Committee on Committees - Regular Meeting

And we are beginning our Committee on Committees meeting. I'm going to start with a call to order. I'll begin with Suzette DePietro-Brown.

Good evening. Oh, sorry. Good evening.

Councilor Waterhouse. I see you.

Good evening.

And Darrell Goodwin, I'll serve as chair, and I am also present. So thank you for the roll call. Approval of minutes, agenda, any concerns or anything that we need to shift? If there are no changes, then we will approve the agenda by acclamation of yes from Elizabeth, Suzette, and Darrell. Thank you. I first wanted to review the committee charge and responsibilities. tony would you like to come mayor harrington would you like to join us medias you're welcome to sit out if you want but i just want to extend courtesy so i wanted to thank you um i wanted to talk about the review of the committee charge and responsibilities as was given to us um and to see if um counselor to beat them brown or um council waterhouse if you have any concerns or anything you would like to bring up about our committee charge and responsibilities. I'll say one of the things that has come up from my perspective around the committee charge and responsibilities is there is a little bit of a conflict between the SOPs and the charge because the SOPs were constructed and written prior to the re-implementation of the committee on committees. So some of the work that we need to talk about in terms of the reviewing of the board and commission and governance appointment management document, those SOPs are a reconciliation of those two things. So right off top, I would just like to name that those are there.

I agree with you. And I think just trying to make sure that SOPs are in order with the committee on committees, I think is extremely important. But I also just want to highlight that this committee is here to promote citizen engagement, right? And that's what we're trying to do. And we're trying to do that in a fair and equitable manner. So those are the things I just wanted to highlight on that. Thank you so much.

Councilor Waterhouse, anything you would like to add or concerns you have about the current charge of responsibilities?

No, I just want to make sure, you know, everybody has an opportunity and, you know, as do, you know, we don't exclude our DTC and RTC out of this as well.

Thank you so much.

Can I add to that? I thoroughly agree that the DTC and the RTC has a very important role to play, but I also want to make sure that we understand that not every member of our community constituents are a part of a DTC and an RTC and making sure that they know that even though they may not be on a DTC or an RTC, that we still welcome them to participate. So I think that's important where the DTC and the RTC is going to be a vital role, but we want to make sure that our residents know as long as you are a registered legal resident of the town of Bloomfield, you are welcome.

Yeah. Thank you for that. I think our ultimate responsibility is to, for anyone who's felt as if that service, there is a barrier, we want to make sure that that's eliminated. And I want to thank India Rogers for all of the head work and taking resident comments and feedback and trying to incorporate them into an SOP that would sort of make that a reality. I'm just going to go through top level in relation to those charge and responsibilities so that moving forward, we have, A level set. The first one would be the recruitment and application process, selection and appointments, including the reappointment of current members and dealing with attendance, effort, professionalism, purpose, removal process, first offenses, and even second offenses, and then other additional things that may come up. INCLUDING APPOINTING AUTHORITY THAT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT NEW MEMBERS TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERMS AND TO REFERENCE OUTGOING MEMBERS. I JUST NAMED THOSE PARTICULAR RESPONSIBILITIES BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE AND SO JUST ESTABLISHING THAT WITH THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES MOVE FROM THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE TO THIS COMMITTEE and we will take those things up seriously and to our charge. There's nothing else. I'll move to the next agenda item, which is the review of the board and commission and governance and appointment management, SOP. I'll just begin with, again, a celebration of India. Rogers for not only taking the initiative to create some SOPs to help us move forward more effectively and efficiently, but also for the residents who did previously send in feedback to add their own senses of concern or thoughts or revisions that they thought would be important. The reason I'm stating that upfront is just to name because there was feedback and voices already sort of added to this. My hope is that the people who have been waiting to be appointed, we won't continue to delay that weight by adding from the folks we're currently serving on this subcommittee that we may be able to offer some preliminary thoughts to fine tune the document as it currently exists already incorporating the residents feedback. and then expressly move towards the appointments so how i want to handle the review of board and commission governance and appointment management sop revisions is just offer each counselor an opportunity to state any that you would like to see altered in the current document that we have and then ask you india rogers if you would be willing to incorporate those into the SOP that we currently have, and then we can go from there. Councilor DeVita Brown, can I start with you?

