##VIDEO ID:https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/994DtmGEsi0VDYK3jJI2BJ72GfgNIpU2/media/920691?autostart=false&showtabssearch=true&fullscreen=false## <v Speaker 1>Good evening and welcome to tonight's select Board meeting</v> Wednesday, December 11th. We are going to open and call to order a roll call vote to enter into executive session. Executive session portion of the meeting is not open to the public. The reasons we are going into executive session are A, pursuant to mass General Law, chapter 30 a, section 21, subsection a, subsection three to discuss strategy with respect to litigation where an open meeting will have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the public body and the chair. So declares and I do Andrew Watkins versus Town of Natick. Case number G two dash 23 dash 70 Civil Service Commission. Item B, pursuant to Mass General Law chapter 30 a section 21 A subsection, I'm sorry, section 21, subsection A. Subsection three to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining where an open meeting will have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the public body and the chair. So declares and I do New England Police Benevolent Association Incorporated local 180 2 dispatchers, deputy Fire Chiefs Association, local 1 7 0 7 International Association of Firefighters, A-F-L-C-I-O, new England Police Benevolent Association, local 82 Natick Police Officers Association, local 4 9 6 Massachusetts Coalition of the Police, public Employees, local Union 1 1 1 6 clerical and item C, approve executive session meeting minutes for 10 for October 9th, 2021. Oh, I'm sorry, 2024. Thank you. Pursuant to Master General Law chapter 30 a section 21 a subsection a subsection three to discuss strategy with respect to litigation where an open meeting will have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the public body and the chair. So declares and I do Andrew Watkins versus Town of nata. Case number G two dash 23 dash 70 Civil Service Commission. At this type time I'll take a roll call, vote to enter a motion and a second to enter into executive session. Second, moved by Mr. Sidney. Second by Ms. Slager. Ms. Slager Aye. Mr. Evans? Aye. Ms. Pope Aye. Mr. Sydney Aye. And I'm an aye. It's 5 0 0 At this time we will, so that everybody doesn't need to leave the room, we're going to do our executive session in the back office and we'll come out here when we're finished and I expect that'll be about 45 minutes. Thank you. I'd like to call the meeting back to order. We've ex exited executive session and reconvening an open session. For those of you in the room, if you are able, please stand with us to say the Pledge of Allegiance and for a moment of silence to pray for those who are serving our town and our country and are and are in harm's way. <v Speaker 2>Pledge of Allegiance to flag</v> of the United States of America and to Republic for which stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, liberty, he and Justice for All. <v Speaker 1>Thank you.</v> Mr. Clerk. Could Mr. Clerk, could you read the announcements? <v Speaker 3>Okay, we have two,</v> <v Speaker 4>Sorry.</v> Thank you Madam Chair. We have two announcements to start off with. The first is nomination papers for the spring 2025 town election are now available for the following town wide offices, board of assessors, board of health, Constable housing Authority planning board rec parks commission school committee, select board and Town Moderator. 25 verified signatures are required to be placed on the ballot for any town wide office and papers to do back to the town clerk's office for certification by 5:00 PM January 7th, 2025. Also available are town meeting nomination papers for Natick 10 precincts to get on the ballot for town. Meeting a minimum of 10 verified signatures from voters within your precinct is required. Town meeting nomination papers are due back to the Town clerk's office for certification by 5:00 PM February 4th, 2025. Please visit the town clerk's office during business hours to obtain your nomination papers. For more information, please call our office at (508) 647-6430 extension four and that was signed by Andrew Gobrial, our Town Clerk. The second announcement we have tonight is the Select Board hereby gives public notice of attention to call 2025 spring annual town meeting on Tuesday, April 22nd, 2025 at the Kennedy Middle School at seven 30. All articles requested for inclusion in the warrant for the 2025 spring annual town meeting must be received in the office of the select board Natick Town Hall 13 East Central Street, Natick, Massachusetts by 5:00 PM on Thursday, February 20th, 2024. That would be 2025. The select board encourages petitioners and others submitting articles to provide such materials electronically to select board@natickmat.org by such date and time. If submitting through this format, petitioners are advised to request a read receipt to verify proper and timely receipt by the select Board's office. The select board further encourages that articles be submitted in narrative form only and that maps and other supplementary material not be included as part <v Speaker 5>Of the warrant article.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you Mr. Sidney. For those of you who are standing,</v> I wanted to let you know that several items, some people are here for just initial items on the agenda, so we should be freeing up some seats shortly. There's also an overflow television in the hallway if you want to go out there, if you and, and, and watch from out there. Small Business Saturday was held, I think it was last weekend. And I wanted to just encourage all of us to think about our small businesses downtown. Lots of places to buy small gifts, large gifts and encourage you to shop downtown and support our businesses. And the Natick Center Station Construction Advisory. Mr. Erickson, will you be speaking to that? <v Speaker 6>I'll speak briefly to it 'cause we're still,</v> I believe we're still waiting on some final details on that. Construction advisory. I'm looking at my cons director. Basically the Natick center station work, which is rebuilding the Natick Center commuter rail station. They have to do some night work in the coming weekends and there'll be some road closures. The final details of the road closures is what we're still working through with the MBTA. So when those are finalized, I rec encourage anybody who might be impacted just to either follow those road closures or check 'em out on the town's website. There'll be an unused flash section, but they're not quite there yet. But I just wanna make sure this is our meeting before the, the, the closures are happening. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Mr. Erickson.</v> At this point in the agenda, we will move into public speak. Any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda and it will be taken under advisement by the board. There'll be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. This section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes total and any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. And the reason the matter needs to not be on the agenda is because we have to in order. I mean it Yes, in order to for us to engage and discuss it. Agenda items need to be posted so that people know or have reasonable knowledge of what we will be speaking of in a meeting. So is there anyone here for public speak? Is there anyone in Zoom? One moment, sir. Is there anyone in Zoom land who would like to speak? Please raise your hand, your metaphorical hand sir, if you'd like to speak. We're all set. Okay. <v Speaker 5>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 1>Seeing none,</v> we'll move into discussion and decision. First item of business is a proclama is a resolution for Fire Chief. Fire Deputy Chief Dan Dow. Deputy chief, are you here? I am. Ah, <v Speaker 5>Yes sir.</v> I Coffee. <v Speaker 1>Yeah, I think you should maybe come to the podium please.</v> <v Speaker 5>Problem.</v> <v Speaker 1>Whereas Daniel j Dow received, received his bachelor</v> of science in fire science cum laude from Providence College in 2002 and his master of Arts in Public Administration from Framingham State College in 2008. And whereas Deputy Chief Dow graduated from the Executive fire officer program at the National Fire Academy in 2013 and graduated from the Massachusetts Chief Fire Officer Program from the Massachusetts Fire Academy in 2014. And whereas Deputy Chief Dow over his 37 years of fire services career continually sought specialized training from the National Fire Academy and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, among others to enhance his services to the communities in which he served. And whereas his training in fire investigation, medical preparedness and response to bombing incident incidents and command and control of fire department operations at multi-arm incidents made him an invaluable member of the Natick Fire Department and respected men mentor to the more junior members of the department. And whereas Deputy Dow served the communities of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as an instructor with the Massachusetts Firefighter Academy, and whereas Deputy Dow served honorably served his country in the United States Air Force as a fire protection specialist and a CRA crash crew leader, and again, in the United States Navy as a rescue firefighter and an emergency medical technician. And whereas for over 29 years, Daniel j Dow has faithfully and honorably served the town of Natick as a firefighter, EMTA fire lieutenant, a fire captain and administrative deputy chief, and as deputy chief. And whereas during the devastating Wallcot Block Fire of July 22nd, 2019, as the shift commander for Shift one, deputy Chief Dow was integral to keeping the community safe and reassuring the residents and business owners and now therefore be it resolved that the Natick Select Board hereby offers its deep and abiding gratitude to Deputy Chief Daniel j Dowd for his years of faithful service to this, to his country, and to the town of Natick, and calls upon all Natick residents to recognize his contributions to our town and its quality of life. At this point I'll entertain a motion from the board. Second, moved by Mr. Sidney, seconded by Ms. Pope. All in favor of approving this resolution, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes 5 0 0. <v Speaker 7>Thank you so much.</v> <v Speaker 1>Few Chief, would you like to say a few words?</v> <v Speaker 8>Thank you for the, for the opportunity to the board</v> to have me come back one last time please. Na oh, <v Speaker 9>Oh.</v> There you go. So thank you to the board and to the town of Natick in a whole, for allowing me to serve you for 29 years of my total 37 year career in the fire service. It was indeed an honor, something that I'm very proud of. I enjoyed it much, very much. But I have to say that I am enjoying my retirement. I, I have a perpetual smile on my face. My girlfriend Charlotte is here with me. We, we built a house in Maine and we own 30 acres and we have 300 Christmas trees in the ground and it's a total change in life, but it's, it's something that we're en enjoying. I do miss some of the aspects of the job, especially the men and women of the Natick Fire Department and the citizens of, of Natick. But my time had come, I feel I served faithfully and I'm just gonna go and enjoy life. So thank you so much. <v Speaker 1>Well deserved</v> Chief Ske. Chief Ske. <v Speaker 9>Again thank you to the board</v> for recognizing Deputy Dow in his years of service to the department. I, when Deputy Dow first came to me to tell me he was retiring, it was a mix of emotions. The first part of me, I wasn't ready for him to leave. We've had a pretty good two, close to two and a half years together. A lot of good conversation, a lot of history, a lot of planning and a lot of discussion on direction of moving the department forward. And then on the flip side, I was actually happy for him because he's young, relatively young, mid fifties. Didn't seem that seemed fairly old until I started to get closer to it. It's getting be that it's still very young so he is retiring young and healthy and it's exciting to see him be able to start his next chapter of his life. So publicly. I'd like to say personally thank you Deputy. Thank you chief all appreciate <v Speaker 8>It.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you Chief</v> and president of the Firefighters Union, Johnny Georges <v Speaker 10>Thank you to the board for honoring Deputy Dow tonight.</v> It was really nice to see him. I've been on his shift for better part of seven or eight years and I have to say that his number one priority for the men and women of the department was to come in and be safe, do your job, provide good customer service. And he would always make sure that he instilled in us that he had our back. And he had mentioned that his time had come. And I think it's really underscored by the public. I see my brothers and sisters here to come and provide some camaraderie. This job takes a toll on you. It takes a toll on you physically and emotionally. And you mentioned that large scale event and many other things that decorated his career. But it comes with its ups and downs, emotionally, physically, time away from your family. You never know what you're coming into each day. And it was very humbling to have worked underneath him and to know that he had all of our backs to provide safety and make sure that we knew that he was always there for us. So he has missed. And I want to con wish him congratulations on his retirement and thank you all. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Mr. Georges.</v> <v Speaker 7>Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 1>I must say that's one of the better parts</v> of this job. That <v Speaker 5>Is definitely</v> <v Speaker 1>Item B.</v> We have a hearing am vets post 79 alleged alcohol license violation. And your packets is a <v Speaker 5>Conversely,</v> <v Speaker 1>Excuse me,</v> could you take the conversations into the hall? Thank you. In your packets is a letter from the Deputy Chief Anne with regard to the allegations. In sum, there are two, there are two allegations. One is the Mr. French who was, whose name had been submitted to be the manager of record. Can everybody hear me okay? <v Speaker 5>Yes.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay, A little bit louder. Okay, sure.</v> There were two alleged violations. One is that the manager of record that had been submitted, Mr. French had been seen on video camera on two different days, drinking while on duty. Now that's technically not a violation of our current policy. It is going to be a violation of the proposed policy that we will be de discussing on the 18th and also not paying for drinks. So right now I'd like to turn it over to Deputy Chief Lason for his report. <v Speaker 5>So thank you Madam Chair. Make sure the mic's on please.</v> Mic. <v Speaker 11>Okay, thank you. Is that loud enough? Yes.</v> Thank you Madam Chair and board members. Brian Luon, deputy Police, chief Town of Natick Police Department. So as you know, we've been working with the leadership of the Amvets for quite some time now on a few issues including their entertainment license, liquor license, manager of record. So on November 19th, I met with Mr. Anderson who is here with me today. He's the Amvets post commander. I spoke to him as recently as today and in person yesterday. During this meeting on the 19th, I expressed my concerns regarding the suit suitability of Mr. French, whom the post had proposed as the new manager of record. These LAR concerns largely pertain to Mr. French's consumption of liquor while at the post acting as the on-duty manager on two days, which were October 12th and October 20th. No attempt to make payment for this alcohol was observed throughout the video provided, including beginning, middle, and end. Also observed as a female server on September, on Sunday October 20th, pouring herself an alcoholic beverage consuming it and again not offering payment towards the beginning, middle, and end of the video tape, which is, which isn't until closing. I concluded that Mr. French and the server were consuming alcohol free of charge. After laying all this information out to Ms. Anderson that I had received and reviewed to date, it was my understanding that the post through Mr. Anderson would withdraw the nomination of Mr. French for the board's consideration. I had asked for this in writing a few times from Mr. Anderson but had not received it the same day. I spoke to Ms. Donovan in the select board's office who works with me very diligently, modified away on the liquor licenses and asked if she had received it, which she had told me no. And following up with Mr. Anderson as recently as this day, which was December 10th of this writing, He's, I'm sorry I res that day. I responded with res, followed up with Mr. Anderson on the 10th. He seems to want to propose a new person for the post manager record and I've asked him to submit that by the way of proper submission to Ms. Donovan. But as of now, I'm told that has not been done. Again, that was on December 10th. Do not believe that any of these shortcomings are intentional. It seems as though the process is too overwhelming for them at the post and that they need, as I have mentioned before, to have a professional with experience in these matters to guide them regarding the entertainment license. Today I received two very rough hand drawings. Again, this was on the 10th depicting the first and second floor spaces of the Amvets building, including an upstairs hall on the first floor canteen after consulting with the building commission. In the process of guiding Mr. Anderson on its edits and will need to make an order to prop that he will need to make in order to properly complete the application. I see this is something that may be, we may be able to get done very soon. I continue to keep the lines open to communication with Mr. Anderson regarding AMVs licenses and we'll send him any follow up email later today. Again, that was on the 10th. I asked if they could, we could meet on site on Thursday or Friday. And on that day I received an email from Mr. Anderson that said he would first have to garner permission from the E-board to meet with me and that in essence, he did not want to have an unproductive meeting. Spoke to Mr. Anderson about that today as he called me because he just read this email today and he thought tomorrow or Friday, but this was actually sent on the 10th. I have reviewed the packet that has recently been submitted for the manager of record and I made a suitable recommendation to the board as a local licensing authority to approve that piece. I also approved, after many edits and many back and forth, the entertainment license to be approved. I'm recommended approval to you for that entertainment license regarding the first and the second floor. If anybody has any questions, I'd be happy to answer. <v Speaker 1>I'd like to first take up the, the license applications</v> for the amusement devices and live entertainment. So do, does anyone on the board have questions about those license applications for the deputy chief? <v Speaker 12>Not for the entertainment.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay,</v> I'll entertain a motion to approve <v Speaker 12>Some move</v> <v Speaker 1>Moved by Mr. Evans.</v> <v Speaker 12>Which one? Or both? Entertainment. Entertainment.</v> <v Speaker 1>Both the automatic amusement device license application</v> and the live entertainment license application. So I have a motion from Mr. Evans. Is there a second? Second from Ms. Slager? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. 5 0 0. I had like to, before we go on to the alcohol violation, I know I'm skipping down to C but I'd like to go ahead and discuss the end debate. The change of manager and change of officers, direct director's application. That means that if, if we approve that tonight, it can be sent to the A, B, CC tomorrow so they can begin to change the, the manager of record. Mr. Evans <v Speaker 12>Just a comment, which is, it seems like</v> through Deputy Chief Lizanne that they've gotten on the right track here and submitted the right paperwork and we really, it would be good of us as a board to ensure that this has a chance of getting approved for the beginning of the year or as soon as possible in, in the close of this year. So I think it's, it's on track this time. The, the other stuff I think we have to deal with separately, but I think as far as the application, I'm good with that. <v Speaker 1>Thank you. Mr. Evans. Mr. Sidney,</v> <v Speaker 4>Deputy Chief, do you foresee any issues with this</v> with with the new proposed manager <v Speaker 11>Currently?</v> I've, I've, my records record check and background have showed that he's a suitable person. We had, we did approve him in the past for this position and I noticed that there was no changes. I would like to, and I think I mentioned it in my remarks on OpenGov, that I would like to meet with him and do the civil fingerprinting process before the paperwork is sent to the A, B, CC. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Deputy Chief. You're</v> <v Speaker 4>Good.</v> Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Any other comment question Mr. Evans?</v> <v Speaker 12>With that, can we make a contingent motion</v> that says pending completion of civil fingerprint? <v Speaker 1>Yes, you may please.</v> <v Speaker 4>I'll second that.</v> <v Speaker 1>That's not a motion yet. We're still in discussion. We're</v> <v Speaker 12>Still discussed.</v> <v Speaker 1>We're still discussion. Yes,</v> <v Speaker 12>But it's coming soon.</v> Do the here pending <v Speaker 13>The change of manager happens.