[Evangelista]: Please mute until Jim starts meeting. Thank you.
[Jim Lister]: Are we ready yet? Everybody here?
[Evangelista]: I'll do a roll call, Jim.
[Jim Lister]: OK. All right. Three brothers, are you here?
[Miguel]: Here.
[Jim Lister]: Dan Puccio, are you here? Here. Erin Genia, are you here? I'm here. Beth Fuller?
[Brothers]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Grace Caldara? Yes. Ken Mallon? Here. Kristen Scalise? Here. Mara Rotolo?
[Scalise]: Here.
[SPEAKER_06]: Leila Fleur. I am here.
[Jim Lister]: Lewin Tapa.
[Haberstroh]: Here.
[Jim Lister]: Maria Rocha. Maria. All right. Melissa Miguel.
[Miguel]: Present.
[Jim Lister]: Patrick McCabe. Did I, Patrick present? Thank you. Well, the Nato run Javino.
[Paul Donato Jr]: Yeah.
[Jim Lister]: Seth Hill. Yeah. Kathy Kay. Matthew have a straw.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Jim Lister]: Caitlin Shaughnessy. Caitlin. Janelle Garland-McKenzie.
[Evangelista]: Here.
[Jim Lister]: Josie DeFore.
[Evangelista]: Here.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you. And Jim Lister, I'm here also. So Maria Rocha is not here and Kaitlyn Charnas is not here. Did I miss anybody else?
[Evangelista]: Maria said she couldn't attend, I don't think. And usually Kaitlyn is late, but that's on a Tuesday, so I don't know.
[Jim Lister]: All right. All right, thank you. We'll get started. Has everybody had a chance to review the minutes of the last meeting? Are there any questions, changes? Or can I get a motion to accept the minutes of the last meeting? Motion to accept the minutes of the last meeting. Thank you. Can I get a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Jim Lister]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye All right, thank you. The first thing on the agenda was a little discussion about social media. We're not going to belay it, but I don't know if you all know that Hendrik has stepped aside. you know, when you send something out on social media, you might not intend it to be the way you send it, but once you push that send button and other people read it, you know, they might not take it the way you set it and it can cause problems. So to speed things up for tonight, not to lay us down because of that, he's decided he would step aside so we can continue on our work here. So that's all I want to say on that. I have a letter I have to read into record, a letter from the NAACP.
[LaFleur]: Point of order, Jim. Regarding, I guess, that first agenda item, I mean, is there a specific guideline around the use of social media in terms of what's appropriate or not appropriate or not really?
[Jim Lister]: Not really. I would say a basic guideline, you know, You can, people get on social media and make accusations. It's, you know, it caused a lot of problems and I don't know what to say. I mean, social media is, everybody knows it's.
[Haberstroh]: Yes. Um, so I have no idea about this and I'm curious about how, shouldn't we have discussed you asking for his resignation in our meeting?
[Jim Lister]: I don't think so. As the chair, I had that authority. We had an email discussion, him and I, so that we didn't have this discussion here on the floor. It's an open meeting, and I was brought, I had other members request executive session, and there's special guidelines to that, and we don't wanna tie this meeting up doing that all night.
[Haberstroh]: I don't wanna tie this meeting either, I had no idea that people were calling executive session or anything like that. So I just want to make sure that people understand that there was an executive session, which is the first time I've heard about this.
[Jim Lister]: There was no executive session. That would have been now tonight if we wanted to discuss this in the open.
[McCabe]: point of order. There's no specific authority just for the chair. Anybody on this committee could have requested a resignation from any other member. So it's all right. Thank you, sir. But nothing Jim did was out of line.
[LaFleur]: And I wasn't really questioning whether it was out of line, just that the limitations in the member. How do we know if we're in violation of a social media thing? Like, do we just get a message saying you need you should resign? So I don't do a lot of posting on social media, but I don't wanna cross a line, but I don't know where the line is.
[McCabe]: I know what you're saying, but- Point of clarification, Lee, just for the record, I wasn't referencing that you were questioning the authority. I was just referencing Matt's comment.
[LaFleur]: And I'm just pointing out that there seems to be a blurry line that none of us know what it is. Many of us didn't know it happened. And so, you know, we might all be in jeopardy of that, but we don't need it.
[Haberstroh]: Thank you. My question is Mr. Lister, it seemed like, did you ask other people on the committee about their opinions about Hendrick's actions on Facebook?
[Jim Lister]: No, I asked the city solicitor. And that was our option or else we could have had an open meeting tonight. All about this.
[Haberstroh]: Well, I don't want to be all about this, but I want some clarity because I have no clarity except for Hendricks.
[Jim Lister]: Well, you know what? Hendricks, Hendricks resigned and you can talk to him about why. Okay.
[LaFleur]: And now this piece in the patch that had some details and I did see that. Thank you.
[Jim Lister]: Lee, can you do me a favor tonight if hands get raised. Can you. Sorry, but sure. We work well together I'd seem like. All right.
[Kathleen Kay]: I do see Seth has his hand up.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. Sorry. That's okay. Thank you, Seth, would you like to speak.
[Hill]: Hendrick, he resigned this board and you as chair specifically didn't find specific fault with Hendrick.
[Jim Lister]: He was just asked to resign. Hendrick made accusations. Do you wanna go through this now? I mean, he resigned.
[Hill]: I think if yours were like accusations, maybe we will need to. He's already resigned. I don't think- Then I think that the word accusation might be too strong to use. That's correct.
[Jim Lister]: It could be, it's, you know, I told you, it's two different people's interpretation. Some people took offense to it.
[Hill]: I'm sure he didn't mean them to hurt their feelings, but- You as chair, asking someone to resign and then specifically using the word accusation in reference to the person that you have asked to resign,
[Jim Lister]: I'm sorry, this is out of order. He was asked to resign so we didn't get into this discussion and this taking us off point tonight and going in a different direction. He felt that he would resign so that this didn't happen. So that I'm not gonna go in this direction. He resigned so that we could move on with our work. I am not gonna keep discussing this.
[Caldera]: Point of order, this was on the agenda, so it is in fact in order.
[Hill]: And again, my point stands. I still have the floor. If you have used a word like accusation in characterizing Hendrick's actions, that is a specific characterization of those actions. And if we need to proceed in discussing whether or not Hendrik made accusations versus Hendrik did not make an accusation, then I think we will need to do that.
[Puccio]: Point of information, Hendrik resigned He took it upon himself to write a letter of resignation, whatever the issue is, or the meaning why he did it, or why he felt he should do it. He did it, I think we should respect that, and I think we should move on. There's a lot of work to do tonight to sit here and still talk about why he resigned, what he did, what he didn't do. Let's put it behind us.
[Haberstroh]: Dan, I 100% agree.
[Puccio]: 100% agree. If you agree, Seth, let's just move forward. Let's get this done. We have a lot of work to do. I'm sorry.
[McCabe]: I will not move forward. Seth, point of clarification. The chair rescinded the comment about accusations and simply said that we received a letter of resignation.
[Hill]: So that- If that is the case, then I apologize.
[McCabe]: Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. Okay.