Yes. Thank you so very much. I think one of the things that we really need to tighten up is going from GPED, Governance Policy and Economic Development Subcommittee, to COC, Committee on Committees. And I think that's pretty important. I'm not sure which one I should be using. To go to Committee on Committees just to make sure that the SOP is in alignment with the appointment of this new committee. I also think that I do believe that everything else is pretty much okay, right? Because while operations and communications will be getting this information and entering it into our official communications I think it's important that committee on committees get to see all of the applications that come in, do our due diligence, have the interview process and moving forward. I know that we are a little stuck on the background check and certification. I don't know if we want to table that for now and revisit it a little bit later. just to make sure that we're being fair across the board. I do believe that a background check is extremely important, but not just for the people that we are looking to appoint to these boards and commissions, but I think that should be across the board, DTC, RTC, everything. And until we can get that as a standard operating procedure across the board, I think that we should probably...

table that portion of this for right now thank you so very much mr chair thanks so i just want to reiterate you for the most part are comfortable you would like to talk about background checks again and then the i would call it a global red line of removing governance policy and economic development subcommittee and replacing that with committee on committees throughout the document so just remember every place that's gped we would move to coc

Thank you so very much, sir.

Councillor Waterhouse, any thoughts?

I don't mind the change to the committee on committees. In the recruitment process, it says boards and commissions, clerks shall notify all appointed volunteers. Can we also, and they'll also be sending out ads in the local newspaper websites and Facebooks. Can we also add that, um, there'll be an update to the DTC and RTC chairs as to who's coming up for reappointment and possible openings that are coming up. Just so I know some people, especially on the RTC, they need to be reminded sometimes and...

I support that.

I support that. Thank you.

Councilor Waterhouse, can you state which section

It's in the recruitment and application process when it says in November each year, the boards and commissioners clerk shall notify all appointed volunteers who terms expire in accordance with the town council that up there.

Okay.

Can I, I don't want to.

Councilor Waterhouse, are you finished?

I would also request that right now we address the SOP and we put the addendum in the parking lot so that we can discuss a little bit further. But tonight we just focus on the SOP and hopefully approve the SOP.

Yeah, one of the considerations for dealing with the SOP is because it's probably the document that's most significantly important with blocking us being able to move forward with appointments. There's a number of other things raised with the specialized high-scale and quasi-judicial appointments section of this that it may be advantageous for Councilor DeBethen-Brown, Councilor Waterhouse, and myself to be able to attend to. So I'm going to start with you. Councilor Waterhouse, would you be amenable to holding on the addendum until the three of us have had further opportunity to discuss it?

Sure. I thought I was looking at boards and commission appointment policy.

Sure.

I don't know if I have the addendum. Yeah, go ahead.

So Council Waterhouse is India. You're looking at the policy, but there's a separate document for the standing operating procedures that kind of support that policy. So that's, they're talking about the standard operating procedures. So they didn't know.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm talking about. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. So we can table without a formal vote the discussion of the addendum just to give us more time to have some opportunity to converse with each other. But I'll just go back through it again. I think adding that section to the policy I think makes sense and continues to establish the fairness that we've all talked about. So I think we're on the same page about that. The proposals that I have are a little bit more extensive, but hopefully bear with me to talk through some of them. In terms of the document that we currently have in the SOP, the first addition, and India, I will make sure that these are sent to you, would be to add a new purpose and authority section. because again, the way the policy is currently written, it's within mind for the GPED, and I'm just trying to make sure that it's as clear as we possibly can. So I'll read some of these additions. The Committee on Committees is a standing subcommittee of the town council charged with reviewing vacancies, conducting candidate evaluations, recommending appointments and reappointments to town boards and commissions, and overseeing policies and practices that promote effective board and commission governance. The committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the town council and shall make recommendations regarding appointments, recruitment, onboarding, training, reporting requirements, and governance improvements affecting town boards and commissions. So I'll pause there to see.

I would be in agreement with that.

