two different I think I'll just open it regular and go with it if we have to go to rad call we will okay as for con okayy I think we're good okay is it U Mark that's with hcam this morning or this tonight we being told yeah we are that's what I heard here's someone else Bob SN admit okay now we have to do recording oh it is very good so okay okay so hi Bob all right so um it is now 6:30 on uh Wednesday April 3D the upper Charles Trail committee and we have a quorum so we are remote and thank you Bob for joining so I have to read the script so um as a preliminary matter this um upper Charles Trail committee and chair of the upper Charles Trail um permit that all the members and persons anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me Members when I call your name please respond in the re affirmative in the affirmative so um thank you Bob for for being here tonight or Mark so Eric Sonic I'm here Bob Snider here uh Eli post Jim cello here Ken Parker not yet berron yeah Jamie here Tim rush not yet uh Jame Moran is present okay so anticipated speakers [Music] you know I was so careful like thought when I drew up this list I am sorry my apologies so good evening everyone this is the open meeting of the upper Charles Trail committee and it's being conducted remotely pursuant to chapter 22 of Acts 2022 and for this meeting the upper Charles Trail committee is competing by um conference or the video Zoom as posted on the town Town's website please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference accordingly be aware that others may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer anything that you broadcast may be captured by this recording and let it show that in the record that Ken Parker is now here and present okay and I'd also like to not Bob yeah Bob you noted that you were present correct I think he was the second one I did volume on that turn I'm sorry what you got volume on that thing somewhere a cheuck out it LO ibly okay I'll turn it down okay so um we're gonna tonight's agenda I'll just review it so we're going to review discuss and develop a recommended modifications to the upper Charles Trail committee charge specifically regarding the scope of work of the committee the process for undertaking that work and committee composition the recommendations are to be provided to the select board for the consideration and so for the documents for the review are uh number one the redlined upper Charles Trail committee charge uh created by um the tcmc and the red line upper Charles uh building committee by the um I don't know who did this but this I I'm going to start from the beginning the documents to be reviewed are the redlined tcmc committee charge those are the documents that went out this is just a typo and the upper Charles Trail committee building committee charge that was drafted on 103 of 2023 and the trails committee draft charge dated 10 323 and that if we have time we'll also review the minutes of the last meeting so if we could just kind of take them in order and Peter legoy is also present and uh thank you Peter for being here because I'm hoping that you can answer any questions that we might have okay so if we dive um I don't know if anyone has any preference how we start but just taking it from the top um it might make sense to start with the form and uh for the upper for the I think the tcmc management committee charge and go through that and I will note that I popped into a few meetings that they had and Peter you put quite a bit of work into this a point of order I PL the charge from the select board was you folks to look at your charge only not our draft um our draft is something that's gone to the select board really wasn't the purpose of this meeting your charge was specifically to look at the upper Charles Trail committee's charge and as part of that to consider what iron had put together which he provided to you and then what we as the trails committe had put together our suggested version all of that then is is to the select board but they wanted your input on your charge as the people who were closest to what you've been doing and how that would our suggestion so thank you for that um so if you remember when we had Peter and I met with erron Norman and Elaine uh about a week ago or less and at the end of the meeting I was kind of confused because there was so much going on and the direction was given to elain to help with the wording for this agenda to make sure that we were all on the same page and that's the way this agenda came out so if you look at the agenda we're looking to the documents for review the refined um upper Charles Trail committee charge the upper Charles Trail bid building committee charge the draft guys did and also the draft charge of 1023 this committee actually did exactly what you said on our last meeting we reviewed our current charge and we submitted those changes or no changes or whatever the comments were we we pass them in in fact they're those are the minutes for tonight's meeting so this tonight's meeting is to re review the the redline documents I think those were really provided for two reasons one for the upper Charles Trail building committee which is what our suggestion is for name going forward yep for your committee did not have those last time to look at that to look at what iron put together and then take that in consideration with with what you did last time to come up with an upper Charles Trail committee or upper Charles Trail building committee charge that's what the select board allowed you to review the fact that the I was very thoughtful them no interrupting what is what we had put together was the trail committee charge we looked at our charge and revised that but that I don't think even if it may be in the agenda yep it's in the agenda okay but all right I mean but it shouldn't be because I think as far as what the selectman's ruling was that's not within the bounds or with the selecting rule but if you want to look at it that's perfectly fine and I'm certainly happy to answer questions the reason we provided that was because in our charge in the upper Charles Trail building committee charge there are some interactions ways they work together in similarities I think that that was really the importance of having I agree that and I I appreciate that background information and I just want to back just wonder is there a way to get the uh the new charges up there so we can see it that would be ideal you can pull it up on your cell phone I sent them all to you I see them you mean well I unless you want to pull it up on your cell phone okay so um let me get back to Peter it's in the agenda if we want if you're not clear with that if you're uncomfortable with that I suppose we can just call it today but I understand that this is um the scope of tonight's meeting but if you're not comfortable with that maybe we should just go back I'm fine I'm just whether it fits as all I'm but I have no problem with it um okay yes quick question yes I I I've got a couple I've got the things that were email them you referred to one that was put together by fr whatever it is which one is that cuz all the ones I looked at were put together by tcmc is the Fons the February 20th 2024 yes okay how was his name yes no because it's from the it's how is tcmc on no they're T is on one of them the one that's tcmc you have to look at the you got to go to the email go to the email itself I renamed them well again supposedly put together by the one that has the February 24 up on the top left FR Y and so he took our original very very original Y and he gave his own his markup of what his guidance I guess would be so I would propose if no one else has anything to say that we look at the prepared um document by the tcmc dated October 3rd 2023 which is the trills coordination and management committee uh charged and the the redline document that that the tcmc is proposing and so the process that we used at the last meeting worked so just to to make it clear we can do the tcmc review first we'll go around the table table and get comments then we can review the formatted um text the red line document by the tcmc for the upper Charles Trail committee if that's is comfortable for everyone and then the last one we can review is the the charge the upper Charles Trail committee adopted by the select board that erron did as as a third one okay so we're we're doing the newest that font updated last yes oh there's another one updated that okay so one from I don't understand we're going to because very little very no no no no okay so let me just help you understand this according to the agenda that Elaine and Norman and coming from the meeting that Peter and I were in uh it was decided that we would review these three documents all right and the first one is going to be the redline document that the proposed it's October 3rd and it's proposed by the tcmc and this is for the trails coordination management committee and the the purpose uh you know how they Envision their Trail going forward and then the next one is the redline document also proposed by the tcmc that how their committee envisioned the Charles Trail committee the how they envisioned that and then the last one we can review is the one by earthon why don't we review that one first because I motion we accept our FRS and adjourn and go home I don't understand why we're even talking about these other ones that's all rubbish if this is what the select board want why are we even talking about the other ones I don't understand that um I well from Simplicity frankly this