</v> How soon would that take effect? <v Speaker 1>Well, once, once we approve the application</v> and detect Deputy Chief Lason meets with Mr. Torres and does his fingerprinting, it's sent to the A BCC. They can take anywhere from two weeks to six months. Okay. But for purposes of the town and the A BCC, once we've approved and submitted the paperwork, he's considered the manager of record and would be held responsible for any violations that occur on the property. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Are there any questions or comments from the public? Please step to the mic if you could identify, give us your name and address please. <v Speaker 14>Carolyn Lokai, United States Air Force Veteran Chaplain</v> with the Post and Vet 79. I've known Louis Torres now for 12 years. We worked on the nine 11 memorial that is over there at the Post. All of the men and women that you're seeing that have the veterans hats and or some the Vietnam veteran Memorial shirts on are here in support of the Amvets Post. I, I know that you've heard about the, the fact that there were people that, you know, had the alcohol violations. However, that's not the majority of the people that are there. Most of us are people that spend our time outside of our work, outside of our families volunteering and providing things for turkeys for veterans, which Bill Vernon was in charge of. There's so much good that comes out of the, the Amvets Post and to constantly be tripped up by all of these things because of a couple of, you know, bad seeds. I really hope that you'll see and and learn about the post. Come down and see what we do. It's a beautiful spot. There's so much good that could come from Mabus and, and we hope that you'll allow us to continue to do that. And thank you for your time. <v Speaker 1>Thank you for your service. Thank you Ms. Lic.</v> Is there any other member of the public who wishes to address the board Commander please? <v Speaker 15>I would just like to highlight that the person</v> that was in question, Eric French, I talked with him the day that I met with Deputy Chief Lason and I told him that he would need to look for another job. We did have one big event that we wanted to make sure that we did right. And that was turkeys for vets, you know, which was not on Thanksgiving but it was the Saturday before and he helped us get to there and then he's no longer with us. And so when we submitted the name, we have a fellow veteran, Lou Torres, he's right here. And he has been phenomenal in picking up where two people we're working. He's doing the job of two people and that is something that we need for our finances and to make sure that we're solvent in the future. So I look forward to you getting this application in. We've already paid all our fees and we wanna go to the next step. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Commander. Are there any que please?</v> Let's keep the, we wanna move the meeting as quickly as we can. We have a lot of people here who are patiently waiting for other agenda items. So I do have a question for you, commander, the employee who is seen pouring a large drink and not paying for it. Is that person still working for the post? <v Speaker 15>No,</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you.</v> I would like to inform the board that there's an outside management company that will be donating to the board or to the e-board sample template for cash counting, cash handling, sexual harassment policies, and just general policies to kind of get them going and putting together a manual. So that would probably not happen till after Christmas, but I wanted to let the board know that that's something that I was able to arrange. And then the second thing I'd like to tell the board is that I too am familiar with Mr. Torres. He's always down there helping vets. He's got an infectious sense of humor and is really good about making sure that the vets who are down there do not feel alone or lonely or isolated. And I'm very personally very happy with this choice Commander. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, if there are no more questions or comments from the board, I'd like to ask for a vote on, oh, Mr. Evans, did we do the motion or, that's what I'm looking for. So Mr. Evans, would you move? <v Speaker 12>I moved to, oops, wrong document.</v> I moved to approve the S 12 all alcohol license change of manager and change of officer director's application for Amvets post 79 with the proviso that civil finger printing be completed. <v Speaker 1>Okay. Second from Mr. Sidney.</v> So Mr. Evans, motion for Mr. Evans. Second from Mr. Sidney. All in favor please say aye. Aye. A aye. All opposed. Congratulations. We've got that outta the way. Don't go anywhere. 'cause now we have to deal with the violation. The board has been presented with the allegation liquor license allegation. So what we have before us is an automatic five day suspension from the previous violation that was held in abeyance until December 31st, 1220, I mean 2025. So that will be a, a mandatory five day suspension. With regard to the current violation that's before us, as I mentioned the last time we went through this, there are a range of penalties that we can impose and they are modifying the license. That would be to say that they have to be closed early or later, or to modify the license, tope suspend the license to revoke the license or to cancel the license. The distinction between cancellation, the legal distinction between cancellation and revocation is that cancellation occurs when the license is not in use. So it would return to the town revocation means that we revoke the license and they cannot apply for one year. So the, the, during that year, if that license were to be given to someone else, then it's gone. So those are our options. Suspension, modification, cancellation or revocation. Then I'll open up to the board or additional suspensions. <v Speaker 12>Right.</v> <v Speaker 1>Well that's a modification. Yep. Yeah.</v> So I'll open it up to the board first to discuss this second penalty and then we'll talk about the scheduling of the first, the first five days. Mr. Evans, <v Speaker 12>This is kind of a difficult thing</v> because this is an ongoing problem, but from everything I've heard in the last week and plus the, the, they're trying to get this done and I feel that they've, they've turned a corner on this. It felt like we were stuck in the mud for months and that's why we held the suspension in in abeyance. I don't feel it warrants a new suspension because the manager of record is gone and the server who also was drinking on the job is also gone. So I think for, from that perspective, I'm ready to move forward on that. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Mr. Evans. Mr. Sidney.</v> <v Speaker 4>Yeah, I and I, I continue to be very frustrated with</v> what Amvets has been going through and, and taking us through. I am, I know we're gonna give you guys a five day suspension and we'll figure those dates out. I'm very concerned about getting, about your, getting back on your feet. I'm concerned that a lot of this is distracting you from actually hitting your core business or your core purpose, which is supporting vets, which I think is really important. I'd like to make sure that you're gonna be able to continue that mission. One of the things I will say is, you know, if you have, you know, if we give you the suspension, if you have a one day event, you can hire a caterer to handle things on that date. That's possible. You can't use your own, you won't be able to use your own license, but you could hire somebody to I don't help you. <v Speaker 1>I don't, I don't think that's the case. I think generally</v> speaking, that would be, but on a suspension, there's to be sale of sale of no alcohol. Ah, okay. So that would not <v Speaker 4>Be Okay, well, I'm mistaken then.</v> Sorry. But you know, can I speak for a second? Let me finish please. Yeah, <v Speaker 1>Let the board finish, please.</v> <v Speaker 4>It does seem like you're cleaning up</v> your problems and it sounds like you've got somebody to, to take care of the, the, the back room as well as the front of the house. So I'm willing to, you know, given you've the actions you've already taken, I'm willing to give you a fairly light punishment on this violation, if any at all. And we'll see what the board wants to do. But I really don't want to see you guys continue to come back here. I I just don't, I'm, I'm beyond frustrated. <v Speaker 1>Ms. Slager.</v> <v Speaker 16>Thank you Madam Chair.</v> This is really hard. Time and time again, we've heard from the commander, from other people at, at AMVETS that things are gonna be resolved, that things were moving forward, that things were fixed. I really was disappointed to see you again. On the other hand, I really appreciate the show of support from all of the people that are here to support AMVETS and the work that you do. We're not trying to be difficult, we just want you to follow the rules. And no one else seems to have trouble following the rules in this town. It's only amvets our chair has put in, I don't even know how many hours and she should be commended. She's doing all she can to fix things for you. I'm cautiously optimistic that, as my colleague said, that you may have turned the corner. It sounds like Mr. Torres is a, is a great candidate for, for being the manager. And, and I think that the new policies that are gonna be put in place, there are at least the recommended ones, will, will help go a long way to make your organization viable. And so I'm willing this one time to be lenient and to say, we don't need any more punishment for this. You're gonna get the five day suspension. I'm willing to let this one go as long as we don't see you again. <v Speaker 1>Ms. Pope, do you have any comments?</v> <v Speaker 13>I agree with my colleague that this is hard</v> because I think that, you know, there is a standard that has to be adhered to. And I think going on the record to say that the standard has yet again been breached, but because it, it would be horrible with all the work that has been put into AM vs. To come to such an impasse. And I think that's the, the desire to, to see you all viable and successful. But I agree that if there has to be additional time spent on this, again, we should move in a different direction. And it's, it's, it's encouraging to see Mr. Luis, forgive me Mr. Tores course. Mr. Tores and the changes that you all are making and the support that you had. I love the, the remarks that you made for people to focus on the, the good that this organization does in our community and how we don't want to see that no longer viable or effective, but we can't dismiss the violations for what is being done in the community. So <v Speaker 17>You had a totally different board,</v> you had totally different people. <v Speaker 1>Please don't speak from the floor. Can't do that.</v> Please don't speak from the floor. It's, it's unusual for the chair to make a motion. I, but I would like to move that the five day suspension begin on January one and continue. Yes, commander. Okay. <v Speaker 15>I have a solution that may be helpful to the board.</v> I understand the need for disciplinary action and I'd like to propose a voluntary suspension of five days so that we don't impact, you know, our charitable events such as we have a meal that's gonna be served to vets that come on on Sunday and we are starting to do whatever we can to support the New Year's Eve capitulate rail trail, which is, you know, a big thing. So as far as five days, whether it be from the 21st to the 25th or the 25th to 29th, those would be probably the best days that we could voluntary stop operations with alcohol on the post. Make sure everybody understands, you know, rules, regulations, and not have another violation. <v Speaker 1>So to be clear, it's not a voluntary suspension,</v> it's an imposed suspension. And my suggestion was not my suggestion, my motion was to impose from January one till January five. What that does is it allows you to increase your revenue during the holidays when people are going to want to meet down at the post January. Everybody gets their credit cards and they stop drinking for a very short period of time. Are they structured? So this is a very generous window as somebody who was in the industry. And I know those first five days are quiet, but it does include a weekend. So this would be Wednesday, January 1st through Sunday, January 5th. This will not impact your work with the, with f font, with the friends of the trails or the New Year's Eve event. It won't impact the dinner for the veterans. It won't impact the, the solar plan or <v Speaker 15>Call.</v> We still can do the planning for the polar plunge. You can <v Speaker 1>Be open,</v> <v Speaker 15>Just not serve alcohol. Correct?</v> <v Speaker 1>Don't, exactly. You can, you can be open,</v> you just cannot sell alcohol and you can't serve it and it doesn't become A-B-Y-O-B either. So be aware that I, I suspect that there will be compliance checks during this time. So my motion was to have the least impact, but also include a weekend. And that's my motion. I'll second. So moved by Ms. Coughlin, second by Mr. Evans. <v Speaker 4>If I may speak to</v> <v Speaker 1>That, you may speak to it.</v> <v Speaker 4>I think that's a, a fair suspension</v> that doesn't address the new violation, which I do want to talk about a little bit. I'm coming around to having no particular suspension for the new violation, but I would like the fact that there was a violation put into the record with the A BCC and, and in our records so that we have follow, can follow up and, and you know, if there's another violation in the next year, we, we have a record of what's happened. <v Speaker 1>Absolutely. So this will be the third violation in three</v> years and whether we choose to impose, so we have a pending motion for the first five day violation. Whether the board chooses to impose additional days for that second violation doesn't negate the violation. The violation is still reported to the A, B, CC. Mr. French's name will be on that and it will be in our records. The police department will have it. They keep a record, they report to the board for previous violations. If all of us were thrown out over the next two years, the new board would be able to consult with the deputy chief and know exactly what has happened over the last three years. So the fact I, if the board chose not to impose a penalty for that violation, it doesn't negate the violation. The violation still is recorded and that take it takes place. Is there any, <v Speaker 4>I just wanted to make sure that was the case.</v> <v Speaker 1>Absolutely, no. Is there any more discussion on the first</v> five day and then we'll take up the second violation? No. All in favor. We have a Yeah, we have a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Five day suspension from January one to January five. He may be open, the kitchen may be open. You guys can play in the water, do whatever you wanna do, but you cannot serve or sell alcohol second violation or <v Speaker 4>BYOB or,</v> <v Speaker 1>Or BYOB.</v> Second violation. Discussion from the board. Mr. Evans, <v Speaker 12>I'll briefly reiterate what I said earlier.</v> I think having received this five day suspension and having a new management team as well as a new executive board, I'm optimistic that they're, they're gonna see the light. I'll, I'll leave it at that and not be back to see us and we'll, we'll we'll come visit you. How's that? So don't call us. We'll call you <v Speaker 1>Ms. Slager and</v> <v Speaker 16>As I said earlier, I'm fine with not</v> assessing any additional penalties at this point. <v Speaker 1>Ms. Pope, any comments? No, none from me.</v> <v Speaker 4>I'm fine.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. So I, I need a motion for zero penalty.</v> <v Speaker 4>So moved. I'll second.</v> <v Speaker 1>Moved by Mr. Sidney. Seconded by Mr. Evans.</v> All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Carries 5 0 0. Thank you. Deputy Chief. Thank you Mr. Torres. Thank you Commander. Thank you veterans. Thank you for serving. Thank you for coming out. We're gonna take a five minute recess or better calling the meeting back to order. Excuse me. We're calling the meeting back to order. The next item on the agenda is the discussion of the draft policy on immigration documentation. There will be no comments from the room, please, unless you're called on to speak. I'll speak much more loudly and if you can't hear, please raise, don't, don't raise your hand, just wave your hand at me and I will try to speak more slowly and more loudly, but there will be no side conversations. <v Speaker 18>Conversations, okay.</v> <v Speaker 1>Do we have a slide? Yeah.</v> So I'm gonna walk the board and the room through how we're gonna proceed tonight, except that I can't see it then. That's okay. Show, show <v Speaker 18>It.</v> How's that? No, <v Speaker 1>Make sure they can see</v> <v Speaker 18>It.</v> I've got the, I'll zoom in. They'll be attached. Thanks. <v Speaker 1>So we're gonna start off by reading the draft policy</v> and the fact sheet so that everybody knows exactly what it is we're discussing tonight. That'll take about five minutes. And then we're going to discuss the survey summary. Spend probably 10, 20 minutes on that 20 minutes. Then we're going to go through the prioritized questions. And what that means is, I'm just gonna take a a brief aside here. Many people wrote questions to the board on a Google form. There were a total of 20 questions submitted. Of those 20 questions, most of them fit thematically into 15 questions. When we come to that part of the meeting, people in the room and at home will be able to up or down vote which questions they want us to focus on. So that means that we didn't choose the questions. These are questions from the community. The raw data is available, the actual questions presented, they were thematically organized and you can tell us where you want us to start in terms of priority with these questions. Then I will take public comment. The public comment will be limited in the beginning. To those who have not written a letter or not spoken at the previous meeting, I'd like to see if there are any other comments and give those persons an opportunity to speak. And then we will take additional comment. Draft policy. This policy or proposed policy is still subject to edit by the board. It's subject, the name is in play. So this is not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination. It's up for discussion and debate in order to ensure that the town of Natick complies with federal and state laws regarding immigration. The select board of the town of Natick, pursuant to its authority as the executive body of the town hereby adopts the following policy under us. Code eight US, code section 1373 and section 1644. That's the federal guidelines and Commonwealth versus L, which is a supreme judicial an SJC ruling 4 7 7 mass five 17 that was ruled in 2017. State and federal law prohibits town officials from imposing limits on maintaining, exchanging, extending, or receiving information regarding citizenship and immigration status with any federal, state, or local government entity. No town policy, procedure or regulation shall violate the federal laws or the laws of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. No employee of the town shall inquire about or collect any information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual. Unless the federal laws or the laws of the commonwealth of Massachusetts require municipal employees to do so. No employee of the town shall detain a person based solely on the belief that the person is not present legally in the United States or that the person has committed an immigration violation. No employee of the town shall perform the functions of an immigration officer, nor shall the town use town funds, resources, facilities, property, equipment or personnel to directly assist in the enforcement of federal civil immigration laws. Nothing in this policy shall prevent an officer, an employee, or a department of the town from lawfully discharging duties and compliance with and response to a lawfully issued judicial warrant. Judicial, judicial subpoena or judicial detainer. Mr. Evans? <v Speaker 12>Thank you Madam Chair. I'm going to read</v> from the immigration documentation policy fact sheet and it basically goes through what this draft policy does do and what it does not do. Equally important, this draft policy applies to all town employees, including the police department. It aligns to the Natick police department's current practices and draft policy. It formalizes current practice across town departments, which is that no town department has the legal authority to enforce immigration laws nor ask for immigration papers status unless required by state or federal law. For example, the town's human resources team always confirms the status of an individual's authorization to work in the us which is required by federal law. This policy assures the immigrant community, whether documented or undocumented, that they may participate in law enforcement investigations, whether as victims or as witnesses without fear of retribution. It allows the town to prioritize and allocate its resources appropriately. It shields town law enforcement personnel from liabilities resulting from local enforcement of federal immigration laws. It shields the town from liability. Should a town employee violate the policy. It reinforces the fact that town employees are obligated to follow state and federal law, including case law regarding the subject of immigration. This policy does not offer to provide shelter, housing, legal assistance, or other services to immigrants, whether documented or undocumented apply to school. Employees which are subject to the jurisdiction of the school committee and Massachusetts general law interfere with the rights of free speech of employees or individuals apply to volunteers on committees and boards or elected officials interfere with the Natick Police Department responding to judicial warrants for the arrest and detention of any person suspected of committing a crime. It does not conflict with NA Police Department policy. It does not immigr ignore immigration and customs enforcement or ice warrants or other judicial warrants for the arrests of individuals for criminal behavior. It does not risk any federal funding that the town receives. It does not require that any town funds be spent or allocated for any particular PA purpose. It does not create a sanctuary town. The Commonwealth in Massachusetts has been called the sanctuary state, though no law has been signed by the governor expressly stating what that means. And there's no legal term defining sanc sanctuary state or sanctuary city. The use of this phrase may refer to the SG c's decision in Lund versus the Commonwealth, which found that Massachusetts law provides no authority for Massachusetts court officers to arrest and hold an individual solely on the basis of a federal civil immigration detainer. This decision extends to local law enforcement and Natick must refrain from arresting or holding a person based on a federal civil immigration detainer. Thank you Madam Chair. <v Speaker 18>Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 1>I don't have that. Can I see the</v> <v Speaker 18>Form? What's that?