Councilor Waterhouse, any concerns with what was read? Okay, perfect. Thank you. The second one would be to follow through. We had the same thing. All of us are on the same page about the global redlining to make sure that any references to governance policy and economic development subcommittee replaced with committee on committees that Councilor DeRetha Brown has already brought forward and Councilor Waterhouse agreed with. So we would move forward with the global redline throughout the entire document. section 3.1 refers to selection for interview if you were to look for that at that section and again because again the policy was written with gped it's a little bit ambiguous so i would propose replacing the current language with something of this nature the committee on committee shall review current and anticipated vacancies on a regular basis and determine candidates to be interviewed and considered for and be and considered for recommendation to the town council the committee shall also periodically review board and commission membership attendance vacancies and expiring terms to ensure continuity of service and effective governance the current document as as it's currently uh set up when it's saying we review the gpd will contact that to just clean that language up. I've just situated that paragraph or those bullet points into language that specifically names the Committee on Committees. So, Councilor Debeath and Brown, any concerns with that shift?

I don't agree with the new shift, but can I also add something? Yes, ma'am. We ensure that the interview panel consists of no fewer than three voting members of the GED subcommittee, while the interview panel will be the panel of Committee on Committees.

Council Waterhouse, any concerns about that replacement for Section 3.1 to make it more in alignment with committees as opposed to GPED?

No, you're just replacing GPED with committee on committees.

Yeah, with a little bit, yeah. I'm essentially summarizing that section from bullet points into paragraph form. What's currently not in the policy, which would be an addition, is a 4.5 that we don't currently have. The current document ends at 4.4, for those of you who've had a chance to look at it at home. And I'm proposing an addition of section 4.5, which will be annual board and commission review. the language would be the committee on committees shall annually review the status of all town boards and commissions and may make recommendations to the town council regarding vacancies and recruitment needs sunsetting committees that are no longer functional attendance and participation trends for training and requirements opportunities to improve representation and diversity policy or ordinance revisions, and board effectiveness and operational needs. The committee may request reports from board and commission chairs, staff liaisons, or town administration as necessary to carry out this responsibility. In the current document, just to give some context, these things are loosely addressed. This sort of puts it in a section and clearly defines that we're responsible for it, that we'll follow through with it. And I just named that putting it in a new section, it just sort of codifies it and clears it up Whereas in the current document, it's implied through the charge and other things, but this is just more trying to make it more explicit and clear for anyone who would be looking at the SOPs.

I would, I would agree.

Counselor DeRethan-Brown is a go for that. Counselor Waterhouse. I'm okay with that. Okay. Sorry. A couple more friends. Section 5.2, which currently is entitled... ensure new member orientation and i'm just reporting that proposing that we add to it, the committee on committee show periodically review onboarding and training completion rates and may recommend additional training requirements or resources to the town council. Over time, where people have maybe requested, we wish we had more training or we wish onboarding was better or we wish somebody was paying attention to this. This is just kind of codifying in that section that we will see it as a part of our responsibility on the committee on committees to attend to this. And it won't be, well, who's, who was supposed to be doing it? Who was supposed to be attending to it? It will be clearly there. So council water house, I'll begin with you. Any concern with explicitly adding that to section 5.2 for ensuring new member orientation?

No, I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that as well.

I promise you, only two more. This is really about the recruitment section. The recruitment section. Thank you. Did not write that one down. I think it probably would go along with The adding it to the interview section, there's a 3.2 and then a recommended for appointment facilitation, how to consider it. This is language again, that's in there, but people have raised concern about this. I mean, it could also be a completely separate section, like a 5.3. Recruitment efforts should seek to encourage participation from residents, representing diverse backgrounds, experiences, neighborhoods, professions, age groups, and perspectives reflective of the Bloomfield community. I think, Councilor DePete and Brown, this sort of goes along with the request that you were making earlier, that we talk about adding to the DTC and the RTC reality. This language just talks about, yes, we take into consideration DTC and RTC, but also diverse backgrounds, experience, neighborhoods, so that basically our recruitment strategy is far more expansive in trying to cover some of the folks who may have historically not felt as if they fit perfectly within a DTC or an RTC reality. So I can't, I unfortunately don't know exactly where the section that talks about the DTC and the RTC and the policy, back to the policy. So those would be additions to the policy.