[Hill]: Thank you very much. That was the only thing that I wanted.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay. Are you done?
[Caldera]: I am not done. I just wanted to take a minute to say that I'm really disappointed in how this has been handled, not only by members of this committee, but also members of our city governing bodies. It's an excusable that any governing body would allow members of the public to engage in targeted and bullying behavior towards a member of the committee, ultimately prompting the resignation. There is no reason for this to have escalated to this point with proper leadership and mediation. And this does not help us to bring the community together. We have all come here to do a job to the best of our ability and to do so objectively. The pettiness must stop and the distractions and outside interference must also stop. We still have a job to do and it's a tight timeline in which to do it. So let's continue to move forward to do the job that was designated to us by the school committee. And I implore the rest of my fellow committee members to do so with mutual respect, integrity, and good faith. In doing so, we can set an example for the rest of the community and begin to heal the wounds of this divisiveness.
[Evangelista]: If those remarks to me, please. Thank you.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you. Okay. Do I see any other hands up? No, that's it. Okay. All right. I have a letter from the NAACP to the mayor. I'd like to read, read into the record. Dear members of the Medford School Committee, Mayor Brianna Longo-Cohn, Paul Russo, Melanie P. McLaughlin, Jenny Graham, Mia Quinn-Mastone, Paulette Van der Kloot, and Kathy Kreatz. The Education Committee of the Mystic Valley NAACP would like to express its appreciation for the June 2020 decision of the Medford School Committee to erase and replace the name of Columbus from the Columbus School. The education committee agrees the Columbus cruel barbaric treatment of indigenous people disqualifies Columbus from being honored in this way. We applaud the democratic search process that has been established to find a more appropriate name for the school. Once called the Mystic School in honor of the Mystic tribe who inhabited Medford before the colonial period. The education committee also lodged the school committee for the unanimous passage of the resolution, eliminating out of school suspensions. For years, this destructive policy has disproportionately victimized black children and other children of color and special needs children. Medford in-school alternatives and mandatory education is positive and walk of evidence of progress in the right direction. In addition, we understand that there is a commitment to recruit and maintain black, indigenous, and other POC who will more accurately reflect the increasingly diverse Medford community as administrators and teachers. And the school staff have received anti-racist trainings. The success of these initiatives will improve educational quality. While the reevaluation of the clothing code has taken a backseat to the COVID-19 crisis, we trust that the Medford School Committee will, when possible, review and revise the clothing code to avoid the discrimination black students and students of color identified at the Duggar Park rally last summer. Sincerely, Mystic Valley NAACP Education Committee. Eileen Lerner, Regina Keynes, Wendy Cliggett, Pearl Morrison, Vincent Dixon, Virga Purette, Susan Harad, Jillian Harvey, and Greg Botless. Okay, let that be read into the record. Next, I'd like to go to the agenda.
[Kathleen Kay]: Jim, point of information, I just wanted you to know that Kelly Shaughnessy showed up.
[Jim Lister]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_06]: Caitlin.
[Kathleen Kay]: Okay, I'm sorry.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, the next is a resolution by Patrick McCabe. And then there's a resolution by Grace also. I don't know if the two intertwine with each other, but I'll read the first one. Motion that the committee reduce the list of 18 nominees by starting with the lowest ranked name or names according to the rubric scoring and asking the committee if anyone would include said name in their top three to be submitted to the school committee for consideration. If no one on the committee would include said name in their top three, said name is stricken from the list. After going through this process, each committee member shall have no more than three minutes to discuss which nominee or nominees they think should be sent forward to the school committee. After each committee member presents, each committee member shall vote for one nominee. If a nominee receives 12 votes, that nominee shall be one of the committee's three recommendations to the school committee. If no nominee receives 12 votes on the first ballot, the bottom vote getters will be stricken and the committee will vote again. This process will continue until a nominee receives 12 votes. After selecting one nominee to advance, all nominees will be placed back into the pool and the committee shall repeat the process to select the second nominee and repeat a third time to select the third nominee. That's offered by Patrick McKay.
[Evangelista]: Jim, also part of Grace's resolution, I don't know, I think discussed with the mayor that she was gonna extend, she was gonna mention at the school committee to extend.
[Unidentified]: Correct, yes, extend the timeline.
[Evangelista]: Yeah, I'm not sure all of Grace's resolution might be necessary now because you already discussed part of it with the mayor, but you can address that.
[Jim Lister]: All right, I'll read Grace's also, and then we'll go back and talk about it.
[McCabe]: There's a motion on the table, Mr. Chair.
[Jim Lister]: Do we have a second on that? Does anyone second that? Or would you like me to read the next? I second it. OK. Any discussion on that? Any questions? I see Laura's hand.
[Rotolo]: Thank you. So I have a point of clarification on the motion offered by Patrick McCabe. So when we are starting with the lowest ranked name, I just want to clarify that we are based. Sorry, Laura, I can barely hear you. Yeah. All right. How's that? Is that better?
[Evangelista]: Yeah, better.
[Rotolo]: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify when we're talking about the lowest ranked numbers that we're using the document that Susan Weiss put together that adds all of the numbers we came up with on the rubric and creates an average. Is that the model that we're using in order to start? Great. And so in terms of that, I've noticed that there are a few problems with that. So I do want to thank Susan Weiss for putting all that together with all the math she had to do. But there are a few problems with the rubric. I don't think it's ready. The first one is that some scores are missing. I noticed that about half of my scores are just missing. And I noticed that other people had a lot of blanks on there as well. So maybe some of them didn't transfer over. Secondly, I think the way that we scored, some people were using zero as their lowest number. I was using a one as my lowest number. I was looking at the rubric, which when I looked at it, I read it as saying that the options were a one, two, three, or four for each quadrant. And so my lowest number was a one. meaning that I guess it was a four, right, because there were four quadrants for each person. So I think the numbers are going to be a little bit off because we weren't all sort of grading them in the same way because some people are using zero as the lowest and others were using one as the lowest. And also, I just wanted to see how much if we could have a little bit more time. I know I didn't get through all of the public comments. I went through about 1,000 something, but I didn't get to read the ones that were handed in on paper and the ones that came in later today I did not get to read. So I'd like to have some time to read those before we finish up that.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you.
[Rotolo]: So that was a lot. I'm sorry, those were three different points.
[Paul Donato Jr]: Yeah.
[Evangelista]: If I may, Jim, I don't mean to cut you off, but You have to, the mayor is asking for an extension, but this committee has to be prepared with the top three names by the June 7th school committee meeting. So, and we have a number of budget hearings in between. So I'm not, I'm just hoping we can get a lot done tonight because I don't know if you'll get another extension. That's what I'm trying to say. So I'm just hoping we can get through as much as we can. Thank you.
[Jim Lister]: Grace, I don't know that you have the, on the score sheet, I don't know that you have the latest one. There was a couple there, I think. Because the one I pulled, latest one had, everybody had scores across the board. I know that, I think some people said there was a couple of scores that didn't match what they had put. Maybe that was just put in there by error, but.
[Evangelista]: Laura was right. The lowest number should have been one, not zero.