is the biggest P okay so there motion all right so I think in all fairness we have a responsibility to discuss this but this is the we discuss everything discuss excuse me gentlemen but this right yes but he is uh he is so he's acing to Peter too no no no no no no no no okay excuse me gentlemen I think think that um with all due respect in going forward and I I think it one of my last emails going out was that I think it's very important that we listen to what the folks at the Town the annual town meeting set here no no interrupting the second thing is that we review these documents with a cooperative in a collaborative thought process going forward us just us not TMC I just all right please no interrupting okay you'll have your turn we're gonna go around the table and everyone will have a chance to discuss and hopefully this is going to be it is it is going to be in a collaborative and a thoughtful and a respectful manner going forward because the annual town meeting voters spoke and what I would also like to have everybody kind of incorporate when we're going around and reviewing these documents um and I know you know I sent them out early enough and I did send out a membo asking everybody to review them thoughtfully so that you will have your thoughts ready so that we can add something to the convers ation um uh to you know acknowledge what the town annual town meeting members voted for so hopefully going forward we have a a better process for maybe you know whatever happens happens which one of these documents outline what town meetings said because I was there and night okay so all right so you're going to have a chance to speak so we're going to go around the table in a respectful manner okay so I would also like to mention at this point in time that Tim rush has joined and if you want to hand out an agenda to him that would be great so Tim where we are now is that we're just getting ready to open the conversation to discuss the um the redline document that the tcmc the trails coordination management committee charge um Drew up to redact Peter okay I might ask you for some help here not you Peter so because I do know because I poked my nose into many of your meetings and you and your committee put a lot of thought into redrafting both the tcmc uh committee charge and the upper Charles Trails committee charge so I don't have a particular preference to which we discuss first but um they're both there the which we are going to review tonight so we will go around the table and um and discuss that so hopefully everyone's had a chance to review both those documents so I will start to my right and I'm to my left do you think you should start with people who are here last time okay so when we are speaking to the redline document that uh the tcmc committee and they did put a great deal of thought into this Redline document um do you have thoughts or changes I mean they did a good job putting in uh new thoughts and Crossing out current language so and Peter is here to talk to us to answer any questions that we might have so this is the tcmc document that we're speaking to so Jim okay uh I reviewed all these documents um I'm not going to speak to tcmc anything frankly I think the to I'm disgusted by this whole charade it's nothing but a sham it's Travy how this how this is John con tcmc is common veed this whole proceeding uh Peter says that uh you know you want to get input from us because we you know what do you say Comm because we're the closest to it well nobody's asked for our comments in I don't know what nine months uh I've seen no progress on upper Charles Trails since we've been suspended um but I think the whole thing is just bullying the select board into accepting whatever Target is and uh and I'm offended at the fact that we've been be smurged by somebody you know who else gloves out by Peter TM whoever it is all right frankly I'm insulted um the only thing that I want to discuss is what Earth put together okay on the agenda no it is on the agenda we're going to wait so I'm willing to accept what our frund is because it's reasonable and it keeps the Committees with separate um okay we'll get to that thank you Eric do you have um some thoughts about agree with that Jim just said okay and well that's it I agree with J all right so Tim no comment no comment uh Scott people have very few words um I agree that us reviewing the tcmc charter is out of scope um there are comments that are made uh relative to the building committee that I think will be relevant to review only if any decisions are made that that be becomes a thing but right now I think it's right out it's out of scope so I I really um I have individual feedback and common questions about it but I don't think it's relevant this for okay thank you Ken I'm kind of in agreement with what people are saying and that uh I don't see a great need to go into uh all the details for you uh for um the trails committee uh the one thing that matters but it's also uh relevant to our own charge has to do with the joint individual that you know it's has to do you know that that's on both committees so we can discuss that but that's also on our own document and therefore it's not really crucial that I see it that we discuss it in the context of the the trails committee charge either Ian I don't really have a lot of objections to um the charge here for the trails committee um I haven't I got to say I haven't read it all that carefully but it seemed reasonable to me most ways um friends charges no I'm talking about the trails committee one I don't know talking about yeah okay so uh there is uh so we're fr's charge yes we can't discuss all right no we're going to come to that um I'm not sure I'm seeing everything because there's the crossed out sections along with the sections that aren't crossed out that makes look for the one with the re on red R one very little please no cross talking okay can anything the whole thing's red because it's red font and it's red line so it's all red that's all okay uh we're going to be going around a couple of times so if you think of something write it down we can get back to you Jamie um so I agree this is about a different committee um I did like that they talk about establishing Trail standards for the select board to approve I think that's a really admirable goal um I like the function of someone being on both committees I think that makes sense um and I like that they call out the expectation of semiannual basis to attend the organizations that they're trying to leaz on with um so those are the things that I think are really positive and could have a positive impact on our charge uh thank you I actually agree with Scott Ken and Jamie there are some really good points in this red draft that can be pulled into a future draft but also oh Bob before I before I start on my Spiel would you like to say something thank you um yes well I uh I agree especially with the sentiment that uh it's hard to read this thing from a cell phone um which is all I've got to read it from and uh now my cell phone is telling me that it's running out of juice so it could get worse for me um and my um principal feeling is that um the membership uh the membership Arrangement when we get around to talking about the membership across the um Trails committee and this subcommittee or whatever we are building committee um will make it harder to get any kind of a positive vote because the fact that there's uh going to a two-thirds vote is required in all cases to do to make any decision so that's just a gut feeling I have that it's going to be harder to come up with a a binding decision uh from this from this Arrangement and I'll leave it at that thank you um so are we're going to go around the table again so um my initial thought on this is that the tcmc both this um Redline document and the redline document for the um supposed new upper Charles Trail committee charge is based on one committee with an umbrella under an umbrella oaces so I do not see that there's a place for you know um a new conversation because the select board according to erron who I'm sorry is not here tonight has said that according and you might be able to confirm this Peter is that they are going to be two separate committees the upper Charles Trail committee and the TC CMC committee whatever their names seem to be so if you look at these two Redline documents which the tcmc Committees put a great deal of time into it's all based on one committee with a subcommittee no um when we put that together we had already heard the guidance from the select board and while we disagree with it we do think trails are trails and there ought to be one umbrella organization we also were looking at a model much more similar to school committee School building committee where there's two separate committees correct with a lot of interaction so this is based on the potential of two separate committees correct but under the authority not not under one it's two separate committees well that's not my understanding from what I heard so that needs further clarification but my my understanding as of last a few days ago was that there's going to be two distinct committees reporting solely to the select board not one committee reporting to the upper Charles Trail committee reporting to the tcmc committee correct and that's that's what our guidance was from the select board and that's the two documents that we provided to them it's in that email that I sent when I sent both of them well I don't see it in here maybe you can point it out but but that's not what I think there's