Can we also add it though to the SOPs? Yeah, I think it's important to make sure it's there. Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Yes, that's okay. So I had mentioned earlier that there was a section four and under section four, There was another line that invited us to consider recommendations and appointment facilitation. So to add that improvement section there, but keeping in mind what we've also talked about in relation to the expansive language around DTC and RTC. I just want to, again, so anybody hearing this, it is about doubling down on the support of the DTC and the RTC process, but I would describe this as augmenting that. so that we're expanding it to make sure that we're maximizing the number of people who can be involved. This is, oh, Council Waterhouse, did you have anything? I saw you light up on the screen. I just want to make sure I'm not missing your voice.

No. Okay, great. Can I just add to that too? I do know that per charter, we have to have a balance of Democrats and Republicans. But I also think it's extremely important that maybe Democrats in a minor party, right, based on how we're set up. So we have a lot of unaffiliates and independents that we don't want to shut out of the process, that we want them to be assured and aware that. Forgive me. You don't have to come through a DTC or an RTC. You can come straight to committee on committees. And I think it's, you know, the most qualified and all that that's going to go into the process. So I know some people feel like, oh, I'm shut out of the process. The door is open. Come on in.

I think that's in alignment with what the three of us are hoping to make this as expansive as possible. And then one other new addition, which I think might be 5.4, if we've added a 5.3, and it will be board and commission accountability. And this just states more clearly, the policy references it, but this kind of codifies it. Each board and commission shall submit an annual report. Report shall include attendance, accomplishments, challenges, vacancies, training completed, and any recommendations. These reports shall be reviewed by the committee on committees and forwarded to the town council. This again, just kind of wraps up that accountability section so that we're clear. We would be asking for these things from any boards and commissions. We would be making sure that those are tabulated and then. divided to town council. My thought around adding that is that it just continues to contribute to continuity of leadership. Folks could be able to look back and see what happened in the past, what attendance was like, what was going on, if there were challenges, and we kind of make sure that that information is there. I'm going to I'm going to, I see a raised hand from our town manager, but I just want to go quickly through councilor to beat them Brown and make sure council water house doesn't have any additions or concerns. And then I will attend to you to our town manager. So I'll start with you, a councilor water house, any concerns with adding a accountability section about the reports?

No, not that section.

No, that's good.

Totally in agreement with that section.

Okay. To our town manager. Manager Schwab.

Yes, good evening, Mr. Norwin and ladies. Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts as well. I wanted to just speak in terms of, I see that you had spoken about their ability to report their accomplishments. Did I hear that clearly?

Yeah, attendance, accomplishments, challenges, vacancies, training completed, and any recommendations they would have about moving forward.

Okay. Will they at any point be given guidance from the council or the committee or committee as to what the expectation is?

Yeah, our hope is to, once we are paying attention to that orientation program, the goal in that orientation program was to make sure we equip anyone who's joining those committees, including their chairs and their leadership, with an explanation for what these things mean and sort of what their responsibilities would be in participation in this accountability measure.

Okay, well, thank you. And my apologies if I missed that, if that was already covered. But thank you. That's all I had, sir.

I want to go one more round to, I'll start with you, Councilor Waterhouse, about any other things that we want to think about in relation to this SOP that haven't been named or brought up.

Nope, not at this time. Okay, perfect.

Councilor Beetham-Brown?

Nope, not at this time.

Okay. The only one that's still standing is the background checks. And I think, you know, Councilor Beetham-Brown, would you, it's section 4.2.

That's in the addendum? Oh, in the SOP.

It's actually in the SOP. So can you speak a little bit more about your concern with the background checks? And then I want to just offer Waterhouse and myself.

I don't really have a concern. I think it's something that we should be doing. However, we're not doing it across the board. Right. I don't believe. Well, I haven't heard that as a town councillor. Someone did a background check on me. And as the highest elected official board in the town, I don't believe it's done for any other boards, whether it's TPZ, Fair Rent, or anything. So I'm not saying that we should take it off the table completely. I am saying that maybe we should try to get through this process and look at some point in time to amend our SOP. Also, having conversations with other... boards like the DTC and the RTC, just to make sure that we're doing things even handedly. I think it's important that we do checks, especially in this day and age, but for people who are volunteering and who are excited to volunteer at this moment, until we have a more formalized, even process, I would ask that we just table it for now to get through what we need to get through and then reassess after.

Thank you for that. Councilor Waterhouse, any thoughts you have? And I want to recognize that I see the hand of our town manager. Councilor Waterhouse, any immediate thoughts about background checks?