[Jim Lister]: Well, on that, You know what, I had that on my thing here and I looked at that. It doesn't specifically say the lowest number had to be one. It just said a potential for a four or three. It didn't say number had to be a one. So I mean, some people felt zero was appropriate as long as they scored everybody on their same theory, then all their scores should be.
[Caldera]: A point of information, rubrics don't have unstated scores. They're there to fully specify what the score is. So if it wasn't working, then everyone, the lowest score total should have been a four because the only option to score would have been a one. That's how rubrics work.
[Jim Lister]: I wish we had gone over that in the beginning then.
[SPEAKER_06]: I see Melissa's hand.
[Jim Lister]: Melissa, would you like to speak?
[Miguel]: Yes, please. A point of information building off of Laura's comment of some issues with the sheet. I have had zero access all day to the Google Drive, so I have not been able to check my rankings, and I have not been able to look at any of the community input today. So like Laura, I do not feel prepared today to speak on behalf of any of the top 18 names because I have not had access to any of the information today. I did email Susan. She did say she fixed the situation and I've sent her screenshots that it still says my access is denied.
[Puccio]: Same here, Jim. I had the same issue. Susan was nice enough to send me a PDF of two of the the lists, but I was not able to see any of the public, the public, you know, choices, so. Okay.
[Jim Lister]: We have a motion on the floor. I mean, Patrick, would you like to withdraw your motion? I don't know if that we could, oh, we'll have to go through this.
[McCabe]: No, I don't. I don't. I'm not withdrawing the motion. To the point of the rubric, the rubric's inconsequential at this point. If we went alphabetical, we could go alphabetical. I just said start at the bottom because I thought that the process would be quicker because less people would be likely to say that someone on the bottom of the list was one of their top three choices. So I don't think that the rubric has any standing at this point. It's one of the things that we take into consideration when we're forming our recommendation, but it's not the exclusive one. So I do not withdraw.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, any more discussion? Go ahead.
[Miguel]: So we're gonna be working off an incorrect, just a point of clarification, we're gonna be working off an incorrect rubric tonight.
[McCabe]: No, like I said, I could be open to amending the motion so that we start alphabetically. The rubric is just used as a guide.
[Miguel]: So what did we do it for?
[McCabe]: As a guide.
[Miguel]: We spent a lot of time on that. And I have no access to any of the spreadsheet that contains the public input. And I would like to be able to have that information in front of me when we have this discussion.
[McCabe]: We've noticed, we've had notice, and there's a meeting here tonight to move forward. We shouldn't delay this process any further.
[Miguel]: So you, point of information, you are- Through the chair, please. Through the chair, point of information, you are censoring then the information that I am being provided to make decisions with tonight, is that what I'm hearing? So I don't have access to the information, so that means that that's okay and we can move on?
[Puccio]: I didn't have access either, Jim. And I'm trying to understand if there was, was there anyone else that didn't have access? Or is it just random that two of us didn't have access?
[Paul Donato Jr]: I also didn't have access through the chair and she did fix it though.
[Kathleen Kay]: Well, through the chair, it came quite late and I haven't had time to read all of them either, seeing as I was at work all day.
[Evangelista]: Guys, we're all doing the best we can. You guys are giving us time and Susie and I are given time too, but there's a balancing act here and you guys are on a time limit. That's the other problem. So I just want you to keep that in mind, that's all. And it's not from me, it's from the school committee. So I just want you to all try to keep that, you know. Um, for those of you who get to discuss, um, you still have a quorum. So you could still discuss without some of you discussing, um, because the meeting, you know, has been called to order.
[Jim Lister]: Um, and basically is there a way to bring that sheet up on the screen?
[Evangelista]: I can't, but I did double check with Susie. So I'll see if she can do that. Thanks.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you.
[Kathleen Kay]: There are lots of hands up, Jim. Melissa has been up for a while, and so has Ron.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. Ron, you want to go?
[Giovino]: I yield to Melissa just to continue her thought, and then I can speak.
[Miguel]: All right. Thank you.
[Jim Lister]: Melissa.
[Miguel]: Thank you, Ron. Through the chair, I'd like to move to the table to resolve this access issue to make sure that we all have fair and equitable access to the information that we are being asked to review. to choose three names to put forward to the school committee.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, Ron, you wanna speak?
[Giovino]: Yeah, on Patrick's motion, I just wanna be clear that everybody understands what we voted for back the beginning of the month. The decision would be made by consensus weighing the submissions average scores average values of the rubric dimension public input and research. So, you know, I think the rubric has been invaluable. I understand the delays and if you want to delay that, that's fine. But I just want to remind everybody that we're not, this is not a rubric. The highest scoring rubric wins the top three. Patrick's proposal, the way I understand it is, he's just listing off the 18. If that's one of your top three, then it stays in place. If nobody wants them in the top three, we can eliminate some and hopefully that would pare down the list. I think that was the only purpose of Patrick's resolution, but just a reminder what we voted for at the beginning of May. Thanks.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you.
[Puccio]: Jim, just a quick point of clarification. I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to delay this process, I would like to, you know, move as quickly as we can, as a matter of fact, but I have not been able to see some of this documentation. And I, you know, I got a bunch of emails back and forth with Sue, we tried to work it out. And, you know, and I feel horrible for her and Lisa, because I know what they're putting into this, and I know it's difficult for them. And frankly, it's not fair. It's not fair to them either. But we all got to work through this together. And I just want to clarify, I'm not trying to hold this up in any way.
[Jim Lister]: I hear you.
[Puccio]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_06]: I see Ken and Seth. Ken, would you like to speak?
[Mallon]: I would. I don't believe that Patrick's resolution says that we have to do this tonight. I think that we can agree to the methodology that he puts forward. And once people have had time to review the information and resolve their access issues, we could then apply his resolution. That sounds like a friendly amendment.
[Jim Lister]: You all right with that, Patrick?
[McCabe]: I'd like to hear the opinion. I mean, I agree with Ken's assessment that there is no timeline attached to that methodology. My preference would be to move forward tonight. But if the committee thinks differently, there can be two separate motions, as Ken said.
[Hill]: I'm just, I'm speaking to, I guess, Ron's original motion, which I'd like to offer a friendly amendment to move to an alphabetical instead of the ranked as Patrick mentioned, just kind of making that formal.
[Jim Lister]: I got a couple of different things going on here. We're talking about waiting. and letting the rest of the committee get their information and then putting Patrick's.
[Hill]: Okay, so do we need to vote for the two thirds for tabling it then?
[McCabe]: Point of clarification, the motion that I put forward does not have a timeline on it as Ken stated. So we can vote on this motion as far as our process without saying that we're gonna move forward with that process tonight.
[Hill]: Okay. I would also be in favor of moving forward with it tonight. I'm not sure if we want to, I'm fine with.
[McCabe]: But to Seth's friendly amendment, I would be in favor of removing the rubric as the method for striking names and just go alphabetical or reverse alphabetical or whatever order folks want to go in. It's inconsequential to the process.
[Jim Lister]: I think we still, other people want to wait and review the information.