nothing in there that says one reports to the other and that's kind of that's the point by it not being there that means that two committees as separate committees was the intent well um that's really not clear so at this point I'm going to go with what's written and it's it's clearly states to me that in these documents that the upper Charles Trail subcommittee would report to uh the Trails committee or the tcmc or whatever it's going to be called for two-thirds approval for voting of expenditures and things like that it's throughout the whole document but that regardless of that going forward that's what's written here so um going forward but to to Jam's point and some other points there were some there were some things in within that document that I think that could be captured that could be used going forward to improve um a separate AER Charles tril committee if we thought about it and that would have to be a further discussion so going forward we're going to go around the table one more time and speak to the um Redline document presented by the tcmc for the upper Charles Trail committee this is a separate document it was a separate document can I make a comment about no we're gonna come around the table so Jim first I mean we're already dropping the whole first one because I do have a comment about the tcmc one which I I guess I'd like to I think that's we're going table we're gonna go around the table you can include it in the loop if you want yeah but now we're going on to a different document than the one I want to make a comment on yeah I think he's going back to the first document I should I should have said it we are going to the second document so should we finish the first document all right well what is it that you would like to say Ken okay so the The crucial thing that has to do with the subcommittee business is in my opinion is at the very end of the red line where it has to do with what votes tcmc or what was tcmc include which has to do with budget request for town and state funds Trail route Trail surface and Trail development schedule now I don't really mind tcmc voting on those but if they uh do uh that raises the question of course as to what exactly our committee is doing and in the past that is what our committee has done correct and so I do think it's uh it's a little problematic there U the way it's worded when I read it the first time I wasn't totally clear as to whether those V votes were to be by the trails committee uh to be in coordination with this committee or not and I think those are the a joint meeting it was a joint meeting and both committees have to have chars correct okay so it those four charges are to be done by both committees correct that's what I wanted to clarify in a joint meeting and I see Peter nodding his head yes that that's correct so the the issue was that if you remember a few years back there was a um application for Mass Trails grant money yeah and both the trails committee and the upper Charles Trail committee put in for that and in the and the upper Charles Trail committee got $120,000 or something like that through the mass Trails Grant system and we we did not get that um as a wealthy community Hopkin is pretty unlikely to get two of those type grants and essentially what I was told in my debrief with Amanda Lewis who runs that program was that we basically helped you folks out because they saw two submissions from hopkington they said we're not giving hopkington any more than one one says Regional Trail we'll toss the other one they basically didn't even look at ours and so the the thought was that and there may be cases where one non- Regional Trail is a higher priority for the town so the idea was that both committees would get together and prioritize okay if we're going to apply for for Mass Trails grant funding this is the one we're going to apply on and in order to make it fair it would have to be a 2third vote in other words you know no one person who's on two committees could swing it we had to get a we had to have agreement within the trails committee and the upper Charles Trail committee room to make a decision so that was that was the point of that was to try and address that situation okay thank you I actually spoke with Amanda during that same thing because of the concerns that you had and my feedback from Amanda was that um both applications were good our application actually mentioned and showed where we were going to connect to Milford and Ashland at the end of the day even though we were going for a smaller piece of the action in between um the bottom line was because monies were short that year um they could not afford to give towns all of uh you know multiple Grant multiple application Awards uh unless they mentioned the regional and in fact there were two or three other towns and I provided that documentation to the select board at the time because you had raised this issue and showed that other towns had been awarded um multiple um applications because they had mentioned um reaching out to different um Trail systems in neighboring towns so that's within the purview of the trails committee or the tcmc going forward if you wanted to look into that going forward and see if that's a possibility I I would definitely think that that could happen um there is that possibility um because basically the tcmc has full wide range of trails all over the town not only here but in Westboro um you know we have we border five different towns Southboro there's multiple multiple applications so I would um urge the tcmc to kind of look into those things and not state that that's um not use this as a crutch to say that that's that that would never um be allowed because it has been granted in other towns but we have certainly both committees a lot of work to do so maybe we can start now going around and looking at the redline document that we speak to addressing I believe it's the upper Charles Trio Committee just is that the fourth one no this is the second one I believe dated October 3rd October 3rd and it says prepared by tcmc in the top right it says uctc charge in the at the top okay I'll play play along at home so um what are your thoughts after looking at this well I'm more going to say two things one is I don't understand why whatever committee is would not require it advocate with CPA money and I think it's a good idea to have a member of One committee on the other committee and vice versa though I don't think it'll ever be accomplished to have a committee approve a member from the other committee U as is described each committee gets to approve the other Committee Member be upon the members I don't know how that's going to work I think that would just get mired okay interesting we already we already comprise members as I described in here for example I'm the one with the engineering and environmental and construction background do I like Trails I love Trails do I run on them as much as some other people absolutely not but doesn't mean that so so anyway so I have those two question one why not ask for CPA why not apply for CPA grants and two I'm okay with switching up memb okay so just let me I'm gonna point one more I don't I don't agree that liaison should not vote that makes absolutely no sense I agree with that but we'll get to that when we get to ound document but um yeah all right um Eric I don't have any that other than what I think the idea behind coordinating the two charges is actually good idea I think because I think that they do boards work is related so coordinating them makes a lot of sense to me um does make sense and working alone bringing this together so I appreciate that they went through and did this I don't have a whole lot of comments on the content okay I mean it's really joint well that would be the idea of having that's why you'd need that's okay yeah so that my okay Scott hello um let's see where do I start I think uh it is it would be very challenging um to have to to get the two-thirds votes and coordinate that and I think it would muddy some Waters um and there will be healthy probably conflict meaning meaning uh competition for funding because that's the nature of obviously State and and you know single sourcing um so I think that you know the two-thirds vote would be challenging and I but I do think that the two groups should should there should be something uh where the two groups uh create transparency with one another and try to coordinate where possible so there needs to be some reference to that and maybe go to the select board if both want to go at the same time for state or Trails funding um the other point would be that I think um I like the concept of stagger terms but I think it's going to be difficult because we're in a volunteering world so you start getting a little bit complicated and you start end up a lot of gaps because you'll have people that are willing to volunteer but then they roll off after a year or whatever um so I I I I like the concept but I don't know if it's practical uh with the staggered um terms um uh I I I I do think there's something to be said about um serving consecutive terms uh I don't know if it would be three years or what have you but I think there's some benefit at least stating that that there's a maximum consecutive terms but no limit on the number of times someone can serve because I think there's benefit and experience and even stepping way and then coming back could be a benefit um after our last meeting when we talked about liaison I thought long and hard about um you know the key issue whether they shouldn't shouldn't