No, I'm okay with tabling it for right now.

I will be outvoted with the two of you, but I will offer my personal opinion is I would like to have moved forward with it, and we can do that in the tabling, just simply because with the current process as it's set up, we would be establishing a new order of how we might be moving forward with people who serve on these board and commissions, including if the RTC or the DTC is making recommendations for any empty slots. whoever those recommendations are would automatically now fall under the new process of having those background checks be incorporated because we would be evaluating them. I think the deeper conversation then becomes, can we have a critical conversation about anyone who's serving, including those who have run for elected office, having similar expectations? So it's chicken or egg. I'm suggesting that we sort of establish it And then the process flows from it as opposed to waiting. Because if I were to understand a tabling, we would be then having a larger conversation about, well, how do we fix these other systems? And we have authority over this particular one. So I think we would be able to implement it and have it be standard of operation. And then I think the deeper conversation becomes, well, why wouldn't you do it? Not whether or not I'm going to.

And I, if you don't mind, I do understand that. I just believe that we have an opportunity to go back to other elected boards and say, hey guys. We're giving you the opportunity to say that we can do this together. However, please know that as of X, Y, and Z date, the commuter and committees will be expecting that this will be a part of our standard operating procedure. We also have to look into the cost of it because background checks cost. And we need to figure out that cost because if we have 48 boards and commissions, multiplied by how many people are applying for those boards and commissions, multiplied by the cost of a background check, I am almost positive that is in nobody's budget. So I think being able to table this gives us an opportunity to be able to do it and do it properly and not making it a burden on anyone. I honestly believe, like I'm going to state, everyone needs a background check. starting from council all the way down. But I think unless we have that as the marching orders for everyone, I think until we take the cost in consideration and find out where that money is coming from, it's going to be just a little bit difficult for us to say that this must happen in order for you to serve.

Thank you, Council Waterhouse. And then I want to go to town manager Schwab.

So I, um, I completely understand what you're saying. Um, starting it now and everything like that. But as soon as that has a point, the cost can be pricey. So the town would be footing that bill. I mean, I know doing several of them myself, they're anywhere between 30 and $75 per. So, I mean, how much are we going to be putting into this? I understand we should definitely do background checks because, you know, we don't want certain people doing certain things or whatnot, but we want above board people. So where, where's the money going to come from?

Thank you for that. That's a fair question. I will just put into the record there. I know there's an organization called Presidium. And I think if you buy bulk, because we would be doing these with over 47 plus, I think their rate is $10 a check, depending on the number. So I think some research is needed. Before we go to the town manager, I just want to clarify. We're using the language table, but actually in order to move forward with the SOP, we would be removing this for another time. Because it couldn't just take, I mean, it would be, because right now it's section 4.2 of the actual SOP.

So I don't mind us removing it right now. Because once again, we need to get these SOPs done so that we can get to the order of, but also being very mindful in the meeting notes and for this video that's going to live. that we should go back and address this and add it back in at some point in time. And some point in time soon.

We need to put a date on that.

I agree. I agree.

As we ruminate on the date, can I go to the town manager? Please.

As soon as possible. India, you give us a date.

Okay. Well, thank you, folks. I definitely appreciate the discussion as someone who's who's lived the value of security clearances. But it seems to me that your requirement for service, if I'm not mistaken, it just requires for someone to be registered and eligible to vote in our town, right?

No, the current, yes, but the current proposed standards of operation and procedures have in it in section 4.2 of unfavorable interview reviewed by, now will be the committee on committees, then the conducting of a facilitating a necessary background check would be required. So this particular SOP adds this as another layer of expectation.

