >> And could someone explain why that is the case? Because on these bodies usually there is someone. Is it the idea that Yeah. Help me understand why it says no member shall be a current or former police officer. >> It Yeah, I'm actually confused as well because the first line says at least one member shall have a >> Exactly. Right. What are they talking about here? Right. Is it some somebody who's like a a professor of of you know law enforcement or something somewhere? I don't know. >> It's possible they meant Ammerst town of Ammerst police officer because it's followed by a staff member of Crest. So I in that case if we presume that's what they were thinking and George you actually mentioned earlier recordings I believe the work of the committee that did this was confidential so we don't have recordings um so that that's a little tough but that sorry I meant to say that before so if we take this out um what do we think about immediate family member of a police officer across staff again are we talking about Ammerst or general and then um if it's Ammerst specific then I'm inclined to agree if this police officer at all. I disagree. >> Let me just say the other day I had an incident in Amoris where I actually had a lovely interaction with the police who were helping one of our residents and one of the other people who showed up at the scene to help the resident was a a black police officer who lives in Ammerst who was a black police officer in Holio. Are we saying no? He can't serve on this. >> No, we are not. We're just saying no more than two. >> Right. >> Right now, the discussion is family member. >> Oh, family members. Absolutely no way. >> So, but I I would like to clarify. I think that we need to either say immediate family member of a town of Ammerst police officer. I think that if someone has a a sister who's a police officer in another state, that shouldn't preclude them from serving on this committee if they have other expertise in civil rights and human rights. I I don't think that someone should be limited in that. I do think that if an immediate family member is on APD or Crest that that could possibly be a conflict of interest. >> So if I add Ammerst, are we comfortable with this? I want to say town of but are we comfortable then or are we want to say not at all? >> I I mean I would say if we can bring I mean what you were raising before of like a current or former Ammerst law enforcement official >> they can't Oh former they could I guess. Yeah, cuz I Yeah, instead of taking that out because if we added Ammerst to that then I think um you know that that avoids a potential situation where there's just a lot of you know either something that's going on currently or has gone on in the past, right? As we know that's what happens in small towns. So um I think >> I kept I I deleted current just because our they can't as per our employment policies right now. Um, so you're saying no member shall be a former town of Ammeris police officer uh or an immediate family member of a town of Ammeris police officer or crest staff. Is that now right? >> So no former APD. Um, can we also say no former crest if we're going to do that? Okay, >> I guess if you want to be consistent. I mean I think the concern is more I'm afraid with peace. Yeah. >> Crest. And I'm going to say crest responder because or well I guess no. Crest staff is broader. Yeah. You're right. >> Crest. >> If this group is overseeing Crest then Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Well, they're not overseeing. That's I think an important decision or an important discussion point here. Um I know oversight and overseeing are are rooted in the same, but I I do think there's a really important distinction. >> I agree. Um um >> councelor Ryan, did you have a thought? >> I just reading it now. Uh no member shall be a former town of Amoris police officer or crest staff member. >> I'll say former. >> Okay. Or an immediate family member of a town of Amoris police officer or crest staff member or staff, whichever you want. Choose one or the other. >> Staff member. I suppose feels weird. And the committee shall not include more than two current or former law enforcement professionals at any given time. That could be a judge, that could be a police officer, it could be um a prison warden, >> I guess. I mean, >> yeah, >> I understand that. I understand the the limitation. It seems reasonable. Um, in essence, I guess what we're saying is someone on this body of five people should have some law enforcement experience or criminal or criminal justice experience. Could be a judge as you said. So, okay. Okay. >> And I think, Lyn, to your point, I I would argue to keep this as law enforcement and not make it more restrictive because if we're talking about systemic issues, then that we got to look at the system here. >> Oh, I agree. I I wasn't suggesting making it more specific. Excellent. Thank you. Uh two-year rotating chair and vice chair, >> I guess. Yeah. >> Which by the way, we have one year rotating chairs, right? Or is it two year? >> I know it's one year. >> If anyone wants it, >> um >> Oh. Oh, wait a minute. No, for you it's lifetime. >> Yeah, it's lifetime. Yeah, I'm afraid. >> Athena, unmuting to laugh at that was so cold. >> I did not laugh. No, I was just going to say for F um usually usually that's up to the committees. They make their own rules about how often they want to elect a chair in >> That's true. Yeah, that's true. >> Can I Are you proposing that we just delete that entirely and they could come up with co-chairs or co- whatevers? >> Do whatever they want. >> That I think that's how that's our um >> you know with consistency with other town boards and committees that's typically in just part of their procedures or rules. Mhm. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Good. >> It's up to them when they how when and how they organize, >> right? >> And the the charter empowers boards and committees to establish its own rules. Um so they can establish that in their rules and regs. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Okay. Governance. The RB shall be governed by the same general requirements. This will be our I think last one. We'll stop it. I know everyone's excited about section three, but hey, look, feeling good about feeling good about This has been a very good discussion. >> I appreciate that. Let's wrap her up with governance. The RB should be governed by the same general requirements as other town boards and commissions. I think that should say committees. Commissions. All of them. Regarding >> committees and commissions. >> Yeah. >> Boards, committees, and commissions. Yeah. >> Okay. Boards, committees, and commissions regarding appointments, conduct, term length, open meeting law, public records law, and mass general law. We already talked about term length, but I guess as long as we're following those requirements, that's fine. Um, Athena, >> the the form of this is not in no >> the form that we usually use for boards and committees in our standard charge. So my suggestion would be that after >> after this meeting perhaps before the next meeting you or I or you and I together Anna put this into that form >> so that we're looking at something that looks more like because the even the governance section I mean the way it's written is not the way we normally write charges. So if we're looking to create if the committee is looking to create something that would be proposed to the council for adoption, then this isn't the consistent with our other boards and committee charges. So some of these sections would just like it doesn't make sense to include governance because that's not how the other ones are written. There's a section at the beginning that's like um you know the authority in the charter and yeah, you know those kinds of things. So I think Athena I let me mull whether I want to do that now uh or whether I want us to kind of get through some of the other aspects and then go back to it because I I think unless there's other really substantive pieces if we can just note like this will probably get booted once we fix the form. I I'm worried I'm going to throw us off by moving things around. >> I I agree. I think >> that makes sense. In in that case, then I would just say then don't spend too much time fussing over the governance section because it's going to be changed. >> Thank you. >> I'm gonna just mark delete for now. Excellent. Um, okay. So, friends, it is for all intents and purposes 520. >> I appreciate that we have actually moved through something today. Um, what I will do, I'm actually not going to do anything with this. Um, when we get to the review, when we get to the other model, I will transfer over our changes to that so that we don't have to do this again. Um, when we come back together, it will be October. I know there's a bit of a gap between meetings. Um, and I appreciate everyone moving to squish this one in uh so that we can all go to the Hampshire College meeting on the 22nd. Before we move on to our last item, which is approval of minutes, um, I want to just touch base on our next steps. I think we're going to keep moving through this in the way we are doing. Um, basically saying like what version of this can we get most of us on board for. Um, and then we'll move on to investigatory and we'll talk through our our concerns and challenges. We did a lot today of the I think we're going to need to come back to this and there is a point where we will need to in fact come back to these items. So, um, I will put this in the in the um, whatchamus folder drive. What's it called? Whatever. You know what I mean? >> SharePoint. >> SharePoint. Thank you. >> Hey, she's only been in four hours of meetings at this point. >> You guys have had a long time. >> Gooey in the brain right now. Um, so I will put this in SharePoint. Please remember, do not edit it. Uh, do not edit the SharePoint file. If you want to download it and open your own copy to mark up, feel free. But if I see anybody touching that SharePoint file, I will be having words with you. Um, please don't do that. Um, and we will come back to this and continue to work through the the text at our next meeting. Um, but I would encourage you to download and and look at it. Try to get really clear on what it is that the text as it's written is accomplishing, where you have concerns that it's going too far, where you have concerns that it's not going far enough, and what would alleviate those. Um, I think one of the things that's been really helpful for me is kind of not actually looking at this and saying like at the end of the day I want this entity to do XYZ and using what councelor Ryan was talking about last time as the overarching kind of goals and objectives for this group. Um, to to sort of think through my if I were to write this from scratch and have everyone love it, what it would look like. Um, so think through that as as you go. Any questions on RO before we move on to our final few items? Is our next meeting October 13th? >> I think it's October 8th. Is that right? >> Hang on. >> October 6th or 13th? >> 6th. Sorry. Nope, not sixth. >> 13th. >> It's 13th. >> 13th. I don't know why I keep saying 8th. It's the 13th. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, it's the 13th. Yes. >> Um, yeah. Oh, it's because I was looking at September. My bad. So, yeah, October 13th will be our next meeting. >> Yeah. >> Um, okay. We've got one more quick item, which is uh the approval of minutes from our last meeting on September 8th. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of September 8th, 2026? >> So moved. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Um is let me call a vote. Councelor Lord >> I. >> Councelor Ryan >> Hi. >> Councelor Ka Martin. >> Yes. >> Lang Griezmer >> I. >> And I am an I as well. And then um if there are no other matters that folks need to discuss um is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So move second. >> Thank you. Is okay. Thank you. Um going to call the vote. Councelor Kenna Martin, >> yes. >> Lyn Griezmer, >> yes. >> Councelor Lord, >> I. >> Councelor Ryan, >> hi. >> And I am an I. Thank you all so much for making this meeting time work. I appreciate you all. I will see you all with all of your homework complete on October 13th. >> Thank you. Good night. Thank you, Athena.