vote I think there's benefits pluses and minus to both but I think where I stand I know where I stand is that liaison shouldn't vote um because what I think it does is it actually creates um sort of a natural uh a potential um locking out of votes that could come to represent the general population um and the liaison would be focused uh they're they're appointed uh by the other committees and not necessarily someone coming from the general population for the sole interest of just the trails so I think there there could be it doesn't it isn't an absolute term because we obviously have some very valuable Leons and members that are doing a great job and voting so um I think that it just opens the door um to potential um issues of of of blocking out or or or potentially not allowing um the general population to represent on on a committee if there if there should be an increased demand it blocks out a couple positions and then the last thing as I look down excuse me is around um uh the the the the the the concept of I think I think it I think we need to we need to be very crystal clear on the two different roles we've talked about this as a group and the selectboard and other people even I think um Peter and others have talked about being very clear as to the role and the function of the upper Charles Trail committee is to create the Regional Trail right and the connection whereas the trails committee is specifically specifically focused on intertown segments right um or routes so I think we need to be very explicit and and in our Charter probably create um that comparison to eliminate future long past us future confusion between the two roles of the Committees uh so again just sum mizing the inter relationship I think there needs to be um there needs to be overlapping membership there needs to be stated coordination between the two collaboration coordination and there needs to be explicitly clarifying the differences between the two committees you don't think it does that now um I don't think it no I mean explicitly mentioning in our Charter How We Do differ from the uh from the trails comme don't you think that the two charges and of itself explicitly State the differences I'm I'm I thought this was feedback I didn't know this was for Counterpoint P Bo with all due respect sorry CH no that's okay um but I'll clarify I'm stating that in our Charter we should explicitely stated because if you look at one charter it requires people to constantly pull up the two charters which we're forced to do now had that been done early in early on they explicitly stated to outline the difference not saying all these would problems would challenges and go away but it would be a little bit easier that's my only feedback okay all right Ken Al so um I don't know I suppose it's it's possible that I think I agree with Scott about the staggered terms I uh obviously this would require that we reduce the present size of our committee um I'm not sure uh about the term limits is whether they're designed to be applicable the past or only to the future or what uh doesn't really say assume it's the future but I don't really know that secondly well in addition well would you like to ask Peter his committee wrote it up yeah I think we're on a go go forward basis so starting now and is how how does this is this consistent with other committees in town yes it is it's not staggered terms I think is pretty standard term stagger yeah the staggered terms are consistent limits on me by m yeah they're two different things you are correct staggered terms are so that we're like two years or one year or three year but um you're right no and I think that we currently do that it's the term limits liit thank you Tim so I don't know whether I agree that this committee ought to be penalized beyond all other committees from for having term limits term limits is what you're talking about also the liaison to the other uh listed organizations would make it difficult for a seven member committee to fulfill all of those just from difficulty of I mean it's just playing a lot of a lot to do for everybody it's a little easier with a larger committee that we've had in the past I think but um I guess uh so the the way that the two-thirds is invisions there there would be uh 13 people all together I guess right 11ew N I thought there were nine and two no for I'm talking about the joint The Joint meeting seven members from this committee and then whatever the membership number is from tcmc also seven so that's 14 15 15 oh oh 13 the wrong way I thought 13 just to be clear that's what I I don't know what that's what what they're saying but that's what I understand it to be 13 people um I don't know I suppose it could work uh but could be a challenge um yeah I don't I agree with Jim about the CPC I don't see a reason to explicitly exclude our committee from being able to seek such funds I'm not sure that the rest of the charge does exclude that it's just that one in one place it's written in directly in uh since it it says elsewhere that you could apply for local money I I assume that means CPC so I don't really have a maybe that maybe that doesn't matter no I think it does matter well what matters is is whether or not we can fund so whether it's necessary that it say that in the charge I don't know according to that it it means that we could not without the approval without two-thirds approval of the Joint Committee um Bob should we go to Bob or should we go to Jamie geographically Bob good point um I don't have I don't have much to add the um I would say I think that this these two documents that were on the second of don't differ very much aren't these both the tcmc or Trails committee revised charge really and don't they even have the same date um so for that reason I guess this thing that I think we're on now is what I thought what I was talking talking to the first time around but um I don't know that anything has changed about that so um so um I continue to question uh how a 13 member committee can make uh a lot of decisions uh important decisions when everyone will require a two-thirds vote um and I really appreciate Peter pointing out that he was not envisioning uh a single committee here but rather two committees um because I too thought that um we were speaking to the One Umbrella committee concept so I appreciate him telling us that that's not what what he's looking at right now and uh and otherwise um I don't have much to add okay thank you Jamie um I think that I can see where some of the inspiration for the way that this is worded came from as far as looking for creating some structure to ensure there's public feedback um and engagement with more than only the members of the board I think that is valuable I think we talked about that when we at the last meeting I attended um upstairs the importance of really identifying how we're getting feedback and elevating the um concerns of the general public of citizens and residents of Hopkinton um I think the liaison question it looks like that's not meant to be you attend every meeting of the other commission it looks like it's a semiannual basis you kind of pop in um so it's not quite as laborious as it looked on the first read through for me I I think there is benefit to involving a larger group in looking at Route surface development schedule um I had a brief period of time serving on tcmc and we worked pretty hard through some challenging conversations at times on creating a system where we would be looking for feedback and receiving feedback from people living near that trail um I think that's a really valid and important thing and I'd love to see that some sort of process with the same intention among this committee as well um because I believe the this all came from people being frustrated that they didn't feel like they were being heard or represented or listened to um in the planning so I think finding a way to structure that in our charge sounds really important um and the the two-thirds majority of the two committees together does sound challenging I can see the benefits to it though yeah like I I feel like you can get people together think so I think we we ought to get together as a town on that point good John L good John Lon no no no talking in no no no we got to keep it okay so um we have worked our way through these two Redline documents and again I go back to um the direction I got from the last meeting although it seems like Peter I got a different uh feedback but I return back to the um agenda that the uh Town manager's office helped me work out uh for this and that um we were to look at the two red line different uh drafts for the tcmc and when I look at this they are two separate committees not one so to Bob it may be that the tcmc has changed their mind but um as of this draft it's my interpretation that it's one committee with a upper Charles Trail committee being a subcommittee of that and that they have to go to the tcmc and work with the tcmc for funding applications for um see you're shaking your head but when I read that that's what i' I've read into it that's not what I sent to the select board and then you've been CCD on that so that that's not what the S this is what you sent me right but I also sent you the cover letter before because I did not have the redline strikeout version of one or the other of them early so I redid that but sent this is what we're going did was I forwarded you what I sent the and that says two committees and continue to disagree with that but there are two committees okay so we may have to have another meeting and