And I get it, and I get it. I just wanted to make sure that I was on solid footing talking about what's required. If someone's eligible to vote, it seems like it'd be very subjective to then turn around and say that someone is not qualified to serve on a board. That's just how I view it. And that's not discounting the importance of knowing the ins and outs of someone's background. But if it's not impacting their ability to vote, then it could be very subjective. And I just want to be mindful of what could become a slippery slope. Someone may have a big challenge with a bankruptcy, and others may have other challenges, you name it, but none of them are criminal in nature. None of them impact the ability of someone to vote. So what are we really going to accomplish with a background check that an interview may not already tell you about somebody's willingness and competency to do the job? Because to me, if you can vote and you're eligible, the background check, what do we really need to know? that someone's credit score is below acceptable to do the job. It doesn't seem like that needs to be known. And we know there's no criminal history that's as adverse to their appointment. So I guess at the end of the day, what are we really trying to accomplish with a background check THAT THE PROCESS THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, AS THE COUNSELOR HAS STATED, ALLOWS FOR OUR HIGHEST ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR DECADES OR SINCE FOREVER, EVER, TO SERVE WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF SCRUTINY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE NOW. and i can tell you when i came in and there's a lot of firsts that happen under me right and right now i'm going through yet another one um i found out um in my second year that i need to be bonded as a town manager and uh this was not done before even though it was in the charter it was not practiced before so now myself building officials uh finance people tax people we all have to go through credit reports and background checks on top of what we did for employment here to serve in our capacity and so that we can be bonded. So I'm just throwing out some things that's on the full-time side of the house and just to give some thought that we really need it, I guess is my question.

So I just want to name why I appreciate the feedback. I think part of this is, personally, I'm going to name, there is no board or anything I'm serving on that has not required a background check. So I appreciate that in your lived experience, it may be different. But if the other organizations, nonprofits, other community organizations, I think invite anyone who's going to represent that organization, serve on behalf of that organization, to have at bare minimum a criminal background check, I think it's at least worthy of us exploring. The invitation of tabling is to suggest we don't have the exact answer now, but those who are elected to serve on this committee have the ability to do their own research, come back, talk about it, go back and forth. So I just want to name tabling allows air, but I think it's important to hear the voices over there. I want to call on India Rogers. Did you want to offer any feedback?

Yes, thank you, Counselor Goodwin. So initially when we put this together and we put the background checks and certification there and doing the addendum to the policy for specialized quasi-judicial appointments, I'm going to make a reference to ethics, for instance. So we had the thought of people may have litigation against the town. So will we want to put them on an ethics commission? So maybe background check, when we think about it, is more of a criminal credit thing. But to me, that would be something that would be a background check for that person. So maybe it's the different type of wording. Or maybe it should change the language a little bit. That's all I had.

Thank you for that. And I think we could... when we untable it, have a deeper conversation about what are the kind of things that should be considered. And what I hear you saying, Time Manager Swap, is maybe an invitation to think about a threshold of some kind, but I want us to be careful not to eliminate something that then may have other implications. Because the reality is in the re-establishment of an SOP, you have an opportunity to maybe invite some things that you did not have there. Okay, we're going to move to the next section, but I'm going to give Town Manager Schwab a final kind of word on this.

I'm sorry. And Ms. Rogers is absolutely correct because that was something that we brought up in terms of our concerns. I meant that to be a second part of what I was saying, but as you know, I get carried away sometimes. So thank you for bringing that up, Ms. Rogers, because that is a legitimate concern that I have where there can be information available to people who are engaged in adverse actions against the town, which is their right to do, but we can't let them be put in a position of knowledge as to our inner workings when they're suing us at the same time. So thank you for bringing that up, Ms. Rogers. You're welcome.

I'M GOING TO MOVE WELL WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL WATERHOUSE DEPUTY BROWN TO TABLE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT SECTION WELL REALLY WE'RE REMOVING SECTION 4.2 TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SOP AND I THINK WE WILL WITHOUT PUTTING AN EXACT DATE ON IT I'LL JUST SAY FOR THE MINUTES WE WILL REVISIT THIS AND THE ADDENDUM BECAUSE I THINK THEY BOTH CAN KIND OF BE MINISTERED TO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT IN HERE IS PROBABLY JUST FOR YOU KNOW FUNCTION OF BUSINESS WE ALSO MAY WANT TO CONSIDER maybe a commitment to an annual review of the SOPs, which also shows that we've paid attention to how this has impacted residents, how this has impacted the flow of business and daily operations. And that way it gives us an opportunity to add anything or remove things as we practice. So we don't have to formally put that there, but I'm just...

Okay.