</v> <v Speaker 1>The order of business. I don't have that.</v> <v Speaker 18>Flash vote summary results</v> <v Speaker 1>Flash vote and you'll speak to that?</v> Yes. Thank you. <v Speaker 6>Thank you Madam Jar. Next I'm gonna run through some</v> of the results of the flash vote. I'm gonna share my screen real quick 'cause there is a memo that was prepared just outlining some of the results with appropriate links and other detailed information. This memo is available for the public on Novus. So all these links that are noted here in blue that folks can see are available in all the background data is also available through those links. For full transparency flash vote, there's a lot of questions about flash vote as a tool. Flash vote is a new tool that the town is actually working to utilize and it utilizes surveys. It's actually a company that solely focuses on doing surveys within municipal governments. They work with hundreds of municipal governments around the country and we were finding it as an, as a unique opportunity or a unique tool to try to sort of add rigor to some of the work that we do as a community. This is honestly the, the, I think the second or third time we've actually used this. The first time was in October of 24. And our plan is to continue to move forward using flash float to see how it works over the next year to see how we can use it in our rigor of engaging with the community and engaging with the citizens of Natick and beyond on things that can help prioritize where we spend the most of our resources and time as a, as a community. Again, it's a, it's a, it's a new tool. This Flash Foot had a series of five questions and I just wanna highlight really just the big key takeaways, the primary findings of those five questions. And again, all the data and all the information is available on the backend through the links that are available through this memo. Two primary findings that we found a part of the flash flow survey were that respondents place high importance on this potential policy. There's actually two times more versus low importance through the flash flow survey. And the results also show that there is not support in using town staff or funds to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. It was actually three times higher yes, to not use town staff or funds to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. We found those to be the two biggest takeaways. Just briefly going through the other survey. So question one, sorry, not question one. Just headline one with regards to the data, there's different ways to break down the data. We were breaking it down by all respondents, there are about 770 respondents local only, which are those respondents with a Natick address and member panels. So for reference member panel in advance of this question being part of our flash vote survey, there were already 428 people who had signed up to the flash vote platform. And in order to sign up, you actually have to inform them of your address and, and where you live. So they that we can distill that down to Natick only or resident only. So there are ways that we can distill the information from an all respondent to a locals only or Natick address only to a member panel only factor. In all cases, the margin of error was greater than 95, meaning it was a plus or minus of 3.5 to 4.7 depending on, on which of those, which makes it statists in our opinion, statistically significant. The initial question was charting your familiarity with the policy across all of the three different groups. We found that there was about a third, third, a third split depending on, on which group you're in. And the third and third and third split were really just asking the question prior to reading this question, which best describes what you knew about the policy, what some about a third noted in all the, the responses, they hadn't really heard about the policy. About a third responded that they had heard about the policy but hadn't read enough and a third had said that they had read enough and knew about it. Next was the policy goals, the highest rank goals, and there's more data on the link through this detailed chart here. I'm not gonna go through all of those because there's a, a number of them. But the highest two ranked ones with regards to the the goals of what might be considered in a policy were public safety, ensuring the public safety of natick residents, businesses and town staff and immigrant's ability to seek, to seek law enforcement or ensuring that immigrants can assist law enforcement investigations and victims or witnesses. Those rose to the top as the highest wrinkles from the survey. And that was consistent, I believe amongst all three of the groups that we parceled the information out into use of town funds. This was also fairly consistent in general, the consensus was no, do not use town funds or staff to assist federal immigration laws. However, there were some breakdowns of the data. Here's a chart showing the breakdown between the all the local and the panel for purposes of brevity, I'm going to just let people, if they need to dive into that information more, go into the flash vote tool and, and really review the data themselves. And then importance of the policy. This is basically the headline is the importance was rated high as noted in the beginning. Those are the, the, the two last ones that I mentioned were the two big takeaways that we found from the survey results. And again, here's the breakdown by the questions and the three bars are by the different panel groups and it's a fairly consistent answer between local only residents or those with a Natick address versus all who responded. I wanted to provide an opportunity if the board had any comments, questions, or thoughts on the flash vote to let the board provide those at this time or, and, and have the chair take from here. <v Speaker 19>Ms. Walger,</v> <v Speaker 16>Thank you Madam Chair.</v> We received some comments back from the public about why we are including people that don't live in Natick in the survey, so perhaps you can elaborate a little bit on what that all responses truly means. <v Speaker 6>Sure. So the all responses, so flash votes</v> as I noted is a tool, it's a, it's a, a survey tool. Our intent with the survey tool, regardless of really the question is to try to capture as much sentiment as we can. We do ensure through the ability to parcel out local only sentiment. That's why we ask for people to self-supply their addresses to, to allow us to parcel out that information. But we do wanna make sure we can capture sentiment and, and in not all cases are some of the flash flow surveys going to be solely for residents. We also have business and property owners and others that might not be residents that we still want to hear from and can be part of the tool. So the intent to hear is to have the, and not the or to try to have a broader capture for sentiment with the flashlight tool. <v Speaker 1>I'd like to fur f further comment on</v> that particular question. So the survey is not the only item that the select board looks at when it's considering, in this case, considering this policy. So we consider a wide range of factors, legal counsel impacted populations resident and business owner sentiment and also potential financial impact. So this survey wasn't a way for us just to say, oh x, many people thought this and so that's what we're going to do. I just wanted to add that on. Ms. Wilger. <v Speaker 16>Yeah, I just wanna elaborate that</v> our communications director also let me know that there's a portion of those all responses who just did not self-identify so you don't have to sign up. So it could be that very many of them are Natick residents, but we just don't know because they chose not to sign up. That's correct. So I think that's important for people to <v Speaker 1>Know, know.</v> Thank you Ms. Wolf. Schlager, any other comments or questions about flash vote from the board? <v Speaker 13>I wanted to speak to the timing</v> and the length and the duration. We did get feedback and, and comments about, I think it was open from the fifth or the seventh, correct. And if you could just expound a bit on why that timing was chosen, why it was the window that it was in, I'd appreciate that. <v Speaker 6>Sure. So flash vote as a, as a tool</v> and they have a lot of experience. Again, as I noted throughout the, the country really working with hundreds of communities, their recommendations and, and their model is really around these votes that are only open for a defined period of time. You know, two days for example in this case. And so the intent is to try to capture the sentiment in that time. I know for, for somebody who lives by deadlines, if I have a shorter deadline, I'm more likely to do something like a survey or what have you. So the intent is to really capture the sentiment, get the information and, and help inform the information on that front. I'm looking to my communications director to see if I miss anything there, but largely that was sort of the, the, the recommendations through the flash vote tool and that's how their recommendations are for, for their survey tool to be utilized. <v Speaker 13>Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 6>They also try to avoid as much</v> as possible weekends. So it was, I know it was a Thursday into Saturday, but we, we try to capture or provide, keep it away from just being over a weekend as well. <v Speaker 1>Are there any other questions or comments</v> from the board about flash vote? Okay, let's move on to the questions submitted to the board. <v Speaker 6>Would you like me to to Yes.</v> Frame the conversation a little bit? <v Speaker 1>I was wondering if you could put,</v> put them up and frame the conversation. <v Speaker 6>Do you have the, can we share the questions? Yeah.</v> Okay. We're working to share a screen on the questions to frame the conversation. As you noted Madam Chair, the intent of this next exercise is to help the board frame your time. You know, we, we we're already at 7 53, almost eight o'clock. We did have about 20 questions come through from the public in the more open Google form, which is actually open for longer. That closed on Monday night. And what we actually utilized was chat GPT to help us frame these 15 questions so that it was not us doing it, it was actually chat GPT telling us of these 20 questions. What are the top questions? And they, the chat gtp actually framed these 15 questions. What we'd like to do at this time, and I'm gonna share my, or actually John can you, I can share my screen and put up, we'll have a QR code and a link that people can use. We'll ask folks to either go to the natick ma.gov website, it'll be on the top banner where you can link to the questions or scan the QR code. And we'll leave this up to help us through this tool prioritize how, how best to answer these 15 questions that we received from all of you and the public at large. Folks at home should be able to see this through the Zoom screen as well. Any fo Okay. Perfect. Home page. Hey, the homepage, the natick ma.gov homepage and it'll be a link at the top banner of the homepage. So if you can't scan the QR code, you can certainly go to natick ma.gov and the top banner will have a link to the, to the questions. Gonna take just like a five minute recess just to let people, let's <v Speaker 1>Take a five minute recess so that you can look at the</v> questions and vote them up and down and we'll go, we'll go off camera for about about five minutes. Okay. So we have, I am gonna take question. What authority? The what authority question first. That's 38. People would like the board to respond to what authority allowed this decision to be made without a direct vote by Natick citizens. Can everyone hear, is this better? Yes. Okay. So the charter for Natick, which is our constitution, it lays out the powers and duties of the various boards, committees, et cetera, has vested the select board with as its chief policymaking board. So we do this all of the time. We write sexual harassment policies, we write alcohol policy. We wrote, we have four or five policies that are pending discussion. And we have policies two weeks ago, six of them that we rescinded that are no longer necessary for various reasons. So that's a prime, that's a function of what the select board does. Now, other towns have chosen to do it to adopt similar provisions, different ways. And I'll explain why I think the select board doing it is the best way to do it. First of all, it's our responsibility. The second reason is if, if residents wanted to put this question on a ballot, they would need to collect 15% signatures of registered voters of 15% of the registered voters in Natick and submit them to the clerk for a ballot initiative. That's about 4,500 people. So roughly. So when that happens and the ballot initiative goes to the people, if it's approved, for those of you who are anti this policy, that approval will go to the legislature to become a special act That becomes part of mass general law. So why is that a problem? Because you're releasing local authority to the legislature. Now, let's say it goes to the ballot and it's approved by voters. A majority of voters approve this policy. Then it goes to the legislature and it becomes part of mass general law. The last time this town tried to rescind a special act, it took 19 months. So if you take a policy like this and you're against the policy and it goes on the ballot and it gets approved, then it's sent to the state. You might be stuck with it for two years if there are adverse policy consequences up to two years. So that's, that's a reason other towns eight, Brookline and Amherst had the town meeting, which is a representative form of government. That's your legislative branch, write a bylaw, and they adopted similar provisions as a bylaw. The challenge with that is if you want to rescind that policy, you have to wait for another town meeting. And if it fails at that town meeting and there are bad policy consequences, you're waiting for another town meeting, or perhaps the board, the select board calls a town meeting. For those of you who are very concerned about the potential adverse effects of this policy, were it to be adopted. If those concerns came to pass, this board could rescind that policy in, in 48 hours. All we need to do is call a, a meeting, 48 hours public notice, and then we can rescind the policy. So the res, it is the responsibility of the select board to write policy. That's the first thing. The second thing is doing it either of those two other ways puts the town in a disadvantage spot in terms of being able to potentially undo it time, you know, and other things. And then the, the, the last, the last thing I would say is that there, there was a criticism about why don't we just add this to the employee manual. That's not the way it works in a municipality. We are not a corporation for better, for worse. We don't issue Jamie Erickson, our town administrator or town administrator. Manager is not empowered to write policy. He cannot decide that for you. So the sexual harassment policy comes before us. Smoking in public places comes before us, and then that becomes part of what the employees look to for their policies. Now, is that a really crappy form of government? I don't know. Maybe we re maybe we have a charter commission and look at a different form of government. But this is what we have now. Are there any other comments from the board that would like to answer that question? Okay, <v Speaker 12>Nailed it.</v> <v Speaker 1>The next highest, have these been shuffled yet?</v> <v Speaker 18>It was highlighted. So bottom,</v> <v Speaker 1>The bottom one.</v> Okay. Why risk imposing fi potential financial burdens on the town in the advance of tax override? <v Speaker 12>Do you wanna handle that?</v> <v Speaker 1>I'm sorry.</v> <v Speaker 12>Do you want to handle that or,</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah, I, I'll handle it</v> and then I'll open it to the board. So there are, there are no known associated financial burdens anticipated with the proposed policy. So how can that be? Right? You look at San Francisco, you look at New York, you say, these are problems. We don't wanna be like that. We don't wanna attract immigrants. The Massachusetts towns that have adopted, essentially what is presented in the proposed policy, I'm not including Somerville, which has a director of immigration and actually pays the financial costs for those who are fighting deportation. We're not doing that here. I'm not including Boston, and I'm not including Cambridge because they aren't similar in size, structure or, or government type to natick. If you look at the other towns that have adopted this, Acton Maynard adopted a police policy, not a policy itself, I'm sorry, Concord, Concord, Amherst, Northampton. They have not seen in the seven years that they've had these policies. An influx of migrants. Do you know why Nobody can afford to live there? There is no housing. Natick has a nine year wait. There will not be talking in this room or side conversations. Please leave if you're going to speak. <v Speaker 18>Pardon?</v> <v Speaker 1>Please leave.</v> If you're going to have conversations, leave, if you're going to have side conversations, it's disruptive. And we're just trying to get through this before 10 o'clock. <v Speaker 20>I was just agreeing with, we both are shaking our</v> <v Speaker 1>Head. Okay,</v> <v Speaker 18>Disagreeing.</v> <v Speaker 1>Oh, that's fine. When you say, I</v> <v Speaker 20>Just wanna clarify something,</v> <v Speaker 1>You cannot speak from the floor.</v> Oh, but I will call on you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. When you look at the last seven years in Acton and these other towns I mentioned, people aren't going there because they're not resources. It took me and the veteran service officer almost three weeks to get a veteran out of his truck into housing in Boston. 'cause there's no housing here. There's a nine year wait for Section eight housing vouchers in Natick. So if people just showed up, there are not services. For those of you who are living in, in, in a house where you are house rich and cash poor. You can imagine people who don't have houses, they're not coming here. It's too expensive. If there are unanticipated impacts from a policy, as I mentioned before, there's a 48 hour window whereby we could call, if there are an unanticipated measurable outcome, measurable outcomes that are negative, we can call a select board meeting, look at that data and say, this isn't working for our town. And we can rescind it just like we rescinded six policies a couple of weeks ago. Lastly, someone forwarded to, to the board a recent analysis of the impact of the state government no longer providing funds to municipalities to house, or take care of their, their immigrant population. We don't do that. Now. We provide basic services to all residents. So we provide trash pickup and we pick up, we provide recycling, we provide event, you know, events. We provide libraries, we provide a number of public services, but we do not provide public benefits. That's all I have on this question. Are there anybody, is there anybody else on the board that would like to add to that question? <v Speaker 21>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay.</v> The next most popular popular question, <v Speaker 21>Ice detainer.</v> <v Speaker 1>I, I can't see it on my why, why</v> <v Speaker 12>Are ice, why are ICE detainer requests</v> not automatically honored? <v Speaker 1>They are.