[McCabe]: Correct, Mr. Chair, I'm saying that agreeing to the process and executing the process are two different things. So we could agree to the process.
[Jim Lister]: Let's put it in there, we're gonna agree to it, but not execute it tonight. Is that fair to say?
[McCabe]: I'd rather treat them as two separate motions, make it cleaner.
[Giovino]: Yes, please. Point of information, if I could just suggest, let's just vote on Patrick's so we know what the process is going to be. Then we're going to, uh, Dr. Grace's, uh, resolution talks about timeline. So it seems like it's appropriate that we discuss that under her resolution.
[LaFleur]: Very good. I don't know if they want to speak to the motion on the floor. I see Laura, Seth, your hand is still up. Melissa, your hand is still up too. Well, breathe it.
[Jim Lister]: All right, just Laura. Laura? I'm sorry, Bree, I didn't... I just see Laura's. Okay.
[Rotolo]: Just very quickly to add on my agreement that on Patrick's motion, I think it's a really good way of moving forward. It doesn't have to be tonight if we don't feel comfortable with that, but I would like to move on that, vote on that motion as quickly as possible so that we do have a methodology for moving forward.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, thank you. And did Brie, I'm sorry, did Brie have something to say and I didn't?
[Brothers]: I did, yeah. I was just curious slash wondering, folks who didn't have access issues, Susie and Lisa, maybe just Susie in this case, what they did send over to us was read only, view only. Is it not possible that one of the committee members could just share the screen and then everyone is looking at the same alphabetical order or cumulative score or whatever we actually decide on? Like we can screen share. I'm just asking why.
[Giovino]: Point of information? I think we run the risk of open meeting, Laura, if we select the input that came in over the last two days and not to the 1,100 other inputs for the public to see. So we just need to make a decision whether, you know, I just don't think we're following the rules if we put one 10th of the inputs up for the public review and not everybody's.
[Brothers]: Sorry, I meant the 18 names. I wasn't suggesting the public input.
[Jim Lister]: Well, they were asking about the public input also. So, okay.
[Giovino]: I apologize.
[Jim Lister]: Why don't we vote the motion? Then we'll talk about Grace's motion and we'll agree we're not gonna be reducing this list tonight because people on this committee have not had access to all the information.
[McCabe]: We haven't agreed yet, Jim, but I think that that's probably how it's gonna go in the next motion. This motion says nothing about doing this tonight.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. All right. I have a first and a second, I'll do a call a roll call. So let me repeat what we're, can you Patrick, what are we voting for? You want to repeat it? So I can, before I call the roll call? Sure. You got it there or you want me to read it?
[McCabe]: No, I have it here. I just want, I guess I'll accept Seth's friendly amendment and I'll make that on the fly here. So motion that the committee reduce the list of 18 nominees by starting alphabetically and asking the committee if anyone would include said name in their top three to be submitted to the school committee for consideration. No one on the committee would include said name in their top three, said name is stricken from the list. After going through this process, each committee member shall have no more than three minutes to discuss which nominee or nominees they think should be sent forward to the school committee. After each committee member presents, each committee member shall vote for one nominee. If a nominee receives 12 votes, that nominee is one of the three recommendations of the school committee. If no nominee receives 12 votes in the first ballot, the bottom vote getter or getters will be sitting and the committee will vote again. This process will continue until a nominee receives 12 votes. After selecting one nominee to advance, all nominees will be placed back into the pool and the committee shall repeat the same process to select the second nominee and repeat a third time to select the third nominee.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, thank you. So I'll call a roll call. A yes is to accept this. Three brothers?
[Evangelista]: Yes. Melissa has a hand up.
[McCabe]: Out of order, the vote's been called.
[Miguel]: I was raising my hand before they started.
[Jim Lister]: Go ahead, Melissa. Sorry.
[Miguel]: Point of clarification through the chair. Can you please explain to me the significance of the number 12?
[Jim Lister]: 12 is the majority of this board.
[Miguel]: Thank you.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, back to the roll call. Dan Puccio? No. Erin Genia? Erin? Yes. Beth Fuller?
[Brothers]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Grace Caldera? Yes. Ken Mallon?
[Mallon]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Kristen Scalise? Yes. Laura Rotolo?
[Rotolo]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Leila Fleur?
[LaFleur]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Lewin-Tapa?
[Mallon]: No.
[Jim Lister]: Melissa Miguel?
[Miguel]: No.
[Jim Lister]: Patrick McCabe? Yes. Paul Donato?
[Paul Donato Jr]: No.
[Jim Lister]: Ron Giovino?
[Giovino]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Seth Hill? Kathy Kaye? Yes. Matt Habistro? Yes. Kaitlyn Shaughnessy? Yeah, Kaitlyn, sorry. Kaitlyn?
[Caldera]: She's giving a thumbs up. She's giving a thumbs up.
[Jim Lister]: OK, yes. Janelle Gollin-McKenzie?
[Rocha]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Josie Dufour? Yes. Okay, and I vote yes also. So that's five noes, four noes, five noes. The rest are yes. 17 yes. So it passes. So now we'll go to the next.
[McCabe]: point of order, Mr. Chair. I think it's 16. Yes, I think we have one absent. Okay.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, 16. All right. Thank you. All right. Resolution for time change. I'm sorry, the first one is discussion for milestone. Discussion timeline for remaining advisory committee milestones offered by Grace. Would we like to discuss the remaining? Let me read the whole thing here, the resolution for time change.
[Caldera]: I think they're two separate things, but they do in fact kind of go together, figuring out what timeline, what we need to do in the timeline. And then we, as a committee in our charter, if we need more time, we have to actually vote on it to send that request to the school committee. So I wrote that up too.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. Resolution for the time, be it so resolved that the advisory committee recommends a timeline change to the school committee. The advisory committee recommends delaying the presentation of its recommendations for the new name or names of the Columbus Elementary School to a date of the school committee's choosing anytime after June 4th, 2021. Be it further resolved that the chair of his designee provide the following update at the May 24th school committee meeting. The Columbus elementary school renaming advisory committee has met three times since formation on April 26 2021 and has completed several key milestones outlined now a chart specifically establishing criteria to weigh the relative strength of submissions. that includes factors such as potential for the name to bring the community together, the ability for the name to stand as a role model for Medford students, and the name as a representation of Medford's community's proud history. 21 yay, one nay, one absent. Number two, the advisory committee has narrowed the field of names under consideration down to 18. Number three, issuing one public input survey to solicit feedback on the options we are considering as a committee, 22 yay, zero nay, one absent. Additionally, the advisory committee has finished collecting feedback from the public input survey and is making every effort to complete the vetting process and narrowing the field up to three names in a timely fashion. The advisory committee has made good progress since our formation four weeks ago. We require additional time to deliberate before the field is narrowed up to three names, preferably by consensus. The advisory committee has approved this update by majority and hereby recommends to change the timeline for selection. The advisory committee expects to complete its work no later than June 4th, 2021. and is prepared to provide its recommendation at a subsequent meeting of the school committee choosing. We respectfully submit this request for your approval in the event the school committee declines to approve this request. The advisory committee must regretfully decline to recommend any names as we have not narrowed the field down to three by the majority vote.