I may have to get a diff different documents to share with the committee but this is what we have to work with tonight so it could be that if you if the committee has if the tcmc has changed their mind that's okay um and we can talk about that and so um moving on because we have to work with what we have um so now I'm going to ask committee members to look at the upper Charles Trail committee charge as adapted by the select board um drafted by erron and that's dated February um 20th 24 and say you see TC charge yeah okay yeah just says zer2 okay there's the last one in starts with pursuant to the powers granted by the select board blah blah blah and then in read and in compliance with the select board's December 8 2020 pledge principles and Action System systematic racism is our community and other communities so that's the one we're looking at right now can we go a table would you like to start Jamie first or would you like to I like my penultimate thought that's fine we'll go with Jim he's happy I like just to get clear what we're looking at in referring to yes a three page document left corner says Feb period 20 2024 correct the title of it is upper child Trail committee second line committee charge third line adoptive by Boy Felman February 28th 2017 correct that was the original uh enabling of the upper child Trail committee uh no GNA interrupt that was our second okay that's right okay that's the current one correct that most current in in the version that I'm looking at in we're looking at was revised [Music] by no you're right okay so that's what we're looking and there's a few changes on it updating it for religious reasons or whatever um and um the only thing that I would say about this and I'm all for this um except again U I'm all for each committee having a a member on each other's committee I do think that the lison should be voting I don't see why anybody would want to be a lison if they're not a voting member and um and I think that this still maintains the we that the upper child Trail committee can request funding from uh CPA monies right that's still maintains that correct in this version ask for terms I don't really care well I okay that said let me ask make sure I'm clear on what we're talking about here I have two other documents here one of which is got town off of this s this is the original tcmc charge I assume dated January 15 2019 Peter yes revised by tcmc Red Lin and underscored with the adding language this document forsees one committee with a subcommittee right now wait wait the second thing I'm looking at is child Trail dated upper left corner October 3rd 2023 prepared by tcmc in the upper right corner this was tcmc revision of the 2017 upper child Trail committee charge right okay so now what you're saying is this other one I'm looking at here is not what you propose the one that's titled you know with the town of town Hopton seal that's not what you're proposing you're proposing something different that we haven't seen that we haven't seen at least you may have sent that out but we haven't seen it I haven't seen it so right no no that's that's what we sent out the red line okay so this does not Invision two committees this one Trail committee with a subcommittee called the oper Charles building committee right theer Charles Trail the upper Char it it basically makes two name changes one the trails coordination and management committee which is is and has been a mouthful um would be changed to the trails committee and the upper Charles Trail committee would be Chang the upper Charles Trail building committee to indicate clarify for the public that the charge of the upper Charles TR we're not talking about the name change it's important because I think it it gets to what he I think Jim is referring to is the fact that it's going to be it's under the umbrella no it's not where does it say that in here though that's what Jim is looking for doesn't it doesn't say in either one that the one is in charge of the other and in fact the fact that both committees are required for this two3 vote I think makes it clear that they're two separate committees now certainly that could be put in but again this is what we recommended to the select board with regard to these two separate committees okay so you would propose or you're proposing there's two charges one for Upper House Trail one for trail man whatever you call them now this is the one for formally tcmc this is the one for formally UT corre these would be in in your two separate committees hope and pray that we would have two separate committees and these would be the charges for those two committees okay that would not thing but thank you for clarifying that and I'll just add one last thing I will go to my grave believing the Jaa Tri Trail committee did what it was charged to do it does not have the luxury of whatever the other committees called in terms of having all public property available to run Trails there were Road Blocks along the way there are obstacles that all have to be overcome everybody in this committee has been committed and the committee as far as I'm concerned has been successful and what chared to do and the public was always invited to attend our meetings you and sometimes specifically um there was never been a closed door meeting agenda of always been published anybody from the public can always come uper Charles Trail committee had Outreach sessions plans posted people comment people look at them comment and the only reason that we're sitting here today and talking about this is because there was a a a potential segment of the trail that included Hayden row and somebody's you know gathered mob of people opposed to that and use that as an excuse to dismantle the committee as it was and to change the chargeing committee uh but for that we would need be having this conversation right all right I'm done I think Eric oh yeah the um in looking at Earth funds play I have several problems were one he is recommending an eight member committee n i could technically 11 he says here this committee shall consist of five members at large other members yeah has n a different part of the document we're talking about chaos between or n between 10 and 11 you could say because two timates having been on more committees than all of you add it together let me tell you the more members you have the more chaos you have and the less accomplishment you have that's been my experience is I look at this and it's says uh he doesn't want the chairman or the vice chairman to succeed themselves that's like saying okay the most dedicated person can't do it again the next year so we're gonna take one of these other people and spend half a year trying to bring them up to speed and then when they can finally accomplish something we're not going to let them do it we're going to go through that process all over again the only place in town that I know where these uh chairman doesn't seem to U serve consecutive uh terms is the one for and after watching last night's meeting I'm not sure that's a good idea the um basically yes I think no includ in on the liaison appointments they're not liaison as an a liaison report these are Le leaon commited members they just happen to come from uh someplace other than the select board virtually every appointed committee Not Elected an appointed committee has voting members from other committees and it's designed that way to give a cross view of what other committees are thinking and how uh those things happen for example I'm on the uh uh the CPC the members on the CPC are three at large one from the historical commission one from the planning board one from the arks and wreck and one from conservation they're all voting members and they all have a a very very important individual perspective in the case of the weeds committee which I'm on we have a member from the Conservation Commission we have a member from the lake Masano commission and it's done because they are people whose committees interact with the uh other committee so for her on to recommend that these members don't vote I have a real problem with that because it's against virtually everything that's ever been done with appointed committees in this town in fact I get on this committee as a representative of parks and wreck back a 100 years ago do we have a Parks and Rec person not right now cythia who was a hard worker yeah was our parks and recck person so from my standpoint uh I would leave those three positions in place and make them voting members um who's the other one what you say he says there's nine members large no five at large and three alternates and two no two alternates you need nine voting members we have what he's outlined here so he's got five he struck out the six that was in the original charge paragraph up above says the committee shall have nine full members so I think it's this altered it down below a little bit better yeah assuming You' reduced it because it looks like it's not n members he's got to have six at large or another Le I think maybe could have been I would say it needs a complete rewrite to be sensical very charitable but but it does make our discussion of what we don't like about it a little hard because I'm 100% unclear what they're what they're inting so I don't want I don't want to like go say oh they're wrong for saying this this or this so I guess my walk all comments so I'm sorry no that's funny because based to what you just said you well so I don't right it's interesting black text so in the original charge it said that they had nine po members who were all served