</v> <v Speaker 12>Is there a safety risk</v> associated with this policy? <v Speaker 1>Okay, so this is a good time to define terms,</v> and I would like to ask the police chief to come in. I'm gonna give a basic overview of what happens when a civil enforcement detainer comes in. What I'm reading to you is from a advisory, a legal advisory from the Massachusetts Police Chiefs Association. Civil immigration detainers are requests from federal immigration authorities asking state or local officials to detain individuals for up to 48 hours beyond their release time. These detainers are not criminal warrants and do not allege criminal activity or charges. The federal government explicitly acknowledges that compliance with immigration, detainers by state and local authorities is voluntary. It is not mandated by federal law that is distinct from criminal judicial warrants. So, and under mass general, I mean, under mass law, we can't hold them. So the big problem with people who are against this policy is to go to the state at change the law. At the state level, we have no authority over that. We cannot defy state law. State law says police officers, and by extension town employees cannot ask for documentation. Now, let's assume that an ice judicial warrant comes in, the police department immediately responds. They respond, they, they arrest, they process, they fingerprint, those fingerprints are sent to all the relevant law enforcement databases. And then that person is held till their court date when that person goes to court. If that person is released, that is not under the jurisdiction of this board or our police department, the clerk of the court makes that decision. We have no control over it, policy or not. I'd like to invite Chief Hicks up to answer the question about is this a safety risk and why do we not automatically respond to detainer requests? <v Speaker 22>Good afternoon, Madam Chair members of the board.</v> You did a good job of outlining the guidelines as stated, and which kind of answers the question you just asked. We don't have the authority under state guidelines, under the Lund decision to respond to and enforce civil detainers or ICE detainers that come through the federal government. That's the It is just a fact. It's the law. We cannot respond to that. If that's the case, that's up to the federal agencies including ICE to do that. Yeah. One thing I do want to explain is that if we are notified that someone we have in our custody for a non-federal violation, such as a crime that's committed, say shoplifting and ICE notifies us that we have a, a detainer under the lung decision, the only thing we can do is let ICE know. We do have that person, and it's up to, to ice, to determine how they're gonna take custody of that person. We cannot turn custody over to ICE under the, the, the Massachusetts guidelines. And we have to use the, the current standards as required under law of about how we hold that person and release 'em. So in other words, someone who comes in who's arrested for a crime, we have to do our due diligence. They are, they do have a right to be released for court on their own personal recognizance based on a fee. And at that time, we call in a clerk. Clerk can take a half hour, clerk can take 10 minutes. Clerk can take two hours to get there, but once the clerk arrives, we shall and must release them. So we don't hold, we cannot hold for 48 hours. We ha can only hold for the time period. It takes the process that prisoner <v Speaker 1>Does the, does the Massachusetts Police Chief Association</v> consider this a security risk? <v Speaker 22>No.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you. No.</v> <v Speaker 6>If, if I can just note the policy is intended in, in,</v> it's really part of the first line, essentially to ensure compliance with everything that the chief just noted, including the Lund case. And it's a, that's the Supreme Court case that's been noted several times tonight. So the intent is for the policy, just to reiterate what we are obligated to do under state and federal laws. <v Speaker 22>If, if I could just just build on that as,</v> as if it's a safety risk. Now we're talking about a, if it's an area or an issue, and even part of our policy where the person involved creates a risk, then yes, we can work with the courts, not us. We cannot make the decision, but if we feel there's a risk, we can ask the courts to hold them on the charges that we have. So in other words, if there's a, if we have 'em on a charge, say about serious charge, say domestic violence, and we feel that that party is a risk to the community, we can request and the police can request the courts allow us to hold that person on bail for our charge, not because of detainer, but for our charge. And the courts can't hold 'em for that charge until the next court date in which they go to court. So if we do that, we, the police department can't release. That's up to the courts to make that decision and release them. <v Speaker 1>And that person's fingerprints have already been sent by</v> that point to all the relevant law enforcement databases. Yes, Mr. Sidney, <v Speaker 4>Thank you, Madam Chair.</v> And just to be clear, if there is a federal judicial warrant for a crime, we can absolutely turn that person over. <v Speaker 22>Now you're talking about a judicial warrant issued</v> by a federal judge. Yes, clerk. That's a warrant. Yes. Yes, we can. It's not an ice detainer is not a warrant. <v Speaker 4>And and I I just want to get that really explicitly clear.</v> There's a difference between an ice detainer, which is a civil request and a judicial warrant, which is a warrant against somebody for having probable cause for committing a crime. <v Speaker 22>Yeah. If a warrant is issued by,</v> and Lund decision expresses just that, if it's a, if it's a judicial warrant issued by a federal judge or clerk, that for us is just like any other warrant, we have the authority to hold that person on, on, on that counts in order to bring them to court for violation of, for, <v Speaker 12>For that warrant in itself.</v> <v Speaker 6>Thank</v> <v Speaker 4>You. I, like I said, I just wanted</v> to get that really explicit, <v Speaker 1>Mr. Evans.</v> <v Speaker 12>Yeah, I just wanted to, given</v> that we're all talking about Lund versus the Commonwealth, chief Hicks provided us with a updated legal guidance that just came out less than a month ago on or titled refresher on L versus the Commonwealth. That is up on Novus agenda. It's two pages, and it sums up really what the restrictions are on the, the police force and why the policy that the police and the, the, the select board are, are taking why it's necessary and why it's important for us to spell that out. <v Speaker 1>Thank you, Mr. Evans.</v> <v Speaker 6>Madam Chair, if I can note that, that Yes, please.</v> That case came out in 2017 and shortly after that, I believe it was in 2019, is when the chief and town administration actually started having conversations around a potential policy. I believe actually the next question of interest is why is the new policy, sorry to protect undocumented, I'm reading verbatim, to protect undocumented residents necessary now when it wasn't during the 2016 to 2020 timeframe. And I just wanted to note that that one case only came out in 2017. And in 2019 is when town Dialogue started, the culmination of which is part of this dialogue tonight. <v Speaker 1>Along those lines, to answer that question, this policy,</v> this question presupposes that the policy is about protecting undocumented residents. That is not what the policy is about. The policy reinforces the existing practice that has taken place for decades where town employees do not ask for documentation. It's about ensuring the town and its employees are compliant with state and federal laws regarding immigration. And it protects the town from liability. How, let's assume we have an inspector who, health inspector, billing inspector, whatever, inspector who goes on to a job site and inquires about whether the workers and asks for documentation that exposes the town to financial liability and lawsuits because they're not allowed to do it under law. So under Massachusetts law, l has an, so with case law, you have what's called like an umbrella. And so right now it, it specifically addresses court officers and that extends to police officers. That extends to the state police that expend extends to all law law enforcement. And it extends to, by virtue, by virtue of analogy, it extends to town employees. So in order to avoid a lawsuit, and because we can't just write a policy, Mr. Erickson can't write a policy that's not, he's not elected. That's what this board does. We have to come up with a policy. One of the questions on here, it's the least most that anyone's interested in is are town officials. Do town officials face disciplinary actions for inappropriately inquiring about an individual's immigration status? To be clear, town employees face disciplinary action when they violate any policy. Sexual harassment, use of use of town resources for personal use. We have dozens of drinking on the job, drinking in town hall. So any violation you're subject to discipline. Now what that discipline is, is between the employee and the that person's department Head, <v Speaker 12>Madam Chair, I'm sorry, I thought you were</v> <v Speaker 1>Done.</v> Just one more point. So it's not uncommon, it's not a, a new policy to protect undocumented, it's looking at liability. And then we also have the issue of a number of immigrants who are here legally or not, and who have extended families who may not be here with documented status. And if they're the victim of a crime, they don't report it to the police. They are afraid of the police. There are cultural issues. Some people have fled places where the police weren't interested in justice writ large. So in order to overcome that and to keep Natick safe, you know, you, me and everyone in this room safe, we need to know, and people need to be able to be free to inform or report a crime. So those two public policy issues are the primary focus of the proposed policy. One is to protect us from liability, and two is to protect us from, I mean, not protect us, to increase public safety by including people who may not otherwise go out. So a question was posed, well, how will they know about it? Immigrant work with immigrant nonprofits. They're Framingham, they're here in Natick. They're all over the place. When the policy is put, a policy is put in place, those immigrant people who are working with immigrants can say, you can go to the police chief, you can report this crime. You are a victim of domestic abuse. And I don't know how many people know this, but in Natick, the Natick, affordable Housing Trust has set aside $80,000 or a, a period of an amount of money that changes every year. So that if you are a victim of domestic violence and you have nowhere to go, you can contact the police and they will put you in a hotel for two days to make sure they hook you up with social services. I'm sorry, somebody finds that amusing. Yes. <v Speaker 12>Just I wanted to follow up on your point there, which is,</v> and I'm quoting from the proposed police policy. Second paragraph under purpose and scope, and I'll just read it quickly. The Natick Police Department relies upon the cooperation of all persons documented citizens and residents as well as Lowe's without a spec specific documentation status to achieve our important goals of protecting life and property, investigating and preventing crime, as well as resolving recurring neighborhood issues. Assistance from the many various immigration populations is especially important when an immigrant, whether documented or not, is the victim or a witness to a crime. It is absolutely essential that these individuals do not feel uncomfortable or intimidated in coming forward with the requisite information in general, firsthand knowledge to aid in investigating a particular crime. This type of mutual trust and cooperation is absolutely crucial in preventing and solving crime incidents as well as maintaining public order safety and security in the entire community. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Mr. Evans.</v> The last point is writing policies takes a long time because we include stakeholders. So the fact that this came out in 2017 and we're talking about it, I, I would've rather had this done this summer or earlier in the spring when there wasn't a politically charged environment. But getting all of the stakeholders to meetings to talk about what the issues are, what's the relevant case law, getting time on town council's calendar, because she's all their, our, that firm is busy with town meetings, special act, much more pressing litigation, much more pressing matters policies take a backseat unless it's, unless it's imminent. So this has been going on for two years. It's not because of the election, it's not because of virtue signaling. It's not because of pandering. It's because we need to protect the town from liability and we need to provide an environment where people can report crimes to the police. The next question is, what additional steps can the town board take to support and protect Natick's immigrant community? None. That's not our job. Our job is to write policy. Our job is to be the road commissioners. Our job is to, we have many different things. We, dangerous dog hearing appeals, nothing as exciting as this. So we, the board can't do anything other than work. Like all of us are volunteers, and many of us work with domestic violence shelters. I work with veterans, other people work with nonprofits. So what can the board do? Nothing. What can we do? We can work. That is the job of civil society. That's the job of the nonprofits. That's the job of, you know, you and me and everyone around us. So for those of you who are interested in knowing more about what you can do to help immigrants, you can reach out to me and I'll put you in touch with various coalitions that work with them. How does Natick plan to address perceptions of being a sanctuary city? And does it view this as a risk or benefit? I don't know that we can control perceptions. Obviously not. The Boston Herald has already, without commenting, without asking for the policy and without, without asking for comment from the board, they've already decided that's what this is. So we can't control that. The board has not discussed whether it was a risk or a benefit. At our last meeting, we took the entire meeting to hear from everyone who wished to speak for as long as they wanted to speak. The board did not deliberate. So I will open that to the board for anyone who would like to talk about if they have an idea on a plan to address perceptions and whether we view it as a risk or a benefit. I'll say for the record, I I, I'm not interested in I people perceive Natick, except that it should be a thriving, business friendly environment that has a lot of nonprofits and people working to support the people who live here. That's the perception that I want Natick to have. Mr. Evans and Mr. Sidney, <v Speaker 12>Thank you Madam Chair.</v> I I think your remarks at the beginning talking about why we took the policy approach go a long way towards making it clearer what we are. And Mr. Sidney's remarks as well as the police chief's remarks on the difference. And it's a vast difference between a civil detainer from ice versus a judicial warrant that accompanies ice, right? If somebody commits a crime and their fingerprints go to the ice database or whoever, da whichever database flags them, they're going to be, they're going to have cooperation from the Natick police, they'll be detained. They will not be let go into the community. So this policy just helps make it clear to all employees there are police, we have a, a police force that's always cut. New patrol officers. What having a police policy that's spelled out specifically to tell them what they can do and should do versus what they should not do is essential to doing this. This has nothing to do with declaring Nat a sanctuary city. That is a, I'm not gonna, it's a misrepresentation of what's actually happening here. I think what the real thing happening here is Natick is, is taking steps to make sure that people who are in our community already, whether documented or undocumented, that is not a natick issue until they commit a crime. If they commit a crime, the police will capture them, the people in their neighborhood, if they are documented or undocumented, we'll have the courage to come forward and confront that criminal. Right? In the absence of having a policy like this, the, there's confusion. There was nothing on the books that said, you know, here are the guidelines. You as a new police officer would've no guidance other than to say, well, what do I do to my colleague? And they may or may not get the right accurate picture. Police policies are a binder of things, and maybe it's not a binder, but it's a group of policies that officers are accountable for following adhering to it. The letter of the law. If they do not do that, they're in violation of their work agreement and there are consequences to it. So I think labeling Natick as a sanctuary city is totally misleading. It is not the intent of that, nor is it the effect of, of the policy. <v Speaker 23>Mr. Sidney,</v> <v Speaker 4>Thank you.</v> Talking about perception, perception is just that we all have our filters, we see what we wanna see, or we see what our brains tell us to see. I don't think we can do very much about other people's perceptions of us. However, what I can say, and, and Mr. Evans alluded to this, every department of the town operates under policy. The finance department has some finance policies. Those finance policies flow out of other policies that this board makes. Without this board making a policy, those policies can't exist because we have to give them enough guidance to, so that they can dig down into the details. So even the police policy has to flow from something the board does. Now, our policy doesn't get into police procedures. Our policy just says, don't ask about immigration. It's not legal. Essentially, that's what our policy says. It's up to the Board of health to make some more detailed policies about how to apply that broad policy to board of health issues. It's up to the police department to do the same for police issues and so forth. However, nothing in this policy has anything to do with inviting anybody here. It has nothing to do with saying, if you come here, we're gonna give you money or housing or anything. There are no resources committed through this policy. We're not inviting people here. We're saying whoever's here gets the same protections under the law as anybody else. And So, you know, how do we correct the perception that this is a sanctuary policy? How do we correct the perception, which it's not, by the way, how do we correct the perception that this is, you know, bad for the town, it's gonna cost the town money. I, you know, people are gonna think what they can think. The best way to correct that perception is to see what happens in practice. And in practice. This is gonna have very little effect except to give guidance to all of our town employees. How, and by the way, not the schools, the schools are their own legislative governmental body, but it gives guidance to all the town employees about how to talk with people about whatever services they're already getting. Somebody has track, trash pickup. Great. We'll pick up their trash. Thank you. There's <v Speaker 1>Another question.</v> I'm, I wanna, I'm sorry Ms. Pope, <v Speaker 13>We're gonna have que the floor time.</v> Well, there's more questions, right? I want to, I do wanna address the perception question, but if there is time later, I don't want to No, go ahead. Okay. I think the perception question is a really good one because based on the feedback that we've gotten and the amount of people here, it's obvious that we have different perceptions. I had a perception of Natick when I moved here and to what kind of town this was. And I'm encouraged, I'm encouraged to see people like learning about the town, learning about what we're doing. But I think the most important perception is the one that, that we as a community find acceptable. It's our perception. I have said this before in public places, that the, the item that struck my perception were the peace flags when my husband and I were looking for a home. It was the peace flags all over this town. And I thought, wow, this is a very welcoming town because there's peace flags all over people's homes. Not the town center, not the government buildings, but on people's homes. And so I think the perception that we should be most concerned about is, is our collective perception. I think there is a breakdown as we have received a lot of, which I'm heartened to a lot of feedback about families who have lived in this town for a long time. I'm what they would call new. I've been here for seven and a half years, so I'm not a townie. I I don't have generations of family who are from Natick, but I love this community. I love the people that are here, whether we agree or not. But there is this, there's this perception that for the people who have lived here for a very long time, Natick was one thing and now it's becoming another. And I would probably likely agree, right, that the town has evolved, it's grown, it's evolved, it's shifted, it's changed. It's trying to modernize, it's staying with the times. However, I just wanna share some information about who Natick has been and who Natick is Today I reached out to the Natick Historical Society, and I just wanna share a few things with you. Our early history says that Natick settlement as a permanent community in 1651 has been a place with many spoken languages. And English was not the first, the first was the Massachusetts, the Munk, and then English languages. And today there are up to 60 languages spoken in our school system. In the 1880s, there was a Chinese resilience. Chinese were coming to Natick, they were setting up laundry businesses, they were setting up all types of businesses. And there was a, a resistance against Chinese people here. But then there was this group of people who stood up against that to say, no, we want for Chinese to be here, we want for Chinese to find a home in Natick. And they were resistant to anti-racism against Chinese. In addition to that Fair Housing, Natick has been a leader on so many things. We've been a leader environmentally and similarly on fair housing. One of, one of the foremost needs of a person is housing. And we were a leader on that. In 1957, we proceeded the Federal Fair Housing Act, which happened in 1968 by more than 10 years to give people and recognize individuals right to live in the area of their choosing, but to also give them fair and equitable housing. That is, that is who Natick has been over the last 400 years. It's been a community that even when we disagree, we have come together and sought ways to protect human rights, to protect civil rights, even if we've disagreed. And I think that's important context to know. If you have a family lineage that's been here for 40, 50, a hundred years, not just who Natick is right now, but who Natick has been and so on and so forth. There's also been a statement about perception that we all come from immigrants. I, on the other hand, am not a person of immigrant. I'm a descendant of slaves. My people were brought here against their will and put in the worst kind of conditions. And this country has grappled with whether or not it would give civil rights to people that look like me, people that look different, people that speak a different language. And we are yet, again, at a preci of whether or not we are going to give credence to people who are already here, who are intimidated and feel afraid to be recognized and counted as a citizen. And those who may seek to call Natick home at some point. And I just wanted to give that context about perception and what perception looks like, what it is, and honestly what we want it to be. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Before we go on to any other questions,</v> I'm sorry Ms. Wilger, <v Speaker 16>Just very quickly going back specifically to</v> the piece about the sanctuary city, I am really encouraged to seeing the kind of participation that we have here tonight that we have online. And I'm sure that we also have many people listening on Pegasus. That's the good part. But I would caution everyone, if you're interested in a topic in town, don't rely on what you might see on Facebook or hear from someone else. Please look into what is actually online. I I think that some people were not aware of what it was we were proposing. They heard the term sanctuary city and, you know, got very upset. So please always feel free to reach out to the select board and you have our address select board@natickma.org. We are always willing to hear from you. We have read every single email that everyone has sent, and it's really important. We wanna hear from the community, we wanna hear what you're saying. But please don't rely on what you see on Facebook or any other social media site. It is really important to find out what the actual truth of the situation is. And you've heard from my, my fellow members about whether or not we consider this a sanctuary city. We do not. Other people may have a different opinion, but look at the reasons behind that. And, you know, our, our town is made up of people of diverse viewpoints. And we want that. We wanna hear from people, but we wanna hear, we wanna know that you can be informed too. So what we can do about that, we can't change anyone's perception, but we would ask you, please stay informed. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Ms. Slager.</v> The last question I'm gonna ask for discussion here before we open up to the floor. I'd like to ask the chief to address the question, how would this policy impact icks compliance with federal immigration laws? <v Speaker 22>I'm trying to figure out, 'cause I, as I stated last time,</v> we don't have the authority to enforce any federal immigration law. We only have the authority to enforce mass general law and assist any other agencies at the federal level to enforce immigration laws. So not quite sure how to better answer that question. 'cause any immigration laws are not under our purview. So we, we don't enforce and cannot enforce any of them. <v Speaker 1>Thank you, chief. I think it's important</v> before we open it up to comments from the floor to acknowledge that the vast majority of the people with whom I've spoken over the last couple of weeks who are against this policy, and the vast majority of the people who have written in against the policy have very real fears. They have very real concerns. And I think it's important to note that and to, for, for people in this room and online and who later watch it on Pegasus, to know that this board takes those very seriously. That's all I'll say on that subject. Yes, Mr. Evans <v Speaker 12>Just wanted to follow up on that, that point</v> because we, as, as Ms. Slager said, we all, we read read all the emails pro and con and tried to understand where people are coming from. And the one common theme that it's either written or not is fear. And it's not just fear in, in, in the emails that is this sent to us. It's fear of the people who aren't sending us emails, who aren't able to come to meetings. They're the people who are at most risk for a badly thought out policy and a and not having a clearly delineated policy that they can be confident that when they encounter a police officer, they can trust them. One of my colleagues earlier said, they don't know if they can trust the police because of where they came from. And that's not just Central America, it's all over the world. You know, we have some people from Ukraine who are here in town, Russians who are here. We have what, the 60 languages? It's fear, right? Fear is everyone in this room is, is wrestling with that, right? From a different vantage point? Yes. But everybody is wrestling with fear. And our goal as a board is to reduce that fear and make it manageable by making a clear policy that is enforceable and that our police officers understand that our town staff understands. And that's all we're trying to do here. <v Speaker 1>Thank you, Mr. Evans. So, chair? Yes, Mr. Mr. Sidney.</v> <v Speaker 4>Sorry. One of the things</v> that I think is important to understand here, oh God, it's, I think it slipped my, I think it slipped my mind. This is not, I'm sorry it went away. That's <v Speaker 1>Okay. My</v> <v Speaker 4>Train of thought. Left the tracks.</v> <v Speaker 1>That's okay. So, so what I'd like to do now is</v> to ask if there's anyone in the room who has not written a letter or an email or did not speak last time, somebody who has not had the opportunity. And I'd like to see a show of hands of people who want to speak so I can figure out time. Six. Seven. Seven. <v Speaker 12>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 1>Seven, eight.</v> And I did promise the woman in the second row to that. I did promise you that I would allow you to speak. So I'm gonna take these. I don't even remember what I was gonna say. Oh, I'm, I'm sorry. So if it does, if it does occur to you, I'm sorry if it occurs to you, just wave to me please. <v Speaker 4>You also have three on Zoom right now. Don't forget,</v> <v Speaker 1>Ma, I'm, I'm going to, as is the prerogative of the chair,</v> I'm gonna take a, a question from the room and a question from someone on Zoom. I'm gonna ask you to state your name and your address. You need to come to the podium, make sure that the microphone is on. And yes, Patricia, please come to the podium name and address. Thank you, chief. Pull it all the way down. <v Speaker 24>Thank you Madam Chair.</v> Patricia de Mayo, 39 Wellesley Road. I have three questions. And the first one, what's the difference between this draft policy and the current practice in Natick? Because at the November 6th board meeting meeting, if I recall correctly, you said, this policy doesn't change a thing. We have these practices in place already, so why do we have to codify it? And the second part, the part B of that first question is, what's the difference between this draft policy and state law? <v Speaker 1>Okay, I'll take the first shot</v> and then open it to the board. So this policy codifies existing practice, one of the reasons it's good to have a policy is because leadership changes. You have new employees, practice is good corporations, and a municipality that has an almost $200 million budget should not run on practice. It should run on policies. What is, there is a difference. There's a, there's, there isn't, there isn't a difference. It codifies practice. And then the difference, the second question was difference between the draft policy and state law. None <v Speaker 24>Existing state law.</v> <v Speaker 1>None.</v> <v Speaker 24>So the, the question,</v> so I guess the question is why do we have to codify this? <v Speaker 1>So it's against, it's against state law</v> to sexually harass someone. You can file an mc a complaint. But if we don't have a sexual harassment policy, yes. The way municipalities work is not to write. We're not, we're not a corporation. So Mr. Erickson can't come up with a policy and send it off to HR and enforce it. We have to write policies, policies about financial practices, policy about use of town, resources on personal time. And that's what this is. So it's a good question. It's been asked several different ways. And the question I think you're getting to is if the federal law says this, and the state law says this, why do we need this? Is that, <v Speaker 24>Well, and and also that in the November,</v> November 6th meeting, you said, Natick follows all of these practices and there's no change even if we adopt this policy. So why do we need the policy? We're already doing all of it <v Speaker 1>Because we don't have a policy.</v> But I'll open it to Mr. Mr. Evans. <v Speaker 12>Thank you Madam Chair.</v> I, I think we, we talked about this earlier, that when we form a policy, it enables the town administration to follow up on that policy and propagate it to the department heads. So in the case of who's Louder, louder, please. I'm sorry. Move it away from that. Okay. Can you guys all hear me okay, what has not been in place? Yes, the standard practices by the police have been in place, but it's lore. It's not written down policies. And the policies have to be in place for several reasons. If a policeman is new, they can be pointed to that policy and say, Hey, you know, somebody, if for an example, when, and, and they do this, when they have new patrol officers, they do ridealongs. And if something came up during that RideAlong that say, had something to do with this immigration policy, and the officer who's, who's the, the old, the more experienced officer is, is stopping a person, let's say on a moving violation. Okay. He's not asked for, you know, his, his immigration status and say the, the new employee or new patrol officer says, aren't we supposed to ask for that? And he can then point to the policy and say, no, actually you should read this policy. It specifies no, here's what you do in those circumstances. And that policy is something that can change. We don't have a crystal ball that says the laws are gonna stay the same all the time. Right. What this allows the, the police department, we, we provide the overarching policy to say this is the, the policy as it exists today, but next week, next month, next year, it could change, right? This allows both the select board and the police department potentially to change their policies, right. And get in lockstep again. But with the absence of something written down as a policy, it can't propagate Mr. Sidney. <v Speaker 4>Yeah. And just to be clear,</v> this isn't just about police policy. This is about all town employees, and that includes people like our building inspectors. So let's say there's, you know, an immigrant who builds a house now, legal or illegal. Legal or documented or undocumented, whatever, he builds a house with a policy that all of our inspectors have to follow. That building that he's building is going to be inspected. Doesn't, it's not gonna fall down because it was built illegally and, you know, it didn't get inspected. The policy drives how people provide the services they're going to provide anyway. It's not asking them to provide extra services. In fact, there is no instruction to do so. But we don't want somebody to rewire their house and not have it inspected. The policy says if you're a building inspector or an electrical inspector, you go and inspect that property regardless of immigration status that protects the entire town. We, we will have fewer fires and fewer other emergencies if we're enforcing the laws equally. It's not just police, it's everybody. <v Speaker 1>Health inspectors, restaurants.</v> Absolutely. There's a list of people. <v Speaker 4>Yeah. So I, I just wanted to make that clear.</v> It's not just police. We talk a lot about this propagating to the police, but it propagates to the inspectors, the health department, you, the community, senior services department, you know, they, people can get flu shots, keep our, keep our people healthy. That's, so that's what that, those are some of the other impacts. And without a policy, without an overarching policy from this board who are the only ones allowed to write policy in this town, based on our charter, those policies can't exist. And you know, yes, they're practices, but if something changes, somebody forgets the practice, it won't happen with a policy. Everybody gets the instruction. That's why we need the policy. <v Speaker 1>Mr. Mayo, did you have another question?</v> <v Speaker 24>Yes, I do. And I wanna qualify it as to</v> where I got the information. Coffee with a purpose, Natick ma, it's, I don't know if it's monthly, bi-monthly. Weekly. Weekly. Thank you. And they have great topics. And there's, on December 18th, 2023, and then again on December 2nd, 2024, the Natick Immigration Policy Coalition was featured at both of these meetings. And I get this question from what they stated, and that was that any select board policy, a policy written by the select board does not pertain to the police. They don't have to follow it. So can you give me a little fact check on that? <v Speaker 1>That is not correct.</v> <v Speaker 24>Take repeated it. Many times people</v> <v Speaker 1>Can be wrong many times.</v> <v Speaker 24>All right. That is,</v> <v Speaker 1>That is, that is</v> Mr. Erickson, did you wanna expand on that? <v Speaker 6>No, that, that's an accurate statement. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 1>It, we don't set police procedure, we do not write use</v> of force policies. We don't do those types of things. But because the police and fire and DPW and libraries and facilities all come under the authority of the select board, the policy ex, the policy does apply, but we don't have anything in here that conflicts with the current police policy. Not a thing. <v Speaker 24>But so do they have to follow this draft policy</v> or they have their own, they <v Speaker 1>Have their own, which is much more extensive</v> and involves procedures and how you handle things because that is unique to them, <v Speaker 24>Pertaining to this subject,</v> <v Speaker 1>Pertaining to this subject and all subjects.</v> And our policy is just proposed policy is just broad outlines and it does not conflict with their police policy. Okay. <v Speaker 24>One last quick thing in</v> that meeting on December 18th, 2023, it's, everybody should watch it because it kind of goes through chronologically how the Natick Immigration Policy Coalition started and who they met with and everything. So when they first came to the select board, they had a policy titled Sanctuary Town Policy, and they were turned around away by the select board because the select board said that's a very, very loaded word and we don't want that word used. So can anybody comment on that? <v Speaker 1>I can. Okay.</v> We weren't turned, we, the board didn't turn anyone away. We said that we're not gonna write a sanctuary city policy. It's my understanding that if a town or a municipality or a county or a state and, and Massachusetts has not declared itself a sanctuary state, it's called it, but has not declared itself, that once a legal jurisdiction declares itself a sanctuary, city, town, county, whatever, ice reserves the right to not coordinate with local police when operating within their jurisdiction. We don't want that. We want our police chief to know whoever is operating in town. We want a safe environment. So that title was immediately rejected by the, by by this board. Well, I, Mr. Mr. Evans was the chair then I was the vice chair and we were the people working with the, with the coalition. So I'm gonna right now open it up to somebody on <v Speaker 24>Thank you very much, Madam</v> <v Speaker 1>Chair.</v> Thank you so much. I think that Ms. Vickers and Ms. Kelly spoke last week. I'm not sure about Carol's iPad. So I'm gonna choose Carol first and let's try to keep our questions to like three questions. We do have another meeting and our comments to under three minutes, more or less. I'm not gonna cut anybody off. I mean, more or less it's a goal aspiration. It's an aspiration, it's a way of just running a meeting, that's all. So Ms. Carol's iPad online, <v Speaker 25>Thank you Chair.</v> My name is, sorry. My name is Carol Gates. I live at Combs Way in Natick. And I just wanna back up and, and provide some framework as to where we are with this issue. First of all, one of the things that you should realize is that many longtime Natick residents first heard about this issue on November 20th when they read it in the Boston Herald, or they saw it on Twitter. The article on Twitter, and you may not call it a sanctuary policy, but certainly the media was, perception is reality in many cases, and perception is what we are going to have to deal with. And I, I wanna go back to that November 20th meeting because Chair Kauflin, you are very careful with your crafted verbiage about what we call this policy. And it has changed. The name of it has changed a number of times. And I also wanna make note of the fact that many residents of Natick were hearing this policy that you are announcing the same night and the very same day that Lake and Riley's illegal immigrant murderer was sentenced for horrendous crime that was committed in a sanctuary community. And honestly, it, we felt many of us that you must think we're tone deaf to national news because, and that we lack compassion for our fellow Americans because that was a brutal day to be announcing this policy. And Bruce Evans, you say that you're hearing that we have fear that was a really lousy way to communicate to the residents of Natick that this sanctuary policy, or now you call immigration policy, was up for a vote. Many of us did not know anything about this. And the select board, from my understanding, according to a report in article in the October, 2022 article from the Native report, stated that you had been dis in discussions about the Sanctuary City Coalition with an activist group led by Cody Jacob for years. So that's been going on since 2022, yet many of us, most of the residents, if not the, the majority of residents in Natick don't know anything about this. This is our first time. The November 20th was really a shock. We didn't know anything about this. And the me national media was the one that exposed it. So let's look, you know, I happen to take a look at the process in the eight sanctuary cities that currently are, have passed this policy. Let's take Na Newton for example. There are 20 city counselors that were asked to vote on this over a long period of time. The residents of Natick knew what were going on. The only, and most of the towns that have passed a policy like, like this, have tw 10 to 20 city counselors. Concord is the only town that had a select board similar to what NATA has. And in Concord in 2017, it was the town administrator who stepped up and said, whoa, hold on, let's put this to a vote. And that he insisted that the residents of Concord be allowed to vote on this policy. I think that the residents of Natick should be listened to and they require due process. And if, and we want this policy to be put up for a vote and our town administrator should insist on it as they did in in conquered. Now I, in terms of the how you reflect as a board, the citizens of Natick, I wanna, I wanna highlight that 62% of registered voters in Natick are unenrolled. Your policies and your partisan issues may not reflect the masses. Catherine, you are quoted as saying that you want to listen to the masses. We, the masses showed up tonight. And honestly, it's, it's nine 10 and we've been on here since six o'clock hoping to have a voice and we hope that you will listen to us this time. Catherine, you also said tonight that there's no evidence that towns are being impacted from any policies, but just take a look at a neighboring town like Norfolk. People have been impacted enormously. So my request for you is to vote no on this PO immigration policy to slow down to start listening to the people of Natick. You want us to be more involved? You want the masses involved. We're involved tonight, but honestly it feels like we've been filibuster tonight. And I would request my final request is that <v Speaker 1>No, there will be Ms. Gates, please pause you.</v> There'll be no outbursts in the room, please. <v Speaker 25>I'm sorry</v> <v Speaker 1>That wasn't to you Ms. Gates. I'm sorry.</v> There was an outburst in the room and I was asking for order. Go on. I, I apologize. <v Speaker 25>Okay. My, my last request, please is that, is</v> that you allow Catherine Kelly to speak tonight. She has some information and there's also a petition from Patty Sierra that we request that you allow them to speak tonight. Thank you very much for your time. <v Speaker 1>So a a couple of quick points.</v> Mr. Evans, do you wanna go first? No, you <v Speaker 12>Can go.</v> <v Speaker 1>Couple of quick points. The title's always been in flux.