[Evangelista]: Okay, so Jim, I think part of that's been taken care of just by virtue of the mayor is gonna be bringing it up on Monday at the school committee meeting to request.
[Caldera]: We actually have to vote on this.
[Giovino]: I second the motion.
[Caldera]: We can't, they won't like just given the charter that we were given, it says that us as a committee, we need to vote on allowing the extension before it can be brought forth to the school committee. So, I mean, I think it's great that they have heads up, but we formally need to do this vote in order to get that extension, which is why I made this resolution and I drafted language for what we can do to update it. We can amend the language if need be, but I just wanted to have something ready for us to have to do in compliance with our charter.
[Jim Lister]: All right, the motion has been seconded. Is there any more discussion? Ron, do I see your hand?
[Giovino]: Yes, sir. I have a couple of comments to make. First of all, you know, this committee is being characterized as, you know, let's rush to the goal line here. I'm looking at the calendar based on the fact that some people still need data. So today is May 21st, May 20th. You need at least 48 hours before you can call the next meeting. So that brings us to the 22nd or more than likely next week. Then the vote is taken on the 24th, and it's not gonna be a five minute vote. After that, we have presentations to prepare. So if we think that June 4th, and I make this comment, this decision to rename the school was done in June of 2020. And now we're not allowed that the charter that we received said we have until July 31 2021 to present the fact that we're being rushed to June 7, I think is inappropriate, it has a chance to force everybody to rush through this and I think we're looking at. the 14th, you know, a little bit more extension. I understand the mayor has, you know, we've got a goal here, but the original charge was July 31st, and I'm looking at the calendar with this new lack of data we've just extended, and we're going to be rushing to get a quality presentation done, and I for one think that we need to appeal for a longer date. And my other comment is, I'm not so sure that all this work, I appreciate Dr. Grace's negotiating skills for sure, but I don't want to dump this data that we have because we're not getting our way. There's got to be something, you know, to say we're not going to submit a name, I think we can work it so that we come up with a, you know, a non-threatening way of saying, hey guys, you gotta work with us. Give us the 14th, the 17th, whatever it is. But to say, I'm not gonna support the, let's dump all this data and we're not gonna do anything if we don't get our way. So those are my comments, thanks.
[Evangelista]: Okay, but July 31st is the absolute last day. I don't think that the school committee intended for the committee to meet or discuss until July 31st. because at that point, the school committee said that they would take it and run with it. So I feel that initially, I guess the committee was supposed to present at the meeting on the 24th. So I guess they're expecting on the seventh. And then I don't know if we have one or two meetings left.
[Giovino]: Just point of information. I appreciate what you're saying, Lisa, I really do. Article 14 of the resolution from the school committee said if a majority of the advisory committee votes to recommend a timeline change to the school committee, they may do so. At that time, the school committee will vote to approve or decline this recommendation. So they certainly have every right. Timeline changes shall not exceed a final date of July 31st. I honestly, we've waited since June of 2020. I don't understand what happens between June 4th and July 31st. that this can't be delayed.
[Caldera]: So if I can speak on the timeline presented, it was to give us some extended time since we were and are supposed to give them something by the 24th. And very clearly, given the fact that people seem to be having issues with getting the drive, getting into the drive and seeing things, we need some sort of extension. The dates that were picked were to extend it out a couple of weeks in order to make that seem like a more reasonable request for the school committee as they are trying to, you know, get it done. And also it allows us to have another, like we would have another option to then submit another request to extend it out, right? This doesn't have to be the end all be all of this timeline. It's just a starting point to get us there that seems like it would be reasonable that the school committee might be amenable to and give us that extension. I think it's a rather bold and tough call to try and get that extension all the way through July. But if we can do this in little increments and say that we are making progress and show that we are making progress through this, they may be more likely to do so. I am open to, I know you did, there was a statement made about the language at the bottom saying, you know, they are opposed to the extension that we would then just decline to recommend any names, we can talk about maybe other options to put there if that is something or point of contention to this that may be more amenable to other people that we can vote on to add for takeaway to this resolution.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you. All right, I see a lot of hands raised. Kristen Scalise, would you like to speak?
[Scalise]: Yeah, I was just wondering, I agree that we need an extension, but I didn't know what the timeline would be for, or if we have any idea of what the timeline would be to fix these tech errors, because I am uncomfortable naming a date that's sooner rather than later when there are members of the committee who can't access the data. I don't think that's okay. This data has been, there's so much of it, there's so much to get through. And I have been treating it very seriously and reading literally everything. And everybody on this committee has that right and the duty to do that. know if it's possible to get clarification from anyone in the, you know, the tech support arena, but I think before I could pick a date or vote on a date, I don't get to pick, everybody needs to have access. I mean, that's just- I just reset the link to everybody.
[Evangelista]: So if you can't open it, then you need to let Susie know in the morning. See, Susie gave everyone till five o'clock today to get to her. And so that was the problem because she did give everyone a five o'clock. If you're having a problem, let her know. So no, she didn't get any of the people that have said that they've had a problem. So now I just resent the link. So if you cannot access, you need to let her know ASAP in the morning, okay? Because worst case, you might even have to pick them up, because she has Xeroxed a number of them just for the file. So if that becomes the worst case, well, that might be the answer. I know people don't like paper today, but I'm just saying, if in fact you really can't open it for whatever purpose, you know, we may have to get a packet to you.
[Scalise]: And I appreciate how much work you guys are doing. I just want to say that again.
[Evangelista]: If you just let us know as soon as possible, because if we do have to drop it off, we'd rather do it earlier tomorrow than, you know, later in the day. Okay. Just let us know. Thank you.
[Jim Lister]: I think that it's something that can be resolved pretty quick. I'm sure they can take care of it tomorrow. Let me see. Grace, would you like to speak? Do you have your hand up?
[Caldera]: No, sorry. I just forgot to put it down. OK.
[Jim Lister]: Seth, do you still have your hand up?
[Hill]: I do. Thank you. So a few things. I think it is important to consider the spirit of the original charter of the committee. And yes, while we do have an ability to push it out as far as a drop dead date of July 31st, the rest of the charter a few days. As I stated on our first meeting, one of the primary reasons for me to join this group is my daughter, who's a fifth grader. And I still love to have a new name by the time that she's done with school. That would be an important milestone for me. And I think that it would be something that the advisory committee should work towards. I think that I also wanted to make sure that because of what we voted on last week, we did have a time delineated public feedback uh, new, uh, responses coming in. Um, and I just, I don't know whether or not that's the case. I don't know how it was set up. Um, but if it wasn't set up that way, we do need to, uh, to shut that off. Um, uh, not out of disrespect to anyone, but just because it was three o'clock today.
[Evangelista]: That was it.
[Jim Lister]: That's it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Patrick. Would you like to speak?