at the slack boards distracted from the moment this was made okay then point taken was the thing we got it we got it we heard it I'm just saying in black text in the original charge they did claim to have control of all of them I don't know how that and and then right below that they then said that they were that one designate would be recommended by each of the commissions which is a little bit different than the structure you talked about and and and different from how I think membership has consisted in that each board has just sent their member without going through the select board for for appointment but I don't that's not true we have to get approved by yeah for example I'm nominated whatever how you want to call it conom okay s needs [Music] to okay so it's not done just by indivual committee Comm so if if the select board decided they wanted to change the membership they could go back to your board thing we're looking at from the select board is 2017 yes this committee was formed two years before that on 2012 in this committee year y I understand that this commit has been a long time so we have nine but two we have nine but we don't okay I no what I notice from not include add someone from what currently the TCM so maybe that's the ninth member but then they would be non voting members I don't know it needs to be right corrected um I did see that they added one member has social media experience I don't know that could be it so they say a preference shall be given to candidates to ensure I don't know I think it was just a typo on his part no no no but I guess my my point is is that as long as it's a preference and not a requirement because to some degree we have to deal with what who applies we haven't not appointed gra apply I know recently anyway and so we do the best with what we get and I hate when it TR says you have to do XYZ because don't oh so my I guess my biggest thing is I really think that we looked at and clarified because the membership the voting members versus not voting members confus me a little bit um point taken and then the fact that it's missing mentioned I think it's a mistake to not mention the the relationship to the trails made it's Comm and so I I think we at the very least would recommend they consider [Music] add we all agree on that cool yes Scott um so I don't know if it's in any particular order because my computer's ready to die so I transcribed my N I think it is missing uh tcmc membership reference or cross reference I think uctc should be there should be Cross membership of a member on either uh on both I should say um agree keyword on the roles that are preferred but not required uh I would change am I talking to fast if you're taking notes okay let me know oh okay um I would change um social media experience to technology because you guys know I've been an advocate of that to make sure our we and everything is maintained and and kind of cleaned up uh for the public to easily find and access what they want just droing that and going with the pcmc person to make number nine well I haven't got to numbers yet because I I I hate to admit it but I agree with you on the size of the membership so I'm getting there I'm getting the membership size um but I think I change um preference it's not required because these are not required members and they should be the Tim's Point absolutely absolutely we go with who volunteers and if there are two people for one spot and one has technology experience and the other one doesn't I we show preference the select board whoever um there um this came up at our meeting last time well I don't know I raised it originally but I supported whoever did um we need to we need to have mention in uh in the charter of deliberate period IC checkpoints or status updates to select board and I think someone had mentioned four times a year I don't know the frequency but I think we have to have deliberate we have to be guaranteed to be on their agenda X number of times a year because there has been it has drifted we'll call it politely right and so we've acknowledge that our our connection uh hasn't remained consistent um we I mentioned a couple times tonight sorry if I'm being repetitive here but we need to mention in Charter there The Joint coordination between the tcmc uh and the uctc and and I think and I Envision bullet points underneath it so the two committees shall coordinate in the following ways you know things like um um you know make the other committees aware prior to submitting applications for Grants um there should be circumstances where they make them aware and consult would not have to put forth and vote on one going forward but to cross compare um if there is a need for um you know if if we're going if if both committees at the very same time are dipping into the same Grant potentially I think there may be a need to to go to the select board but I don't know if we put that in our Charter but eventually and then last is again a little bit repetitive I think there needs to be language that does differentiate the two committees so I say that there's language that both differ iates and shows how they complement and coordinate work closer together um I think that's it and it died oh no it didn't let me oh yeah and the membership absolutely think nine is too many members um I think where it gets sticky and boy I'd have I still have to do more thinking if if it were up to me I I think i' reduce the membership to seven um where I think I would cut the membership um is in a couple places I would not have alternates to keep it to seven um still have le on but the two that I mentioned here well I think um Conservation Commission um I would probably not have parks and wreck and I would have um CPC um continue um and then again we have the tcmc no who is the other one we not no but who was the third select board thanks eliminate them that's what I was saying if we if we put the checkpoints we could eliminate it but no crossb but I say eliminate the the select board and the parks and wck and I keep the consumation commission not that I have anything against Park and wreck but I would hope that um all the things going on there and the connection of the Conservation Commission would between them should certainly more than satisfy that and I know yeah please no no back and for this is validating let's take an agreement I'll take it when I get it no anyways I know I'm taking a lot of air time last last point would be that so strike the two alternate members strike the uh parks and wreck and select board as long as we have the checkpoints and then I think it's seven members um and then I think there has to be something about the terms the members but I actually don't think we should limit um the um the ability for um officers to serve multiple times in a row I think that needs to be up to the membership to to vote and serve that okay thank you um Ken really have a lot unique to say I mean I I agree uh about many of these other points um I I'm kind of confused as to why we're even discussing this given what we discussed first which was the two seven member committees so uh for Simplicity sake I would go along with the logic that maybe this committee ought to only have seven members without any alternance um I think it's silly to have to require that the chairman turn over as quickly as that I think there ought to be here elections but beyond that uh we should be able to decide what we want uh as other committees can um liaison I mean I think it's silly to say liaison shall not be voting members I think it's conceivable that we could have liaison that are not but then I don't know how that would fit in the seven membership thing I mean so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me uh I mean I I I I I guess we could just say that you know Lea zones from other committees are always welcome but I don't know that that needs to be part of the charge you're right um I don't I've always worried about including accessibility for all users of the path I'd like that to be qualified with wherever possible it's because um I think we've got some Geographic uh constraints and some things aren't going to be possible for everything and there's still the skateboarder argument so you know it would be ideal if we could have have the trail accessible to blind people for example everywhere but that um well it it will be accessible to them whether they can do it without having someone to help them go on the trail that it' be it would be nice if we could but that's a lot to ask I think um I know so yeah I don't think the select Board needs to be a member H have a a member on the committee they should always be welcome to stand in and participate as anyone else can J when he's finished yeah that's pretty much all I have to say gu okay Eric do you want to add something I want to clarify what I said I think the ultimate um ground for all this is to have a seven member committee we have uh leaon from conservation selectman appoint six or five have a liaison full voting member of our committee from the tcmc and to keep the two non voting alternates I think they're the they're the I think they add to it and they get themselves trained to replace us as we go away additionally it works very very well for the uh appeals board that's point they have to that that works very well so I Envision a seven member committee one of which from Trails one from concom five from the selectman and that should be seven and then two alternates non voting but could vote in need need or not that could vote in time I didn't think of this one when I was