</v> The title has always been in flux. One of the reasons this didn't happen in the spring or in the summer or much earlier, is because we were constantly working on it. We dropped welcoming community because we looked at it and said, we're only talking about one segment of our community. We're not talking about the entire community. So that's not appropriate. We didn't want immigration in the title because we don't have immigration authority or jurisprudence ju jurisdiction on immigration. So we've been wrestling with that. I suggest that the, the public sign up for select board updates and you'll get the agenda every week so that you know what is on our agenda. This has, this has been brought up a couple of times that this issue in particular has been brought before the board. And with regard to Concord, the vote was by representative town meeting, which made it a bylaw. So if we make it a bylaw, it turns out to be a bad idea or federal or state immigration law changes, then we need to hold it. We, we will be out of compliance. And that in our system of government in Natick, the town administrator does not tell the select board what to do. The select board tells the town administrator what to do in terms of policy and carrying out work that needs to be done on behalf of the town. So I, I appreciate the idea of putting it to a vote. For those of you who don't think you're being heard, we read every single email. I'm slowly writing back to most of you. Some person has written over 40 letters and I've responded to every single one of them. So I would say that I'll, I'll, I'll leave it at that. Do you wanna add something? <v Speaker 12>Yeah, just very briefly. Actually, two things.</v> One, one was to comment on the, the fear point. My point, my only point in talking about fear is that we all have fear from a different perspective. You know, there are some fears, legitimate fears, and I didn't discount any of those, right? We have different viewpoints. We come from different backgrounds. What I meant by that is that we have a lot more in common than we don't, right? So we need to work together as a community and figure out what's gonna work best for us. Another question that's come up frequently in the emails is, why is this taking so long to do? Right? And the chair talked about this a little bit. We've been working on this since 2019, some of us longer than others, but I've been working on this for the duration of my term on the select board, which is now almost three years. And it started out as too much of a sanctuary city policy. And we rejected that as a board because that's not appropriate for this town. For all the reasons that we're citing tonight in the policy. It allocates resources that we don't want allocated. It attracts potentially immigration influx that we're not capable of of handling. So we went back to the drawing board, went back, the chief, the town administrator, the chair and vice chair and members of the coalition talked about what common ground we could achieve. And that common ground is what you see reflected in the policy. It's like anything, any other policy that requires compromise. You look at the positives and you say, all right, how can we structure this in a way that that compromises some to some of the objectives, but protects the town, protects the residents, offers assurance to all residents that the protected by the police and can come forward to the police. It's important for us to do that. Yeah, it took a lot longer than I'd hope, right? But would I rather it take longer to get it right than to get it wrong and be back here in three months and say, oops, no, that's, that's not what we're trying to do. And that's why we had hearings on this. This has been on the agenda on and off for several years and each time it's come up, there's been a increasingly large crowd that, that has attended it. It's unfortunate that we live in a time where this has become a polarizing issue. I wish we'd had this done two years ago, but we didn't. The fact remains, it's, it protects Natick citizens, it protects Natick employees, and it protects every one of you in this room. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Mr. Evans. Ms.</v> Emily, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. <v Speaker 4>Yeah, this will, this will be relatively quick.</v> I remember when this policy first came forward from that coalition, and one of the reasons I, and, and most people who know me know that I, I tend to be on the liberal side and I don't deny it, but making Natick a sanctuary city was the wrong thing for Natick. It would prevent our police department from being able to do their job. We don't wanna be a sanctuary city. It's not Right. The other thing I want to, I, I want to talk a little bit about, we live in, in, in Natick, we are a representative democracy. That is, we have elected town meeting members who pass bylaws and do other things, pass our budgets and so forth. It's pretty easy to get an item on the town meeting warrant if you want to pass a law either for or against something like this policy, I don't recommend it. Ms. Coughlin has ex explained why that's probably not the best approach given the timeframes involved, but it's pretty easy. 10 signatures, you know, 15 to be safe, and you can put a warrant on the, on, on the town meeting to, to consider. That doesn't put it to the whole town, it does put it to town meeting. So I just wanted to, it, it's, there are lots of ways to deal with this. Not all of which are, are the best in terms of, you know, responding to, to changes or responding to problems, but they exist. So, thank you. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Mr. Sidney. Just one other point I'd like</v> to make Linda, gimme one second. One other point I'd like to make for those of you who feel like you've been filibuster the last meeting we did not speak. Everyone who wanted to speak, spoke for as long as they wanted to, and everyone got an opportunity and there will be another meeting. Ms. Slager, <v Speaker 16>Just briefly, I just wanna address the point</v> where people are saying that they didn't know about this ahead of time, and this is a real problem in Natick. This is a problem with not having a local newspaper. It's very hard to be informed and it's a, it's a problem that we have discussed on various boards and committees. How do we keep the public informed? There's no easy answer to this, but I would absolutely encourage all of you or anyone that's listening to sign up on Our town website for information and, and where we're trying to get as much as possible that goes on in the town, on the town website, but it's difficult. We, you know, you, you can't open up the, the Metro West Daily News anymore. Or for those of you remember the, the tab and bulletin that we used to get weekly, all of that had great information about the town that doesn't exist in today. So it's, it's very difficult and I sympathize for, for everyone that says, I didn't know about this until recently because you probably didn't. And there's no, there's no easy fix to that. So that's the best we can offer is please try to stay informed. <v Speaker 1>Thank you. Emily Warmington.</v> <v Speaker 26>Hi. Can you guys hear me all right? The mics are quiet.</v> I'm actually not gonna give any comments or opinions about this policy. I think that a lot of the points have been said. The questions have been asked. Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Emily Warmington. I live at 10 Eisenhower Ave. Thank you. What I do wanna address, which I think a large number of people in the room know, but everyone may not, are some unfortunate personal attacks that have taken place toward our select board, most notably. And as was in the news, the recent vandalism spray painting of our board chair Kalin Catherine Coughlin's car while it was parked at her home at night. This is only one of the incidents that's happened. There's been a lot of personal harassment, phone calls, emails of a very personal and threatening nature. Unfortunately, on behalf of, I assume many in Natick, I wanna express how completely unacceptable and frankly, un natick the targeting of our elected officials is intimidation is not an element of civil discourse. It is a deterrent to it. Making our unpaid public servants feel unsafe, serves only to frighten others regardless of their politics from becoming more engaged in our town. Like most towns, Natick has had its fair share of disagreements. But in my experience, and I'm also new, I've only been here for four years, I'm planning to stay for a hundred, but we'll get there. In my experience, the people of Natick value community, regardless of the differences between them and their neighbors. Natick County government, as has been said, has many ways for residents to participate directly serving on town, meeting, volunteering for boards, committees. And there are also ways for residents to express their opinions on potential policies by contacting members of those boards and committees. Historically, members of our boards and committees, including the select board, have been happy to hear from residents who wanna discuss the merits of a proposal. In my personal conversations with a lot of different people in Natick who have differing views from mine, I have found that the majority of those conversations are civil, logical, and respectful. Always focused on the issue, not on personalities. So I will reiterate my main point, vandalism and harassment that our select board has experienced is obviously beyond the pale, but so too are the less extreme forms of personal targeting that ha are happening. Debating a policy should be about the merits of the policy, not about vilifying or harassing the people who have been tasked with debating it. Lastly, I wanna thank the members of our select board for your calm collected response during what I'm sure has been a very trying few weeks. I personally am glad to live in a town with so many willing to suer to serve and so many engaged citizens, and especially for you and the care and dedication that all of you show to this job. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Ms. Ms Ton.</v> One, one brief, one brief comment on that. I have told the press that I will not be commenting. What I'd like to say though is that many, most of the people I know who are against this policy, many of them are friends, most of them are really, really good people. I say most 'cause I don't know everyone, so probably all of you. And, and I'm thankful for that. For those who are debating on Facebook about whether it is a false flag operation or it's a this or it's a that, I think everyone in this room and everyone in this town can agree it's a bad actor. That's all we have to say. It's a bad actor. And that's all I'll say on that. We have two hands online, but both have spoken previously. I would like an opportunity for people in the room who have not spoken and the gentleman in the back. Mr. Scott, I'll get to you shortly. If you could come to the, not, not you, the one behind you. Sorry. We'll, we'll we'll get to you if you could. Name and address please. Yes. <v Speaker 27>Hello. Paul Oli, 22 RN Street.</v> Just a couple of quick points about the flash vote. I think a, a large portion of the people felt that those questions were fairly biased and we don't have to talk much about it, but I think that they were a little bit heavy on one side and people felt that way. I thought you should know that. I think the majority of us had to answer in the other column because there wasn't really an answer for us to choose. So something to think about for your next one. As to the comment and the example about building a house as a migrant, I'd be interested to know where they got their general contractor's license to pull permits. That's all on that. I'm here to express my concerns about the process and which the board is addressing the issue at hand. While I'm certain you'll hear from many others about the specific negative impacts the decision could have on our town, be it costs needed, tax overrides, school implications, traffic or public safety concerns. I'd like to focus on a different, but equally crucial matter, the process itself and why the decision should not rest solely in the hands of five board members. This is clearly a highly sensitive and divisive issue, one that touches on deeply held values and concerns across our community. Rushing through this decision of this magnitude without giving every citizen the opportunity to have their voice heard is not the correct approach. Five individuals cannot adequately represent the will of a town as large and diverse as Natick. Instead, this decision warrants a town wide vote, allowing all residents to weigh in on the matter that could significantly impact our community. Additionally, we are in a time of uncertainty regarding federal policies on sanctuary cities. This new administration has stated that they are prepared to enforce immigration laws rigorously. What exactly that enforcement might look like remains unclear. But the risks of putting natick in the federal government spotlight are undeniable. It is full. It is a foolhardy move to move forward without a complete and full understanding of the potential repercussions Natick could face. As public officials, your first duty is to act in the best interest of natick's residents. This includes ensuring our police can effectively uphold all laws and keep our community safe. This includes the ability to fully cooperate with the federal enforcement, law enforcement when needed. What impact studies have been done and conducted on this issue? What are the potential negative outcomes for Natick? Without clear answers on the pros and cons of the policies of this policies you've outlined, this proposal feels less like a well considered policy and more like an attempt to secure symbolic value at the expense of our town's wellbeing. I do not feel this board has the right to make such a consequential decision on the behalf of our entire town. This issue is too important and too contentious for five individuals alone to decide it deserves to be brought to a town vote. And in conclusion, my mother and father lived in this town for over 50 years. I myself a resident of Natick 54 years. I was literally born in this town down the street at Leonard Morse Hospital. I'm raising my own family here now, and hopefully they live here for 50 years and I firmly state that you the select board. Do not have my permission to vote on this. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Please, could we have order in the room?</v> Could we have order in the room please? Is there some, could somebody else, sir? Yes. In the beige sweater. <v Speaker 28>Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair</v> and fellow members of the Select Board. My name is Ronald Conrado and I'm a resident of 19 Craigie Street here in Natick. I've lived here almost 40 years. I'm a retired police officer, 44 years on the police department. And I heard tonight a lot of talk about legal and, but I've never heard once the word illegal. Okay. I welcome immigrants. I have no problem at all with immigrants. What I'm deeply troubled about is illegal immigrants. Okay. I heard it mentioned that this doesn't open natick to becoming a sanctuary city, but I respectfully disagree to that. As written in the Boston Herald yesterday, the headlines say sanctuary cities put people at risk. And this is written by an official of ice. Okay? Again, as a police officer, I served my community for 44 years and I am generally concerned about the safety of our citizens. Now in Natick, if this becomes a policy, what do I do if an illegal immigrant is in my home? Do I have the protection of the police department? Does the police department have the authority to do something to help me? If that happens, my family and my friends and my neighbors, I'm concerned about all of us and the schools and all of that. This could open Natick up to a lot of litigation. I would ask that the Board of Selectmen respectfully reconsider and vote no on this policy. Just one instance that comes to my mind, the city of Marlborough, which is not a sanctuary city. To my belief, the Holiday Inn has become a home to many, many families that are illegal immigrants. Are we gonna see something like that in Natick? We have all the, the beautiful hotels down on Route nine. Are we gonna look down the road and eventually see families moving in there of illegal immigrants? I'm afraid that if this policy passes, that's a good chance of happening. That could be a, a real possibility. So please, I urge you to vote no on this policy. Thank you very much. Thank you, <v Speaker 1>Mr. King.</v> Please could we just keep order, it's nine 30 at night and I would like everyone to have an opportunity to speak. Three minutes. Okay. Just one moment. I would like the room and everyone who's watching to know that I've spoken with the management of all three hotels and they will not be working with the state for to house immigrants. All of them want to, they want to preserve their brand. These are some of the words used. And they will not be working to place homeless people. Legal, illegal, documented, undocumented people shuffled from other places. They will not be at those three hotels. Mr. Scott? Yes, please. Three minutes. We still have the rest of an agenda to get through <v Speaker 29>Roger Scott 40 Water Street.</v> I'm just gonna do personal experience here. So I've been a victim of three armed robberies. Two in the town of Natick, one in 1977, arrest and conviction, great pr, great police work, great result. There were two perpetrators. One of them went back to jail. And in 1995 I had an armed robbery again where I was shot at, tied up a whole bit. I had great police support on that. Unfortunately, we didn't get an arrest and a conviction. So the, the perpetrator wore a mask and that probably was the end result that we could not get a, we could get justice done. The thing that I'm talking about tonight though is I can, I'm concerned that the police chief to me came across as dismissive. And I don't want that to be the case. So if you have, you have a crime committed and, and it, and it falls back in a situation that you're just gonna take a person to a courtroom on and yet dismissed, I don't feel safe as a member of the community under that circumstance. I think there needs to be police work and whatever it takes to cooperate with the government so they can get the conviction of the crime in the town that has to be done. It just can't be dismissed 'cause of the person's identity or location in life. I mean, so I I don't want that to be get pushed to the side. I think people deserve justice and justice might end, end up in at least a trial. But you know, many times you read that they, they skip. And I don't want that to be the case. We, I got justice in my 1977 case, 1995 was a little different. But the the point is, I just don't wanna have a loophole that allows somebody to not allow the person to have justice in their life. And, you know, there's a danger in there when you get shot at. You sure wanna have, make sure that somebody is accountable and anything can happen under this potential ruling that you're gonna have that might not give the person that peace that they need when a crime is done against them. So that's my, my consideration. I hope you take that, in fact, into your decision making. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Thank you, Mr. Scott. And please, could we just</v> stop please. Okay. I'm sorry Mr. Scott, I'm really sorry that happened to you. The select board and the police chief have no control over the courts letting people go. None. There are opportunities like the police chief said that when, when there's a, an offense where they believe that the person is dangerous, that they can ask the clerk to hold him. But ultimately it's the clerk's decision. Unfortunately, this policy will have no impact on that. And I, I agree with you that justice denied justice delayed is justice denied. <v Speaker 6>Can I just quickly just do a quick PSA if folks are aware</v> of crimes, whether it's in your home or otherwise, somebody breaking into your home, or please alert the police right away regardless of the person that's, that's a crime. Like alert the police. We want a safe environment. <v Speaker 1>Chief, did you wanna address the</v> comments which were just made? <v Speaker 22>So I gotta admit, a couple people came</v> out and was talking to me outside. I heard some of the comments, but what I'm, what I'm gathering from the comments is that, that we will not enforce laws or we will not arrest people. We are not prosecuting people. I don't know where that comes from. We do that now. We have always been, I heard about the case in, in the early seventies. We continue to do that. Someone trespassing in your house is a crime. It doesn't matter what their status is, it's a crime and it will be prosecuted. But again, the police department arrest and submit to the courts. And that's what we'll continue to do. That will not change by any policy that comes outta this select board. Now, I made it clear that those, I spoke to our job is to keep the, the community safe regardless of all the other stuff that's out there. And that's what we continue to do and that's what the officers of the Natick Police Department do. And so we will and still and will not change the fact if there's a crime committed, we will do our due diligence and make sure that they are held accountable. But again, no, there's a process, there's a court process here. No, we do our work, we supply the, the work to the courts and it's up to the courts at that point, including the judges and the juries who have to convict. So to say that we aren't gonna do our work and if someone's in someone's house, we aren't gonna arrest 'em. It's simply not true. We continue to do that and we'll always do that. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Chief. We're gonna go to Zoom now, Mr.