[McCabe]: Patrick? Trying to unmute. Thank you. Yeah, I think, you know, there's two recommendations. I think one is the potential for us just to have paper copies for people who are having technology problems and then the other uh, recommendation is that perhaps we meet two times next week. Uh, we, we, you know, we delayed this meeting till tonight because we wanted to have the public input. And if we're not considering the public input tonight, we could have met, you know, earlier in the week. So, um, yeah, so I, I think we should meet probably two days next week to meet our, you know, to meet our deadline.
[Jim Lister]: Well, this motion is to request to extend the deadline. Correct. Motion on the floor is to ask for another one.
[McCabe]: Correct, but I'm just saying we should meet twice. I think the deadline that I'm talking about is the new deadline that's been offered up here, right? So the new deadline that Grace offered, people are saying that it's difficult to even meet that deadline.
[Jim Lister]: Well, I think what Grace said was that if we get to that and we still aren't ready, we could ask for another extension. but I think that we can vote on her resolution as it is with that date in it. And then hopefully we can meet that date. If not, we'll request another extension, but I think we can move ahead with what she's put forward. Okay, do you have anything else on that?
[McCabe]: Okay, that's it. I agree with you. It's the motion that she's talking about. What I'm saying is there's nothing that says we can only meet one day a week. Right.
[SPEAKER_06]: I see Maria and then Ryan, Jim. Okay, Maria.
[Rocha]: I'd like to reiterate some of the things that have already been said. We very obviously need an extension. There's no debate about that. I think that Grace's or Dr. Caldera's resolution is a great middle ground in the sense that yes, if we work hard, meet multiple times next week in order to meet that, then we might even be able to meet that deadline. But if not, then it's perfectly reasonable to ask for another extension. But if we're already stepping into this with the idea of, oh, July 31st, then that just, to me, feels like stalling, feels like pushing this way beyond what it needs to be. And yes, this is a serious decision that requires serious deliberation, but This is also not something that should be taking months upon months upon months. So I definitely agree. Yes, we should be asking for this extension. And we should not be going into this with the idea of automatically getting another one. just simply having that as an option open in case we're not able to, in good faith, doing the work necessary, reach our conclusion by that deadline.
[Jim Lister]: Correct. Thank you. Ron, would you like to speak?
[Giovino]: Yeah, I have a couple of points. First of all, it's easy to download that file if the admin at the school could download it and send it to everybody. Sounds like an easy solution. My comment had nothing to do with July 31st. I was reading from the resolution that we received from the school committee. I also would ask Dr. Grace, specifically, it says choosing any time after June 4th. Is it possible that we can hone in on an exact date would you be amenable to?
[Caldera]: Possibly. I mean, I think it has to, it would have to coincide with what the school committee has scheduled. Of course. So, I mean, I don't know if anybody has, can pull up a calendar. Hold on.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Caldera]: Earlier. I think there's one, maybe. The seventh. There's one on the seventh and another one maybe on the 14th. So yeah, the fourth was picked because the next one's on the This happened, but they may have another one, I think the following week. I don't know if Lisa has any more details on that.
[Evangelista]: We might have one on the 14th and then we might have another one regarding the budget. So that's something that hasn't really been etched in stone as yet. Budget process could go up until June 3rd, depending on state, federal.
[Giovino]: So I just back to my anticipated schedule, remembering that every open meeting we have to give 48 hours notice to the public. So it's not like we're gonna be Tuesday and then Wednesday, I don't think. But if we're looking at everybody gathering the data and assuming they'll have it tomorrow, we could have a meeting, I'm okay with that. I just think we're underestimating the length of the vote. which we haven't really gotten close to doing yet. But I do believe that Dr. Grace's next resolution is something we can work on tonight and hopefully we'll do. But how is that, those presentations and what's the schedule? And ask Seth, what date is he talking about when he says he would like to get it done by? I don't know what date the school ends.
[Evangelista]: School ends June 18th, last day of school.
[Giovino]: June 18th?
[Evangelista]: June 18th is the last day of school.
[Kathleen Kay]: Yes, June 18th.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, anybody else with their hand up? I see two hands. Are they still up? Patrick, you got something else to say? Erin, would you like to say something?
[Genia]: Yes. I would like to follow up on Grace, your point about the Last part of your resolution. In the event that the school committee declines to approve this request, the advisory committee must regretfully decline to recommend any names as we have not narrowed the field down to three by majority vote. So I'm wondering what you might put instead of that, what you're referring to, and what your reasoning is behind this part of the resolution?
[Caldera]: Sure. So the school committee said they wanted up to three names or else if we don't give it to them, they'll just pick names. And so I have no other alternatives in mind. which is why it's stated as is, because if we haven't narrowed it down to three names and they decline, then I'm not entirely sure what we can give them other than maybe give them what we have already compiled. But I don't... I don't know, hence the way it's worded as is, but if anybody has other great ideas on what would be a good substitute, I'm open to hearing them and talking through them and figuring something out that would work.
[Genia]: Could we just strike that part of it? I mean, it just seems like if we've done all of this work and then if they don't approve that, then we'll just all of the work we've done will not go towards.
[Caldera]: I mean, yeah, we can remove it. If they say no, they say no, and I think it's out of our hands. I don't really know what happens if they say no, but yeah.
[Giovino]: Okay, thank you. I just have one quick suggestion for Dr. Grace. I agree with you 100%, but I would suggest that we put in there that we would have to reevaluate our options up to and including not submitting any names. That gives us a little bit of an opening, not necessarily a strong threat, but it does let them know that we're mean business. And I am definitely against sending all this data that we've collected to the school committee unvetted. I would be very much against doing that. It doesn't make sense to me. Thanks.
[Caldera]: Could you say that again so that I can just break that down?
[Giovino]: I hope so. I would just say, if you decline to change the timeline, we will have to examine all our options, including up to declining to submit any name. That gives us a little bit of a softer approach to that. Did you get that, anyone? Something like that. Thanks.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, that's a friendly amendment and right. Okay, I see a couple more hands, Seth, were you waiting to talk was Thank you.
[Scalise]: I was.
[Hill]: I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought. I'll keep my hand up or perhaps come back to me, I'm sorry.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. Is there anybody else? Okay. Anything, Seth? We're gonna, I guess we'll go back over the date and then we'll move this motion. It's been moved and seconded, we'll vote on it. I just wanna pull the date up that we're, One second. Choosing a date anytime after June 4th. All right, you have your.
[Hill]: So yeah, I, it was just a point of information or I apologize. I'm not. So just from my interpretation of the of our charter. I'm gonna read the final selection of the new names directly from the charter. Once the Medford School Committee has received the names and presentation, the committee will vote either that evening or at a subsequent meeting not later than June 7th, 2021 to approve the recommendation, given the authority for naming of the public school buildings, the school committee's authority alone per Massachusetts General Law. So, while we are making recommendations and they did. if that happened. But from what I understand from the advisory committee's charter, and I'm sure a school committee member might correct me if I'm wrong, but we are under their authority. They have the authority. We are making and we are advising them, but they could choose a name tomorrow.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, I believe the motion, I mean, the resolution is making a request to them for extension. Okay, so let me, I got one more hand, Patrick, I think, and then we're going to vote on this.