talking can the the one advantage of the alternates is that they could vote if there was not a quorum or at least yeah keep that I mean help us get to he proposed something different yeah yeah I which point out I would point out thatted slightly different language it says they can vote if anyt that's currently the way it is if there's not a majority they could replace any member to right so I don't know I guess I'm just pointed it out had a problem with alternates in 15 years or whatever the hell it is is okay so let's try and keep this not back and forth okay Bob do you have anything to add Bob do you have anything to add uh yeah I'm getting my microphone on okay we can hear you actually yeah actually I think the uh parks and Rex leaz on is important that they always have served an important role in our committee so I don't like the idea of eliminating that um and if it means making a committee bigger then even that's worthwhile to me um in terms of um in terms of all these uh somewhat uh uncertain numbers that arise from the way uron structured his changes um I don't even want to I don't even want to uh speculate on what he really intends um but I do think that the biggest thing that he put in his uh change is is the accessibility idea and or the accessibility explicit uh uh restraint so and I kind of agree with Ken also that that accessibility should say wherever possible um but at any rate that's to me that's the most important thing that he's introduced there and all the other things um we can go go forward and work with um I'm sure so but I do like having to lay eyes on Parks and wrecks uh and that would be it okay thank you Jamie um as far as the accessibility piece I would suggest instead of whenever possible just saying maximizing accessibility that I think that covers the and I think it makes it a little I don't know there words I prefer um something that he did add that we haven't talked about yet was the um obviously there's a public comment at any meeting um but the reev verion that fund suggested includes that any suggestion made by the public shall be discussed as an agenda item at the following meeting and any decision on the agenda item shall document the decision- making process as well as reasoning for why any particular suggestion is accepted rejected or otherwise I like that because I think that the while anyone can come to the meetings um it's not always easy there's lots of reasons that people can't and I think it's valuable to as an olive branch to the public or anyone who felt that they weren't being heard if they attend or remotely or in person and provide a question or a concern I understand we can't necessarily go back and forth in that meeting but by guaranteeing we're putting it on the next agenda I think that does at the concerns of members of the public in a way that is demonstrable documented and I think that's valuable towards working towards better collaboration and proof that we're listening um I personally really like the idea of a change that alternate members may vote when a Committee Member is absent instead of the current structure which is only if a quorum is not achieved um I've made a great effort to come to every meeting I possibly can and and it can get frustrating when there's one person missing and as an alternate I'm not able to participate um Beyond speaking I think it should be clear if we're looking at making alazon like welcome to come versus a voting lison or non- voting lison that we identify if they are participating at the meeting at the table versus being a member of the public in the chair like off the table you know what I mean um just because I think that if a selectboard member were to come are they then sitting here at the table or are they sitting in the seats of people who are observing the meeting participating in the discussion or not like I think that should be clear um I think it might make sense to have something in there because of the I can see why uran put in the limitations on chair and vice chair um I understand where he was coming from there I agree that limiting it to a one-year maybe too much um but finding a way to ensure that voices are elevated that might be a little bit different I think could be valuable um I like the deliberate agenda items on the select board to maintain that connection better and I agree that we need to have a more clear documentation about the relationship between upper Charles and Trail coordination and management thoughtful thank um okay so many uh good thoughts have gone around tonight um I just want to throw out um one thing um probably out of order but in the redline document for the upper Charles Trail committee um one of it stated that the upper Charles Trail building committee funding requests um are re as relevant to the Charles Trail all votes as to the funding requests mileston shall require two3 votes of the majorities of this combination new committee so that to me suggests that it's one committee that's where I was coming from with that so and to so it could be that it's misunderstanding it needs to be further clarification but that's what I am coming from um to me I think the 11 um membership is fine but I would say get rid of the alternates and just make everybody a voting member just like on planing board and so many other um committees where everyone votes there's no alternates there you know just you requ to join the committee if there's a vacancy you come on board you learn as you go along and um you vote I think this voting and non-voting was something that I heard loud and clear from the public at the annual town meeting and it it really doesn't need to be there I think we can just the one thing that I would suggest and I don't know how this would work into this is that the select Board number not be a voting member um when we first started this committee we had a select board member who was our Committee Member for three years and he made it perfectly clear that he felt um he was there to advise to guide to consult and support but he did not feel he wanted to vote because he wanted to remain neutral he felt that that was more important for the town um to be neutral in all aspects so he refused to vote in all aspects so if that could be adjusted into the membership so that he were a member but not necessarily a voting member I think it's important to is what Bob says I think it's very important to have concom parks and wre and CPC members as Liaisons because they offer so much them uh well what do we have we have parks and wreck confused we have three we have a select we okay so so parts and conservation Parks and Rec and conservation because they offer so much if we had to consult with um if we had to make a or have a conversation and then go back and Chase down a concom member for information we'd be spinning our wheels and wasting a lot of time having an um you know an a member here that can speak to that adds so much and it's the same thing with parks and wreck we go through so many of the properties that parks and wreck overseas and I know Cynthia was invaluable over the years as an advisor and I've forgotten who was theas on before that but um it was you know really crucial to our role but um I could go on and on but I think that so many of the points have been made already um but those were some of the things that I wanted to point out right now Jim do you have something to add yes I come in peace and I have a we're we're trying to leave this meeting with a revised charge from the upper Char Trail committee no we did that we did that the last time commenting on Earth well we have our comments that we can send in um I think those the collective comments that we have on all three documents that we can send in if there is a need yeah and if they if um the select board I guess decides that they want us to meet again and discuss further uh but that's that's what is on the agenda okay for tonight right one last question comments about this so there's been discussion of the center Trail being Incorporated part of the upper child Trail I think in something I saw from tcmc that is strien from and by the way is a side note I don't really understand I never will y TMC revives in the upper to tril commit Char but in any event in their revision they tried to incorporate the Senate Trail herri didn't do that no as a committee do we want to talk about whether the Senate Trail is not a part of to your point we had a discussion at the last meeting but uh Jamie wasn't here I don't know if she has any feelings about it but I think didn't collectively we agree that the center Trail should be part of it because we felt it had a historical a significance to the town and a cultural significance to the town and okay um also that except for one member who felt that it should be stricken but if I think it to our committee's credit um many years ago we looked at that possibility and look going down just the strictly the east side of hopkington and discovered very quickly that it was not possible because it's so built up in back of um you know all those Ash Street and you know Robin Road and all those roads Scott I think where Jim was going don't want to put words in your mouth Jim is what I was thinking you're raising as a group because I was curious as the next steps I have not seen a written revised Charter from this group presented to the selectboard I saw a series of notes and comments which is almost like line of of notes and minutes type of concept but we H I think we should come up with a revised Charter which incorporates charge sorry I business is