</v> Desa, you question Mr. Desa. I believe you have not spoken or written an email to the board. I was wondering if you could unmute yourself. We're going to zoom first Deborah, and then I will call on people in the room. <v Speaker 30>Good evening. Robert Osa 37 West Central Street.</v> And where I used to work in Lowell, they would call me a blow in because I've only been here five years. But I would note that I'm an army brat and I've lived in four towns in Massachusetts and Natick is the first one I've been in that I would consider, or the first place I've ever been where, where I would consider my hometown. And although I was not born here, I do hope to die here. Mm. Having said that, I'd also like to note that for 22 years I was a high school teacher and educator all in social studies and worked in civics. And I'd like to point out to my fellow citizens that there are five people who quote unquote represent the masses. And those are are elected representatives. We do live in a represent rep representative democracy. And the town wide election was the election for the select board. And people can vote or they don't vote. But you were elected by the people. I have a technical comment and that is something that I put into the comments of the flash, the flash election. And that is to request some sort of connective between the fifth and sixth clauses so that it is clear in the fifth clause that that is except as indicated in the sixth clause to make it absolutely clear. I hope that's, I hope that that's clear to you. <v Speaker 1>Mr. Dea, that was not clear. Could you repeat that?</v> <v Speaker 30>Okay. So the text of the fifth clause</v> to end that sentence with, except as noted below in the sixth clause, <v Speaker 1>I don't think that's the most recent version.</v> <v Speaker 6>No, the, the, in the version, the six clause says</v> to the effect of notwithstanding, <v Speaker 1>We removed that, didn't we? It says,</v> <v Speaker 30>Can can you share, I'm going by the, the version</v> <v Speaker 6>Share my screen.</v> <v Speaker 30>Yeah, I don't, I can't put it up in front of me.</v> <v Speaker 1>No, that's okay with Zoom. That's okay. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 30>So I'm just going by the last one.</v> It doesn't make absolutely clear that, oh, are you gonna share it? Yeah. Okay. So yeah, those are the two that I'm talking about. <v Speaker 6>So I believe what the speaker is noting is</v> having some connection to ensure that the fifth clause is not viewed in its isolation. Isolation. And right <v Speaker 30>From the six</v> <v Speaker 6>Clause is ensuring that the six clause,</v> which is really ensuring that the town lawfully town employees lawfully discharge duties and compliance with judicial warrants and the like, that, that there's a connection there. <v Speaker 1>Understood. Thank you so much. That makes</v> <v Speaker 30>Sense. Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you so much. And thank</v> <v Speaker 30>You for your work.</v> <v Speaker 1>How many people left in the room still would like to speak</v> and have not spoken before? 1, 2, 3. Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Mitchell, I think. Okay, Ms. Mitchell, if you could go ahead and come to the podium. I name and address and try to limit it to three minutes please. Okay. <v Speaker 31>My name is Deborah Mitchell</v> and I live at Cedar Godden, native Housing Authority. I came to Natick in 2014 because had to leave my home because my mother was selling the house and she moved in with my brother. So me and my sis my daughter came to Natick and I lived in the Avalon Natick apartments, which are very expensive. My daughter was 16, she went to Natick High. She's the only black girl in her class. But because she was in the basketball team, she found a, a home. She f it was, you know, a way for her to be with other kids and you know, be accepted. 'cause she was on the basketball team. But what I'm trying to say is when I was, when my daughter moved out to go to college and then to UCLA to get a master's degree, I still lived in Avalon Natick. I got a one bedroom, but it was very expensive and it took me almost 10 years to get to where I'm at now. And so to speak to your point of how hard it is to get into these apartments in Natick, I represent the 2% of the black community. And I also ran the native for Black Lives Matter movement for four years, which was sort of in vogue at the time because George Floyd was murdered in Vogue. I'd say in Vogue because everybody was concerned we was in Covid and everything like that. Now it's a different time where we have a new administration who wants to vilify, in my opinion, immigrants and migrants, they talk about migrants that are in the shithole countries, pardon my French, in the countries like Africa or Haiti. In fact, they, they don't want to set, they, they dis suspended the flights to Haiti, American Airlines. They, they say we eat, they eat the cat, they eat the dogs. I don't blame people for being worried or being fearful. Look, I'm fearful. I live in mostly White Town and I could, when I speak French, so they might think I'm an immigrant. Like they, you know, they might try to, you know, they might have to. So we have to stand together as a community. We, we can't fight each other because a house divided against each other can't stand. This is a nice community people. We have a great native cultural district. I wrote a couple of books here. And one last thing is I have a Turkey, a wild Turkey that is bothering me and I wonder if he could be deported some kind of way. <v Speaker 1>Deborah. We'll, we'll Deborah, we'll get right on that.</v> We'll get right on that. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Mitchell. You're welcome. Can you, Mr. Erickson, could you see who else is online that may not have Ro Rolf has not spoken. I, I can't iPhone. Mr. Larson? Yes, you've got your three minutes. <v Speaker 32>Thank you. I'm speaking in support of this draft policy.</v> I've been involved in immigrant efficacy for many years. I'm a member of Christ within church in Natick, which has a long history of accompanying immigrants. I have gotten to know immigrant families from Haiti, from Central America, from West Africa. And I can tell you that one constant I've experienced is that they are hardworking, just lovely people. The immigrants that I've been privileged to know, just want a chance to live a life without threat. They're families, their sons, daughters, mothers and fathers. They've been forced to flee typically from the country of origin. They did not want to leave. They were forced to leave out of fear of personal harm. Some say that they are criminals and in fact the incidence of crime among immigrants is much lower than those of us who are US citizens. And this has been documented over and over. Some say that this draft policy will result in undue expenses for the town. And this is just not true. The policy simply prohibits town employees from working with and for immigration and customs enforcement or ICE, unless required by federal law. The financial cost of the draft proposal is nothing. They are families. They are just, just like my family. Just like your family. And I would ask that you please listen to all voices, take the time that you need to deliberate, but in the end, please show the rest of the commonwealth that Natick is a welcoming community to all. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Mr. Larson.</v> Sir, in the back, in the salmon colored shirt, <v Speaker 33>Take less than free.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 34>My name is Bob Hevey.</v> <v Speaker 1>Can you lower the mic for me? Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 34>My name is Bob Hevey.</v> I live on Heve Way, which is off of South Main Street. There's a new administration coming into, into Washington in the next 30 days or so. Why wouldn't you postpone what you're doing for at least 30 to 60 or 70 day 90 days after they're in and see what's gonna happen? There's gonna be a major change. We all know that there's gonna be a change in the federal funding coming to the states, which means there's gonna be a change in the funding coming to the towns. So I would think it makes sense instead of doing all this work and tying yourself into something that might be obsolete before you're finished. You should wait till after you find out what the new administration is gonna do and how it's gonna affect this town and it will in its own way. And then if you want to go forward, I agree with everybody that says that you should let the whole town be involved. I work out of town. I'm not in town all the time. I don't hear the anything about the Natick news very often. So, and there's a lot of people like me, this isn't a town that most people work in. It's where they sleep and, and we don't get to know it. I just heard about this the other day. So I think there's a lot of people like me who are very interested, but we have other obligations and we are not in town. And if we were, we'd probably know about it right away. So I think you should find a way to do a better job at reaching out to all of the citizens in, in the town. You could get a bulk mailing and send out something. It's important enough. Send out a a calendar of to everybody who every address send something out so we all know what's going on. So that's my three minutes. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Thank you. Mr. Heeey online.</v> Joseph's iPhone. <v Speaker 35>Hi, thank you. My name is Reen cio.</v> I live at 58 Washington Street. I echo what Mr. Heeey just said, that, you know, with the new administration coming in and some very obvious or most likely changes coming along, that it would just make sense to see how this policy would be affected with any upcoming changes. I, I like living in Natick and where I work in general is a very diverse community. I have, you know, legal and illegal is the big words here. And I just think that what Mr. Heeey said is waiting until these likely changes coming up would be much wiser. And also maybe giving more time where it's apparent that so many people feel that they weren't aware of this. Just give a little more time to get all that, all that out there so people can, can feel that they're heard and, and voice their opinions. And that's all. And thank you for all your hard work and time. <v Speaker 1>Thank you so much. In the room. Gentlemen in the back.</v> <v Speaker 36>Hi, Jeff Fox,</v> 55 Walnut Street, Natick. Just want to sh show some appreciation for all your, a little bit for all your efforts, not only for the the board, but the police, the, the fire department. Really everyone protecting our community. So I just first off wanted to point that out, but I also wanna reiterate again, legal versus illegal immigration. When your first act is an illegal act coming into this country that doesn't put you on the best footing for those who have properly waited in line and had done it properly in terms of delaying the ballot question, totally agree with that. You know, we, we get these weather notifications via the phone. Why not use some, some of that technology to let people know, I I heard about this through next door Natick by happenstance. So I think better notification would help. Just a few other very quick items. Do we know how many illegal immigrants are already in Natick? <v Speaker 1>We do not because we're prohibited</v> by law from asking for documentation. <v Speaker 36>Okay. You know, I'd like</v> to see some examples of this on how it plays out. You know, how if an illegal immigrant, multiple violations goes on a driving spree, hits multiple cars, gets pulled over for drunk driving, maybe crosses over a town knowing more of these examples in how the police would respond, you know, without notwithstanding this particular mandate that I believe is given to the police. And we were saying, well, the police can do what they they want, but I don't sense that, You know, a lot of this is like, let's wait for a crime to happen. But let's face it, there's a lot of people who already committed a crime by coming into the country. This is a big issue. I respect everything the board does, but I think it should be opened up to a, a general consensus. This could have been thrown on a November 5th ballot if you've been working on it that long. So as you can see, I came very prepared. So just wanted to thank you for your efforts, but please take all this feedback and digest it because this is a big issue and I, I think it, it mandates much deeper discussion. <v Speaker 1>Thank you. Thank you Mr. Evans.</v> <v Speaker 36>Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 12>I just wanted to comment on his, his</v> a remark about what the police would do if they found a, encountered a person who is driving erratically and causing multiple accidents. They would do the same thing that they would do to a person that, let's say doesn't have dark skin. Same thing. You get pulled over, he gets cited. Right? We had the other example from Mr. Scott earlier with, which was a home invasion. Right? If there's a home invasion, it's, it's a crime. It'll be processed regardless of immigration status. It's the law, it's law enforcement, it's what the police does. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Mr. Evans. We are approaching 10 o'clock.</v> We still have a full agenda. We have another meeting on the 18th. Who in the room? Both people on Zoom have spoken and written letters. Who in the room has a desire to speak for three minutes and who has not? Please could you come to the podium name and address please? <v Speaker 37>Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Succi of at four Nolan Street.</v> I wanna express support for the policy for all of the reasons that you've outlined it. The chair and Mr. Ev, Evan, Mr. Evans have outlined this evening. It's well thought out. I think it protects the town, as you said, from liability. And I do think it's the select board's role to memorialize a policy that allocates employee resources. And I think this is going to allow the police to focus their resources on the type of local law enforcement that we want and need and not be distracted and waste time doing the job of, of other government officials. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Thank you. I know that Ms. Jennings wants to speak.</v> Is there anybody else in the room who has not spoken and would like to <v Speaker 18>Address the board, Ms. Jennings?</v> I did. Okay. <v Speaker 38>Good evening. Madam Chair of the select board, members</v> of the select board and also native community. My name is Miriam Hernandez Jennings and I lived at 13 LaGrange Street. And before I state why I support the immigration policy, I would like to acknowledge the original people of this land, including the NC Map Pota and the Massachusetts people, as well as the legacy of the Natick praying Indians and all of those who have worked on this land before us. We all live in borrowed land and we should remember this every time. We want to refuse a peaceful assistance to immigrants who are already here. I am an immigrant from Chile and I lived under a cruel dictatorship and I had to live my country when I was 18 years old. I have been in Natick and I am a resident for the last 24 years. My husband is Keith Jennings, who is a conservative Republican and we have been married for 34 years. We chose Natick as our community to raise our two sons because Natick ha always been a welcoming town. I am here tonight as a resident and also as a security director of Natick East United. Natick. East United has been working with the members of the Natick Immigration Policy Coalition for the past three years. We have been in conversations with the select board and Chief Hicks to create a policy that will say to immigrants, residing in Natick now that they're welcome here and that they belong. We have modeled a civic process and while we may have disagree at times, we respected each other's humanity and dignity. It is very sad to see that that has not been the case with residents who as opposed the immigration policy, the opposition to the policy. It is not based on factual information. And we already heard what this policy is not going to do. So I am not going to repeat that right now. But I wanna say the similar policies in neighboring Taos have not shown to increase crime rates. Instead, they often improve community trust and cooperation with local enforcement agencies. The opposition has asked, so why do we need a policy we which reiterates what is already in practice, Having a written policy reminds those who are vulnerable to upcoming cruel policies, that they are safe here, that they can reach out to our police when they are facing trouble and that we care for their wellbeing. The policy reflects who we are as a community and that we are all striving to build the beloved community that Martin Luther King dream so long ago. As we are reminded that we lived in viral land, we must remember ourselves, we must remember ourselves as a part of a web extending back in time forward in time, in every direction in time. We are the upcoming ancestors to our children's children. So what legacy do we want to leave behind? Thank you madam Chair of the board. <v Speaker 39>Ms. Jennings.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you Ms. Jennings.</v> I believe there's a yes, please could you approach name and address? <v Speaker 39>Priscilla Velasco Lam, daughter of Luisa,</v> Maria Velasco 14 Cross Street. Just wanna mention, I signed up for Flash Folk as of the, I signed up for the library newsletter. So thank you to the community members for trying to get the word out. Thank you for your hard work. I'm glad I got to meet to this meeting, just listening to this policy and how it affects people who live in this town and, and knowing the reason I'm involved in this town. It's really thanks to my educators who have served our town proudly. So Benga, Karen Gani, who served on the Council of Aging, she got me involved in Youth advisory board. So I'm familiar with the podium. I had to speak to the, <v Speaker 1>I need you to speak louder.</v> I'm sorry. P and slower please. Slower, yeah. <v Speaker 39>Yep. Just wanted to say, figure out flash vote</v> 'cause of the newsletter at the library. So thank you for everyone's work. It's important to be part involved in our community. <v Speaker 1>Thank you so much. Yes sir.</v> And you'll be the last person to speak. Hmm? No, we, it's 10 o'clock the building locks. <v Speaker 40>Thank you very much. Good evening.</v> My name is Nicholas Mabati. I live on 16 Jameson Street Natick. I was the former police chief. I spent six years and honorable member of, of the board. And I'm well aware of the, the powers of the police department and they and what they can do. I am grateful for the work that and effort and the diligence and dedication from the members of the board town administration and your concern for the town. I'd like to just reiterate that a new administration is gonna be coming into part of, will be in, in in next year. And I'm asking if you would consider waiting on the, on this policy until you find out whether that there are gonna be any implications that are gonna affect this policy where you might have to make, you know, remissions or adjustments to I total respect. I want to thank the people here, wonderful people in the town of Natick. I have talk about my ancestry. The, my bodies have been in the town of Natick for 135 years. We are dedicated, we're we're respectful, we appreciate it. But all I wanna say is, but they came here, they were documented and they worked hard and they didn't, nobody gave them anything. So I'm just saying the policy and I appreciate you explaining that policy. 'cause I don't think a lot of people really fully understood the, the policy and the fact this is not a policy to propose it natick to be a sanctuary city. I'm grateful. I I thank you. I thank the people here for coming and for participating and I wish people here good health continued good health. Thank you. Thank <v Speaker 1>You.</v> Thank you Chief. We're gonna continue this conversation. The board will de debate and deliberate and still send letters and emails. We'll meet again on the 18th. This building locks automatically at midnight and we have time sensitive things that have to pass before that we have to address before 11 o'clock. I want to thank everyone who took the time to come out and sit through a very long meeting. I thank you for your letters taking time to write to us and I would just ask that you continue to be involved. More information is always better for the board. Thank you. We'll take a five minute recess so the room can clear and then we will go to item F, the municipal decarbonization roadmap. Alright, we are back. The next item agenda, we're gonna skip over discussion of public speak policy. Since we've had a staff member who has been here since the early hours, Ms. Julian Wilson Martin will present on the municipal decarbonization roadmap. <v Speaker 41>Great. Hello. Thank you for having me.