[McCabe]: Yeah, I also want to add to Seth's. You know, point of information that you just added in the charge does say that the school committee shall let select their name by June 7th or the, or the meeting thereafter. So, you know, their, their intention, I believe is to have this done by June 14th. So, um, you know, sooner we can get this done, the better. Okay.
[Giovino]: Point of information just before we move on. There's a conflict between item number 14 and the final statement, so I'm not quibbling over this. We all know the school committee has the power, and I said that. I'm just looking for a date that we can all agree we will present a quality process to the school committee, which I believe is in the best interest of the city. That's all.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. Thank you. This is just a request for an extension here now. So I'm going to go through a roll call three brothers. Yes. Dan Puccio.
[Rotolo]: Yes. Can you, can you read it, read out what we're voting on again? I know there was a friendly amendment and I'm not sure what we're voting on.
[Jim Lister]: Grace. I'm sorry. Could I have you read it for me?
[Haberstroh]: You're muted, Grace.
[Caldera]: Grace, we can't hear you.
[Unidentified]: Grace is muted.
[Caldera]: Sorry, thought I hit it. Yes, so the resolution is be it so resolved that the advisory committee recommends a timeline change to the school committee. The advisory committee recommends delaying the presentation of its recommendations for the new name or names of the Columbus elementary school to a date of the committee's choosing any time after June 4th, 2021. Be it further resolved that the chair or his designee provide the following update at the May 24th school committee meeting. The Columbus Elementary School Renaming Advisory Committee has met three times since our formation on April 26, 2021, and has completed several key milestones outlined in our charter. Specifically one, establishing criteria to weigh the relative strength of submissions that include factors such as the potential for the name to bring the community together, The ability for the name to stand as a role model for Medford students and the name as a representation of the Medford community's proud history. 21 yay, one nay, one absent. Two, the advisory committee has narrowed the field of names under consideration down to 18. three, issuing one public input survey to solicit feedback on the options that we are considering as a committee. 22 yay, zero nay, one absent. Additionally, the advisory committee has finished collecting feedback from the public input survey and is making every effort to complete the vetting process and narrowing the field up to three names in a timely fashion. The advisory committee has made good progress since our formation four weeks ago. We require additional time to deliberate before the field is narrowed up to three names, preferably by consensus. The advisory committee has approved this update by a majority vote and hereby recommends to change the timeline for selection. The advisory committee expects to complete its work no later than June 4th, 2021, and is prepared to provide its recommendation at a subsequent meeting of the school committee's choosing. We respectfully submit this request for your approval. In the event that the school committee declines to approve this request, the advisory committee will have to examine all of our options up to declining submitting any needs.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. Erin Genia. Yes. Beth Fuller.
[Caldera]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Grace Caldera.
[Caldera]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Ken Mallon. Yes. Kristen Scalise.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Laura Rotolo. Yes. Leila Fleur.
[Haberstroh]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Lou Wintarpa.
[Haberstroh]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Maria Rosha. Yes. Melissa Miguel.
[Miguel]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Patrick McCabe. Yes. Paul Donato.
[Giovino]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Ron Givino.
[Giovino]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Seth Hill.
[Giovino]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Kathy Kay. Yes. Matt have a stroke.
[Haberstroh]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Caitlin Shaughnessy. We got a thumbs up. I didn't might not seeing it. Caitlin, anybody. He said, yes. All right. Thank you. Janelle Garland McKenzie.
[Caldera]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Josie DeFulla. Yes. And the chair, yes. 22 in the affirmative. Passes. Okay. The next on resolution offered by Grace also, be it so resolved that the advisory committee establish a seven member subcommittee to draft the presentation to the school committee explaining the advisory committee's three recommended names. The process by which the recommendations were arrived at and why the selected names were chosen. Subcommittee shall provide a draft of the presentation for advisory committee approval during the final meeting of the advisory committee prior to the school committee presentation. Can I get a second on that so we can discuss it? Okay, any discussion now?
[Caldera]: I just wanted to say I brought this resolution forward so that we can ensure that our final presentation to the school committee reflects the many perspectives of our committee members. And it would be impractical for us to create the presentation from a blank slate in a single meeting with the whole advisory committee. So delegating this to representative subcommittee allows us to reflect on the perspectives while still allowing the whole advisory committee the opportunity to weigh in on the presentation prior to being shared with the school committee and with the formation of the subcommittee now, they can go ahead and start some of that intro work of being able to describe what we've already done so that we can have this kind of concurrent process going on as we narrow the names down.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you. Any more discussion, Kathy Kaye?
[Kathleen Kay]: So I just wanted to ask the question because it was brought up last week and I'm not sure if this is something that's supposed to be a resolution or it's more of a question for me, but I don't know how to proceed quite honestly. It was brought up that the children should have some input in the names and I had said 18 was just way too many for them and I just don't know where we're lying on that.
[Jim Lister]: Good question.
[Evangelista]: I thought we were going to, well, I thought this meeting you were narrowing down to three and then Kathy, we were gonna give you just a small little couple of lines about each of the top three where the students could vote, whoever, whatever students want to participate, of course.
[Unidentified]: That's correct.
[Kathleen Kay]: That would be fine. I just didn't know if it's something we had firmly agreed upon or it was still under discussion.
[Jim Lister]: That was what we had talked about doing, but it doesn't seem like we're going to have that list for you tonight. So let's further discussion. Ron, would you like to?
[Giovino]: Yeah, if I could, I have a couple of thoughts. First to Kathy. I think that I've asked for valued input from the students for sure. Maybe my suggestion here will include what can be good for you. Dr. Grace, I agree we need to start planning for this. Here's my thoughts on it. My thoughts are that part of Patrick's process is going to be that each one of us will give a three minute presentation if we want on a particular name. Instead of seven people creating three name deliberation on what to present, my suggestion is that after we have selected the top three, we then vote for two people per name to collaborate to form a presentation of the initial draft for each name. That gives us six members, and I strongly believe that when we're talking about process and who will present process, I think the chairman should be having that role, and he should be the seventh member. I suggest that in living on the edge, I would love to see us meet in the city hall chamber, but I know that that may be too much to ask for, but to face to face. But my thought is that if we all have a passion on number one, those are the people that should present. Once we present in the group of seven, everybody gets to read the presentation. and everybody will have a session of making edits, things you don't like that we need to change. That gives everybody an opportunity, but I think it keeps us focused on timelines. So I'm only focused on the one I'm selected on, and then I'll pass that out as opposed to I have to watch three names that I may have interest or may not. To the point of Principal Kaye, I think that once the committee gives its final presentation, those documents, can be given to the school, and the final choice is made by the school committee. So we can, you, I just don't, I'm not crazy about the idea of this committee sanctioning a survey of the students, but certainly I think it's very valuable, and I would suggest that we take our presentation, you give it, present it in any way you want to the students, and that data can be given to the school committee who have the ultimate say. So those are my suggestions. I know that's a lot going on there, but I think just gets us more focused and a quicker timeline. Those with passions about a name get to write the presentation and everybody else gets to edit it. That's my thought.