Charter my head's still in business world is a charge I think admittedly it's going to be a little challenging and painful but we'll get alignment we'll take a vote on it and that's we submit as our as our version I don't think we have that that for a next agenda item maybe meet I believe I would you're right because it's but I I I don't I hope it's not a stretch to get that approval I don't know I think we're close aren't we I mean what I'm hearing and I'm admit I doed off a couple times but the only questions are about the number of members where they come from and now I threw in the uh the center Trail beyond that you know I I certainly accept all the I I don't know I think there has to be language just a couple of things that we need to change from Earths or comments on Earths and we're done I don't know um by the way State Technology and information technology yeah yeah but I think I I would hope we're close but I think we have to go through that process and come up with our draft that's what I'm suggesting you don't think so I don't want to get into you don't want to write a ver battle you know you got ECM seeds draft you got I don't think we got draft you got job we have a draft okay we have a charge that we've operated under for 15 years or whatever the hell it is ask if they want to change it let them change it how about this we put it in at the at the end of the suggested comments going forward to the select board because we don't know we're going to be allowed to can I make a motion of the chair yes motion um and people and no disrespect I think you know I respect your point but I make a motion that we requested the select board or I make a motion to this group that we uh we produce our own version of the minutes that's I make a motion and version of the minutes of the thank you I make a motion that we produce our own version of the charge and and for ultimate submission to the select board so how do we get there well it has to go we can vote on it but then it will be incorporated into the minutes to go to the forward to the select board and they will approve it or not so okay will you let's see would you accept a motion to propose changes to motion all right so let's have a clear motion so the clear motion is uh to to propose a version of the upper Charles Trail committee um charge after as a result of all of these discussions to go forward to the select board okay so is there a second to the motion we're gonna do that Scott proposed no we're going to make the motion now and then we'll present it to the select board with the minutes a motion the motion is to create the draft Yeah at an subsequent meeting subsequent meeting okay all in favor all right you need to do a roll call yeah we do need to do a r call um Eric no Eric well I need to write this down so no um Bob Bob how do you vote Bob is a yes uh Eli's not here uh Jim hi yes uh Ken no no erron is not here Jamie I'm an alternate Jimmy do um Tim no nope present Jen is a yes um Scott yes okay the vote carries one two three 4 to two all right Madam chair I'm curious what would be the alternate motion for those that voted no what would I mean uh let's let's ask I was just motions uh Ken my reason for voting with Eric is just that I do agree that we're kind of being dictated to and they've already taken the uh I've started with a charge and uh I hope they listen to us and if they don't uh they still have the power to do what they want so just and saving time it seems to me that hopefully they can spend they they they can take account what we've discussed here and and and do the job for us is better just more more efficiently than we can I'm I'm if uh if the only thing we had to accomplish was was coming up with a charge then by all means we could we can keep discussing it but I'm kind of tired of it as well Eric you agree with Ken how say you just shows that it doesn't show anything than agree with Ken because I actually we've been agreeing on a lot of things a lot of things everything a lot of things it would it would I guess it's just a last to try and cooperate collaborate and you know try bring together yeah is because we will enter into a word smithing contest yeah with the board of Selectmen and every little dinky part of it will have a half hour discussion and mean nothing and through that my whole career with when I got involved in big committees and everybody had to have a little Point everything to a waste of time and C us okay thank you for us for our comments all right it doesn't matter I mean we don't even know if they're gonna let us meet again right well that should be you want to make a motion that uh you put in that uh they reinstate us as a committee and let us operate instead of this of wait a minute I don't think that's gonna get well anyway you made a motion is there a second only one want a second no no one want okay so I do have a a comment I want to take from um Peter who is so graciously been sitting there just a reminder from our meeting where with Fon Elaine Norman you and I um Norman spelled out that what he was looking for from this group was the overall charge separated in in and this committee's thoughts on the three on three bucket items basically the charge generally so that would include you know connecting from Milford to Ashlin whether or not it goes through Center Trail the process to be used by the committee which again You' you've hit all the people but I think it's important to put it in one place and then the composition of the committee those were the three questions that Norman posed to be discussed or to be addressed through the chair I didn't know that no I didn't know that I mean I I I that it wasn't in the notes I kind of want to withdraw right but that was in our withdraw my motion because I don't want to go through the effort and I'd rather focus on three items you didn't know about that either right items like all we have to do is answer those three items to be clear those are the I mean if you put a charge together that's well I the I'm sorry I'm sorry Peter it was not in the agenda that they gave us it's not here no but in our conversation it might have been in the conversation fairness however when I asked for clarification and I asked them because I would it was all all over the place if you can remember that was not in the agenda so if they want to further this the agenda process yeah um we can certainly do that but they specifically asked uh to our committee to look at the redline documents regarding the scope of work of the committee the process for undertaking that work and committee composition item two right so that's when you say when you hit all when we hit all the points right that's what we did through the chair now hearing this I don't think but I no with all I don't think we should go through all the language and this goes back to Eric's point about all the things I wanted to add to erron and modify where the inter connection between the two that seems to be out of scope of what they asked us to do um that's we we didn't talk anything about process but you guys know I'm I'm all over that your understanding so what saying or well it's in our agenda everyone has the agenda everyone read it it's clear milk to me okay well then having heard new information I want Focus you can withdraw your motion if you want because you have now new information I would like to withdraw my [Music] motion Sor process is I think I think you guys you guys discuss it process semantics but process for example is we ought to interact with the trails committee that's the process so how do we move this and and we're gonna by the way it work both ways right how much collaborating have you done P I apologize would you a motion to adjourn let me I got stuffed out what you can do about your thing is make a new motion resending the old motion and it has to be voted on your initial motion was voted on that made it official corre now make a motion to disregard it or do away with it and we'll vote on that and that's how you get rid of it but that's how it's got to be done I don't see why you would I mean um um I do think we need to talk about process more if the result of us going through and looking at the chart in detail will include process I'll keep the motion that I have I do not want to go through word SM and I um I but so I think it stays this remains as motion anyone have anything else to add to this yeah yes yes Bob go ahead can you hear me still um yes we can hear you I voted I voted yes because I agreed with Jim that were very very close this thing that this revised charge we can do um in the next meeting and therefore we should that's a process matter it's a process I think we covered it but go ahead this is a whole process we have to go through all these Redline documents we have to have a discussion um I think we hit a lot of the main points that we need to have and if we're allowed to have another vote we Canard says if they disagree that we should get together to talk about another charge if they have enough then the decision is on them if they would like to see a charge from us I think it would be a good thing for us to put that forward so we've now put the decision to the SL board okay else or do I can I entertain a motion to adjourn so move second okay wait a minute okay so Eric yeah well I who's second Ken thank you okay roll call vote Eric yes Bob yes Jim yes Ken yes and Jane is a yes and Scott yes and Scott sorry about that okay Scott I was expecting it it's because you're at the bottom not gonna have to move you all right thank you everyone e e e e e e e e e