</v> Jillian Wilson Martin, sustainability Director for the Town of Natick. I am here tonight to present on the municipal decarbonation roadmap. I'll keep it very short. I know it's very late. Just a few slides. This is really similar to a presentation that we gave to the school committee just about a week and a half ago. This municipal decarbonization roadmap is the last criteria that the town of Natick needs to adopt in order to receive, to be eligible to be designated as a climate leader, which is a new funding opportunity available through the state. During I had, while I was waiting to speak, actually I was reading the first opportunity notice from the state about that program, which is for a million dollars in funding that Natick could be eligible if we adopted this roadmap and we're able to apply to be a climate leader. The school committee has already adopted this roadmap. So we're, this vote tonight is really the last vote that we need. And just in brief summary about the roadmap, it's essentially a 25 year planning tool for the town. It doesn't commit the town to actually take any action on decarbonizing any buildings or vehicles, but what it does is it maps out when we have the end of useful life of different pieces of equipment in our community and the municipality that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and helps us plan ahead for those. And that's not just about reducing emissions, but also saving energy and saving money. And by knowing when we have these upgrades coming or replacements coming, we can proactively seek grant funding and other resources like utility incentives to support doing something besides like for like. And so that's what this roadmap is all about. It's about identifying those things and working with town staff and different funders to pursue new solutions to how we're heating and cooling our buildings and the kind of vehicles that we're driving. The roadmap includes a baseline of our emissions, which is seen here. Most of our emissions come from buildings, most of them school buildings. And those come from the types of energy that we use to heat and cool our buildings and power our operations. And there are emissions also from vehicles or water and wastewater treatment processes and things like that. The roadmap includes a projection of how our emissions might change over time if we were to capitalize on each of those end of life, end of useful life opportunities and seek to decarbonize and how. And it shows how that might change our emissions in different categories in line with targets that the state has set. The roadmap focuses on our top 10 buildings, which are seen here. The ones that are bolded are ones that are in the care and custody of the select board. Most of the buildings that you'll see that are top 10 buildings are school buildings. And as I mentioned, the school committee has voted to adopt this roadmap already. As I mentioned, we're not obligated to actually do anything in this roadmap. It's really a guide for us. It's something that I'll be using as a tool and I'm already using as a tool to work with our facilities department on planning, looking for grant opportunities, looking for ways that we can improve our buildings and decisions will really be made on a project by project basis. We have here some guidelines that could support that decision making as it relates to projects on existing buildings or new construction. And this is something that we might bring to you in the future or just work internally to develop guidelines that we kind of collaborate on. So really what we're asking you tonight is to vote on adopting the roadmap and then after that we would be working with you to submit the final documentation necessary to become eligible to be a climate leader. And that's it. <v Speaker 1>I have a motion as usual. Excellent, comprehensive.</v> Very thoughtful boards members. Do you have any questions or comments? Mr. Evans? <v Speaker 12>It's a quick comment. 30 seconds or less. It's great work.</v> It's thorough. It puts us on a path to get more grant money, which is what we actually need to make the, the goals the car decarbonization happen sooner. It's, it's remarkably good work and I appreciate it. <v Speaker 41>Thank you</v> <v Speaker 1>Ms. Pope.</v> <v Speaker 13>Thank you for your hard work and the team's hard work.</v> I wanna, if you could clarify one thing for me. You mentioned that you were already following this or are there a guidepost or can you just clarify what you mean when you say you're already following it? <v Speaker 41>Sure. I think you're speaking of,</v> I was looking into an opportunity that's been posted by the state for a grant that will be open to communities that are the designation to be a climate leader. So they, whenever there's a grant that the state issues, they post it on what they call combines. And so you can read all about it and what that grant would be, would support what kind of projects you could do with it. And that grant is for up to a million dollars. There's no community that's designated as a climate leader yet. The application is due in December of this year, right now, this month. And my experience working on grants is that the sooner you're in a program, there's less competitors for funding. So the more likely you are at being able to take advantage of those funding opportunities. So that's the reason that I've kind of been pushing so hard to make this deadline for the first round of climate leaders is I want Natick to be eligible for that, those resources for our community. Thank you. <v Speaker 16>Thanks. This wolf Schlager.</v> Just quickly, do you, if the grant were successful, do you have projects in mind about how the money might be used? <v Speaker 41>I do have projects in mind.</v> I would definitely wanna confer with our facilities staff to make sure that we're on the same page. But you know, the town has a five year capital plan and that's very much in line with the roadmap. So the first five years of this roadmap, all the useful life dates are all very much in line with what the count the town is already planning to replace. So we have a number of buildings in Natick that were built in the nineties and early two thousands. It's a very large percent of our square footage that we manage as a town. So Wilson Brown lilja the buildings here in Natick Center, a lot of them, their equipment is at the end of their useful life. So those are the buildings that I would wanna target. I'm not interested in working on buildings where we just installed a new boiler or we just, you know, replaced an HVAC system. The idea is to pair this with where we already have capital needs and to leverage grant funding to, to maximize those investments. <v Speaker 16>Thank you. You're</v> <v Speaker 41>Welcome.</v> <v Speaker 6>If I can add, I, I want to thank Jillian and Bill Spprt.</v> John Marshall, the team, because we did have a lot of internal constructive and, and critical and collaborative and sometimes not so collaborative discussions around this policy and what it means for the town. I view it as kind of like that aspirational goal and we need to have that in order to then seek the aspirations. But we are gonna take it very deliberately and collaboratively internally because not all projects are gonna make sense. It really does need to make financial sense, it needs to make management sense or maintenance sense long term. You know, so it's just 'cause something might be the cheapest might mean that we might not be equipped training wise to do it. So every, each project and we're working to, to continue to adjust our capital planning processes to, to have that collaboration built in. Not that we do it now, but we need to, we're working to even more hardwire it into the process so that it's right for what we need to accomplish as a community. And, and I I just wanna applaud the team for doing that. 'cause I, I think, I think we have an open dialogue that's constructive. <v Speaker 41>Yeah, there is some back and forth about the roadmap which</v> related, I actually, if you're considering a motion, I'd ask you to also authorize a chair to work with town staff on any potential edits that are necessary to the roadmap because we, as part of the application process, we'll be applying to DOER and they'll provide feedback in that process and we wanna be able to be nimble in responding to it. It would, it wouldn't change the premise of the roadmap, which is really this useful life planning tool for the community. <v Speaker 1>Thank you. Are there any questions</v> or comments from members of the public? <v Speaker 6>We have one on Zoom. I can take this off.</v> <v Speaker 1>I don't see it.</v> <v Speaker 6>It's at the top.</v> They have her hand raised. Ah, <v Speaker 4>Andrew Roberts,</v> <v Speaker 1>Ms. Roberson.</v> <v Speaker 42>Hi. I just wanna thank Jillian</v> and all of you for everything you're doing. It makes me proud to be a resident of Natick to know that you're working so hard to take care of these issues and I, I just am amazed at everything I read about what's being done. And I just wanna thank everybody for that and thank her for sitting through our, all of you for sitting through so long to come up with this information. <v Speaker 1>Thank you Ms. Roberson. I'll take a motion.</v> <v Speaker 4>Madam Chair, I actually have two separate motions.</v> So first is to adopt the roadmap as presented. Second, <v Speaker 1>Moved by Mr.</v> Sidney, seconded by Mr. Evans. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? It's 5 0 0. <v Speaker 4>The second motion is to authorize the chair</v> to write appropriate letters and adjust the policy, the roadmap as as necessary. <v Speaker 1>Moved by Mr. Sydney. Seconded by Ms. Pope. Can we,</v> <v Speaker 16>Can we say the chair designee in case the chair</v> decides that she's too busy? <v Speaker 1>Just run away. You</v> <v Speaker 4>Can't I'm okay with that.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah. The chair or the,</v> that sounds like a friendly amendment. <v Speaker 6>Not the running away, just the amendment.</v> <v Speaker 1>Chair. Chair or victim.</v> I heard a motion for the chair to run away. We, I second that. Second that. <v Speaker 42>Please.</v> <v Speaker 1>Please. Okay.</v> So we have a motion and a second to allow the chair and or her designee to yada yada yada. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Yada yada. Aye. Any opposed? Passes. 5 0 0. Thank you so much for all your work on this and the extraordinary amount of money that you bring into the town. No kidding. To pay for these. Yay. Yay. I think last year your budget line item was negative 2.4 million because of the money that you brought in. So thanks. Thank you. Thanks <v Speaker 41>For</v> <v Speaker 1>Supporting you and your team. Can I</v> <v Speaker 41>Ask for, I'm, I'm sorry to do this,</v> but like a friendly amendment to your motion, which 'cause I think you authorized the chair to just support with sending, signing a letter, but if we have to make any added <v Speaker 4>No, I was to also it</v> <v Speaker 41>Was did okay.</v> I am sorry. I couldn't hear it. Yeah, it was appreciate it was <v Speaker 1>To work with changes on the roadmap, got as needed with</v> <v Speaker 41>Staff. Thank you. Yeah, I</v> <v Speaker 4>Actually already had that written down</v> before you asked for it. <v Speaker 41>Oh, great. Of</v> <v Speaker 1>Course he did appreciate it.</v> You we'll move on to the discussion of public speak policy. <v Speaker 6>Madam Chair, can I ask</v> to have the override discussion just taken out of order just for anybody who's, who's still listening? Yep. The intent of this article for this evening was really just to highlight the joint meeting between the school committee and the select board next Monday night where there's gonna be a lot more information presented. I know there might be some in the audience, or we still have an audience on, on Zoom that may have been interested in that item. And I didn't, I I wanted to get ahead of that because we're not going into detail tonight. That'll be Monday night. It's a joint meeting between the school committee and the select board. Town and school administrations have been working diligently on a presentation. Our intent is to have that evening be an initial really engagement with those two boards, but also the community around the, the, the potential for an override. Of course, this board needs to vote on that question to put on the ballot, which would happen more in the February timeframe. The deadline is February 18th, but I'm not proposing that you would take that long. It's just that is the deadline. And that's the first, this is really gonna be the first where we get into the details of the need for an override. So I encourage folks in the community, folks maybe online. I still see WBZ tv, maybe they can advertise this on the TV to say that there's a joint meeting on Monday night. I believe it starts at six 30 and the first part of it will be the dialogue on the override. The school committee does have other items just like we did tonight. And so the intent is to try to have this be a component of it and the first of an engagement process, not the only time for engagement. We're also working to up to get up and running a, a website on the override with an engagement portal whereby people can submit questions and we'll have a regular response time. Usually about a week is our goal when we can get answers to the questions. So just want to highlight that for this evening. And, and that's really all I wanted to cover tonight on that, on that topic. <v Speaker 1>I appreciate that Mr. Erickson discussion</v> of the public speak policy. So this is a proposed revision to what was formally called Citizen speak. I, we had a question conferred with counsel. We can ask as is customary speakers to give their name and address, but we cannot require it. So, but we can ask Yeah, there's privacy issues, so that's fine. Were there any question Quest? That was the only question outstanding. I was hoping we could put this one to bed. Yes. <v Speaker 16>Yeah, I, I was thinking about it a little bit more</v> and I, I'm, I'm wondering if there's something missing about, You know, let's say there's a lot of people that wanna speak and, you know, giving the chair flexibility to maybe not take everyone or to, or to limit the number of minutes that someone can speak. I just, I it's not clear reading this, that, you know, someone might be denied the opportunity to speak based on time, just how it's worded. And maybe it's in there and I'm, I'm not seeing it, but I know in, in previous policies that that I think, or maybe it was the fin comms policy that, that I think that was better described. <v Speaker 1>So it, it says not for total period</v> of more than 10 minutes, which can be extended by, at, at the expression of the board chair. Maybe we move paragraph five up to two. Any citizen addressing the board during the section of the agenda shall be limited to three minutes. <v Speaker 16>But, but what if</v> but what if there's 10 people that wanna speak? <v Speaker 1>That's all it</v> <v Speaker 16>That,</v> <v Speaker 1>That, with the exception of public meetings,</v> it is always at the discretion of the chair to allow anyone to speak except during public speak. So there could be 30 people and the chair could say, we're gonna take the next hour to go through this because this is important. <v Speaker 16>Right. But what if the chair doesn't want to,</v> <v Speaker 1>Then she doesn't, I mean, I'm not sure what else</v> to put in in the policy. I, I'll tell you what, why don't you take the policy, send your concerns to Kara, see if she can rewrite it. I'll do that and I'd like to put that on for next week. I'll do <v Speaker 12>That for two weeks. Are we, do</v> <v Speaker 1>We, no, on the 18th I wanna move this policy</v> <v Speaker 12>'cause the 18th. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 1>I wanna move this office. Office</v> that's been on the agenda calendar for six meetings. So I wanna move this out <v Speaker 6>If I can.</v> If, if you don't mind, Madam Chair, if I can just clarify, this is for public speak on items not on <v Speaker 1>The agenda. Agenda on the agenda.</v> <v Speaker 6>Not public speak for items on the agenda.</v> Just for people watching or people at home. <v Speaker 1>Yes. These are for things that are during the period</v> of time, at the beginning of the meeting where the board opens to the public the opportunity to address the board on items that are not on the agenda. Yep. Thank you for explaining that. Or <v Speaker 6>Just</v> <v Speaker 1>Clarifying it.</v> Clarifying it. I appreciate that. Anybody, <v Speaker 6>I still see WBZ up there,</v> so I just wanna make sure the story's right. That's <v Speaker 12>Item item two</v> <v Speaker 6>Policy,</v> <v Speaker 1>Mr. Right?</v> <v Speaker 12>That's item two that talks about that it's</v> things that are not on the, that meeting's agenda. So I think that's clear. <v Speaker 1>Refer zoning, bylaw amendments to the planning board.</v> Mr. Erickson or, <v Speaker 6>Sure.</v> This is a standard part of the process that this, this board is obligated to do under master law Chapter 40 A for zoning amendments. There's a memo in the packet. There are four five. Five, <v Speaker 4>Five,</v> <v Speaker 6>Sorry.</v> See five attachments. I just, <v Speaker 4>There's five listed in the memo. Five</v> <v Speaker 6>Listed.</v> Okay. And these are items that the planning board requests the select board to refer. So planning board under 40 a Section five is one of the entities that can request zoning amendments, but they still need to refer 'em to the select board to then be referred back to the planning board. It's a uniqueness of the law. You've done this really anytime There's been an amendment in the last several years anyway, since, since I've been working for the town. And, and same with a citizen petition or a citizen seeking. The zoning amount has to go to the select board first, and then it gets referred to the planning board. The five that are listed. And this can be a slate vote, you can just say, refer all five. One is regarding body art establishments. My understanding is this is really targeted just towards looking at body art. One, the definition of body art establishments, but two per perhaps, I think this is also related to a potential zoning district body art has different definitions between health and land use. So we're just trying to clarify that. The second one is regarding section 26, 3 26 height, which is height of structures and, and other things. Other one. The next one is for indoor recreational overlay district. Then indoor recreational overly another one for zoning map. So bylaws and map and then zoning bylaw for use regulation. A lot of this is a continuation of the cleanup work that Amanda has been doing for the last several years. Coming the, the, the, and these are now no longer related to the MBTA communities work. So we're past that with this past town meeting. These are really just the continuation of the cleanup work that she's been doing. <v Speaker 1>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 12>Cool. Ready for a motion?</v> <v Speaker 1>Yes. Mr. Evans,</v> <v Speaker 12>Move to rec.</v> Recommend that the select board approve transfer to the planning board the motions as specified in the memo from Amanda Loomis dated December 5th, 2024 for the four zoning articles. <v Speaker 4>Second. Second. Can I suggest a, sorry.</v> <v Speaker 12>Five zoning articles.</v> <v Speaker 4>Can I, can I suggest a,</v> a simplifications? We all, all we have to do is refer them to the planning board. Okay. We don't have to recommend anything. <v Speaker 12>So Yeah, I know I was slipping into fin com. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 4>Remove the, so the, the move motion</v> friendly amendment motion would be refer five articles to the planning board. I'll <v Speaker 1>Take a second. Yep.</v> <v Speaker 4>He's second. Second.</v> <v Speaker 1>Moved by Mr. Evans, seconded</v> by Mr. Sidney. All in favor, please say aye. A Aye. Any opposed? Those will go off to the Planning, planning board consent agenda. Mr. Mr. Sydney. <v Speaker 4>Okay. So there are, I can never count a bunch</v> of items on the consent agenda. <v Speaker 1>Don't announce what you're gonna pull off beforehand.</v> Just read through all of them and then you can Yeah. <v Speaker 4>I, I will be pulling one at least.</v> So item A approve request to occupy a public way. Dana Chang Memorial run walk item B approve request to occupy a public way. Bosco crane item C, approve request to occupy a public way clean energy system. Item D, approve 2025 alcohol license renewals. Item E, accept resignation of Alan Blevins from the Council on Aging. Item F appointments to the Council on aging. Lindsey l Simeon for term expiring on June 30th, 2027. Mark Frankel to fill the vacancy left by Alan Blevins for term expiring June 30th, 2026. Item G approved common requests. The native Catholic community to display the Christmas crush from December 5th, 2024 until January 20th. January 10th, 2025. The Giva Center to display the menorah from December 22nd, 2024 until January 5th, 2025 with an event to take place on December 29th from four to 5:00 PM Item H approve request from rec parks to accept donations. Item I accept donation in the amount of $2,222 and 22 cents from the Friends of Natick trails to the town of Natick. And item J, approve one day entertainment license for friends of the Natick trails and waive the license. D. And I'm going to pull item A. Are there any other items to be pulled? <v Speaker 1>Item A is off. Do we</v> <v Speaker 4>Have item?</v> Okay, so I move items B through J. <v Speaker 1>Second moved by Mr. Sidney, seconded by Mr. Evans.</v> All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. <v Speaker 4>And just to explain item A.</v> <v Speaker 1>Any opposed? Okay.</v> <v Speaker 4>And just to explain item A,</v> I did some research into this one and the police department is still doing some background checks and other work with them. It is not ready to be approved at this time. So it'll come back to us in another consent agenda. <v Speaker 1>Town administrator updates</v> <v Speaker 43>None at this time.</v> <v Speaker 1>Select board updates.</v> <v Speaker 4>Well,</v> we had a really good lunch the other day at the council, at the, the community senior center. Oh, we did? It <v Speaker 1>Was nice.</v> We did. Yeah. Yes. That was lovely. Any other updates? All right, the nine o'clock adjournment. We're running a little bit behind. Move to adjourn. <v Speaker 4>Second. There's</v> <v Speaker 1>A motion to adjourn a second.</v> All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hell no. We are out of here. <v Speaker 4>It is 10 37.</v>