I do think it should be important. I mean, if we're putting it together, I think we should put it together. And I do believe that's a great... suggestion that we should make sure that it's in the SOPs, that it is reviewed on an annual basis

And I think it's very appropriate if we were to formally do that, to add that to that accountability section. So it's not just accountability for our boards and commissions, but it's also accountability for the counselors who serve on this committee to be able to move forward. Okay. So the next thing on our agenda is to really think about discussion and roles and responsibilities. And this is more just to name that part of changing to the committee on committees Anything in addition that we're adding to the current SOPs, whether it be new sections or adding accountability structures, may have impact on what I would describe as workflow. And so I just want to publicly name that that's a reality, see if anything came up immediately. but to know that in the implementation of the SOPs, there may be unanticipated impacts that we don't discover until we're sort of walking through this. And so that may entertain then or call us to revise or revisit roles and responsibilities. The other historical reality is that some of the roles and responsibilities that are currently and ops and comms have some at other points been in the town clerk's office and other places. So I think we'll have to sort of flesh out for the functioning of current business as it exists, but also for effective effectiveness and efficiency. What is the best operational way to move forward? So that's, it's really just a, can we name that that has to be attended to, but I want to create space. If there are any immediate thoughts. I'm sort of beat them Brown.

There's a lot that we have to get through right now.

You need your mic on, ma'am. We can't hear you.

So sorry. Please forgive me. I agree with the fact that we do need to have this discussion on roles and responsibilities, whether it's operations and comms, whether it's the clerk's department, we have to have that larger conversation. But because right now I feel like we're behind the eight ball with all the people that have showed interest in serving. I believe that they've been in the waiting area long enough, and now we need to triage them so that they're no longer wary of being in the waiting area, that we have this discussion of roles and responsibilities. A little bit down the line, I know that we're going to recommend some special meetings just to clear the backlog, but I think it's extremely important to know where support is coming from, not overtaxing one area, and utilizing the tools that we have in our toolkit. So I would respectfully request that we have this larger discussion on roles and responsibilities tabled to maybe our first real, I don't want to say real meeting. What is it? Our first real established meeting in August.

Yeah, non-special meeting. Yeah. So formal meeting of the committee. Thank you.

When would that be in August? Sorry.

I'm going to jump to that in the next, the establishment of committee meeting schedule with some proposals, at least for us to come up with a couple of dates. Council Waterhouse, India Rogers.

I'm sorry. I just have something to say about what Councilor DeVita-Murray just mentioned. So internally, prior to committee and committees being established, the town clerk, myself, and Len Weissel, who's our recording secretary in my department, did establish a workflow. So we will send that to you all for your review. Thank you. And we're open to any suggestions or changes. Excellent.

Yeah. Councilor Waterhouse, did I make sure I didn't interrupt you?

Nope. Okay. I just, I'm concerned about the day I'm leaving. I'm going to be out of the country for a majority of August. Take us with you. We can meet on a beach. Thank you.

The first two dates to consider would be in July based on the schedule of other meetings. So we'd have some special meetings and then we'd be working towards establishment of a standing meeting. But OK, so what I'm hearing is that the three things that we're sort of going to move forward with talking about a later date would be the background checks and certification receiving the workflow. And, you know, and what I might propose is that one of the things that would be helpful is as we operationalize and start to get people through this, that current staff is paying attention to the workflow and then COMMUNICATING BACK TO US HERE ON THE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES ABOUT WHERE YOU SEE SNAGS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO UNILATERALLY, THE THREE OF US, OFFER FEEDBACK TO STAFF DIRECTLY ABOUT A SYSTEM THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE DEVISED THAT WOULD WORK GIVEN THAT WE'RE JUST SHIFTING THE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES. So can I offer this as a thought process? My thought would be, could we do a six month run of the current workflow? And then once we receive it, we'll take a look at it, but then revisit it as this committee in six months. Any concerns about giving it six months?

Sounds good.

Councilor Waterhouse, any concerns about that?

No, we can do six months.

Okay, great. All right, the next thing on the agenda would be the establishment of committee meetings. And as we know, because some committees are... already meeting. Some dates have already been taken up, including considering staff time. One proposal would be to have a couple of special meetings in July to begin to attend to this work. So it seems like based on the calendar and the other committees that are meeting, two proposals would be for our next meeting to be July 9th and then the next meeting to be July 16th. And I believe both of those would have to be special meetings of the committee on committees at 6 p.m. 6.30 to accommodate the other time. So I'll start with you, Councilor DeVita-Brown.

That'll be fine. The only thing that I would ask is, and through you, Mr. Chair, India would know better than we would of the committees that need to be reappointed and the committees that need to be established, i.e. ethics. So if we can get, if there's five, if we can break them down into... If there's 10.

There's literally all of them.

We can break them down. We can break them half and half.

Let me tell me how many you want per meeting. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Well, I think once we get the full.

We have that too. We were just waiting for this meeting to happen. We're going to give you all everything. Okay.

Great. Thank you. Okay. So, Counselor DeBreatham-Brown, you're saying the 9th and the 16th work for me.

The 16th, yes.

As well. Counselor Waterhouse, July 9th, July 16th at 630. Okay. uh yep those can work yep thursday my proposal might be that we walk through our july meetings um with special meetings with the hope of establishing um a standing meeting right now it seems like the day that is most available for have to have staff coverage and to be in conversation with the reality of the schedule of other comedians other committee meetings would be on the second thursday of each month reserving that 6 30 time so council waterhouse i know that that essentially means you would not be available for the august 13th meeting but do you have any concerns about the second thursday moving forward post the august situation um no the second thursday of the month should be fine yeah just i won't be here in august yeah

We're coming with you, though, so we'll still be able to meet. I don't know where we're going.

You're always welcome to call in. We'll make sure. But for right now, we would all be in agreement that special meetings would be July 9th and 16th at 6.30 p.m. with a hope that in August we would move towards standing meetings the second Thursday of every month at 6.30 p.m. One of the things that we are aware of as this particular committee is because of the backlog, we're going to have a lot of special meetings peppered through this. So this is really an attempt to deal with these particular, as much as we can in these July meetings, but the August meeting and everything kind of happening after that is really just going to be playing a catch-up game, being thoughtful about the number of residents and volunteers who've been waiting.

Good.

Okay. We are. India. Oh, India. Sorry.

I'm sorry to interrupt again. Just to make you aware, because of our 30-day rule for regular and special meetings to be established as a schedule to be sent to the town clerk's office, the meeting that you have on July 9th, we respectfully ask that you kind of put in standard format the dates moving forward for those second Thursdays so that when the 13th comes, it'll be a regular meeting.

That's all. Perfect. All right, we're going to move to committee member comments. She's moving, so I'll start with you.

Oh, are you ready?

Okay.

No, sorry. My neighbor's dog came running over to me. I'm glad that we are starting this, and I look forward to moving this all along.

Thank you.

What's up?

I am glad that we're reestablishing this and having a process in place to get our residents to participate, right? The goal is the more residents participate, the better government we have. different voices, different backgrounds, all with the same goal in mind, making this the best Bloomfield possible. So I'm very excited about it. I'm also going to ask, I know that there's hundreds of people that are waiting to be appointed. Please give us just a little bit more grace. We're going to try to get this done. as quickly and as efficiently as possible. If you're out there and you want to serve and you have not sent in your form of interest, please do so. We will definitely make sure that we keep a running log of people who want to serve for different boards and commissions, the more involved you are, the better community we have. So I'm very excited that we're reestablishing this and I'm very excited to get the process started and to get everyone seated. Please just give us just a little bit more grace and we will get it done. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll use my comments to just offer a Thanksgiving to Councilor Waterhouse and Councilor DeVithan-Brown. This is a new committee that's been reestablished again, which means that we have not been relieved of the responsibilities of the other committees that we already serve on. So I want to take this as a moment to just acknowledge the commitment that the three of us have to make sure that more residents are connected and involved and have an opportunity to serve because the three of us could have said, no, we already are on other committees. So I think to add something additional to the schedule in the midst of families, work responsibilities and our general counsel responsibilities and committees, I think I hope our residents can see that as a movement forward in the right direction about including other voices. I'm going to give my shout out to India Rogers again for taking on the heavy lifting of the SOPs and another Thanksgiving to the residents who sent in comments and feedback once that opportunity was made available. Mea culpa for the delay, but I hope we will be able to move forward expeditiously. Would someone like to make a motion to adjourn?

I'd like to make a motion that we adjourn. Liz, second.

Second, I can't unmute. All in favor, aye. Okay, with collective acclamation.