[Caldera]: Point of information just that there we can't just focus just on the names in that presentation because the school committee did in fact request that we also include the process that it took for us to get to those names. And so we need to make sure that it's a holistic presentation, and we can point of point of information.
[Giovino]: Dr. Grace, I did mention that I think the chairman should be in charge of writing that portion of the presentation, which we can all edit after that to our liking. But yeah, I didn't ignore that piece. I think that's a big piece of their charges. How did we do this? What was involved? I think the chairman preferably should be, you know, leading the way for us and we can edit his as well. But putting Jim in charge of that piece and three other people, you know, have a vote of two people per name just seems to me more efficient. So we're not in a seven person debate for each name. That was my point. Thanks.
[Evangelista]: I think everybody has to keep in mind the last day of school is June 18. And the last couple of days, a lot of the kids don't, you know, really need to show up. Although I shouldn't speak for elementary, I'm more of a middle or high school. But I'm just saying so that the timeline is very tight. They have to show up for us. Oh, they do. Sorry, Cass. But still, it's tight. Timeline's tight.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay.
[McCabe]: Patrick, would you like to speak? Yes. So under the original resolution establishing this committee, I don't think this group has the authority. If Principal Kaye wants our input, then we can give her our input. But I don't think we have any authority to bind her to any sort of process. So under participation by the Columbus School staff and students, it says, additionally, student input is highly desirable. And if it is feasible, student participation will be encouraged in any way the principal deems to be workable in this very short period of time. So the committee is willing to help, but I don't think the committee has anything necessarily to do with the presentation of the students or how it's conducted or anything like that.
[Kathleen Kay]: No, but I do think having the information that we're vetting from whatever presentation we put, I can then adjust it. for the elementary school students so that they know what those three names are and what it is we've found out rather than the teachers having to do the work on their own. Because it might not correlate exactly the way the committee. So that's why I think it's important we have it from the committee that I could then put forward in a child-friendly way.
[Jim Lister]: It's just not ready yet from us, maybe another week.
[Kathleen Kay]: No, no, I understand. And that's okay. Just as long as I know something's forthcoming, I think that's a good point.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, thank you. Lee, would you like to speak?
[LaFleur]: Yes, I was just going to say, Kathy, that I know we talked about some sort of little bios for the students. And while the committee might not be in a position to provide that, the Medford Public Library might, or the Medford Historical Society, once we get to those names. Because some of the names, we don't know what they will be, might not be in encyclopedias or something. But because of the relationship for Medford, the Historical Society, or the public library might be willing to, or the Columbus library might be willing to provide some background on those names.
[Evangelista]: Susan and I just take it from, I mean, a lot of people did a lot of work. She can't really, Kathy, I don't think you want a bio, I don't want a couple of lines on each of the top three, I would think, right? The kids aren't gonna, I mean, you tell me, Kath.
[Kathleen Kay]: No, I think if we do have a presentation to put forward, and I would have a copy of that, then I can take what we have put together and, like I said, make it child-friendly. I think reaching out to the library and the Historical Society are both great ideas, but is it going to be timely? Will we get the information back in enough time? So I think if I was to take what we have, and then, like I said, you know, make it child-friendly, then I think that would be enough. Because I'm using the information we have gathered, and so I know I'm on the same page with you, as opposed to expressing my own opinion, or maybe what the opinion might be of the people in my staff, if that makes sense.
[Evangelista]: So whatever top three names that the group comes up with, there would at least be some info. So we would have to, I mean, you couldn't just blindly pick a name, right? No, correct. I thought that's what we would be putting together in the presentation. But the whole complete presentation, I don't think would be ready in time. you know, for the kids to vote and for the committee to get to the school committee for consideration.
[Kathleen Kay]: I mean, that's- I would just need why the person, you know, the rubric, how does the person fit four characteristics of the rubric and perhaps some of the public information as to why we feel it would be a good name for the school.
[Evangelista]: So once the top three names come to the top, maybe I can just, you know, work with you and Susie to get it to you, okay? That'd be perfect. Thank you. That's amenable to the committee.
[Giovino]: That's the point of information. I just, I agree with that. I'm fine with that. It just can't be sanctioned by this committee. I'm okay with sharing data. I just don't want anybody to feel like the advisory committee is sponsoring. This should be independent and that's fine.
[Kathleen Kay]: No, I'm just looking for shared information.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. Thank you, Maria. Do you have your hand up?
[Rocha]: Yeah, um, I was, I had the question of Dr. Caldera, as you were writing this, how exactly did you envision the seven committee members being picked for the subcommittee? Would that be something volunteer based, randomized, or what process?
[Caldera]: We can discuss how we want to do that. I had envisioned volunteers, since this will be like additional work, and I want to make sure that we are mindful and respectful of people's time. And so I don't want to have somebody on the committee, who is then on the subcommittee who doesn't have have the time to do that. you know, we can start with who's willing to do it, and then if we have more than seven people, we can, you know, I'm open to suggestions on how to narrow it down from there to make sure we do have the seven-member committee.
[Giovino]: Point of order. There's an amendment on the floor. It sounds like it's not going to be a friendly amendment, so we'll need to vote on that.
[Jim Lister]: Could you repeat the amendment?
[Giovino]: Yeah, I'm asking to amend it to charge two members per name of the top three names and have the chairman write the portion about the process. And the two per... Two committee members per name based on nominated and voted on by the committee, I guess.
[Evangelista]: Okay, so that would have been a friendly amendment to- No, it's not friendly yet. Well, nobody seconded it either, so.
[Giovino]: No, I know, but we haven't determined whether it's a friendly amendment. Dr. Grace, do you accept this amendment?
[Caldera]: I don't because I would like this to start as soon as possible because it can be done. There's no reason for us to wait until we have the three considering we have other stuff that we can add in. And I don't think I mean, I don't want to put Mr. Lister in a spot where he's responsible to put together everything if he is if that's not what he wants to do. Because I think any one of us are capable of putting together, you know, starting the presentation and putting together what we've done with the process, and it doesn't necessarily have to fall on Mr. Lister's shoulders if he, you know, doesn't want to do it.
[Jim Lister]: I don't see the process as being a hard thing to follow through here, but as far as the names that we choose, I thought that Ron was kind of saying that the two people that were chosen for each name maybe had some passion about that name were spoke on that name's behalf. So this was a good match is what I think he wanted to do.
[Giovino]: And point of clarification, it's only writing a draft that will be first vetted by the seven and then vetted by the 22. So it's only a starting point.
[Jim Lister]: So we're back to, is that a friendly amendment, Grace?
[Paul Donato Jr]: I second Ron's amendment.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you. We'll vote the amendment now. Seth, would you like to say something? Seth?
[Kathleen Kay]: I believe he said no, but your hand's still up, Seth.
[Jim Lister]: Yeah, sorry about that. Patrick, do you have your hand up?
[McCabe]: Yes. you know, to Ron, I think, you know, what you're bringing up, I mean, I think if the committee decides that that's something they want to adopt, then they could adopt that methodology. You know, I agree they should, you know, take everybody's statements. You know, I was prepared tonight to have a three minute statement on someone. If, you know, they should take everybody's statements and use that to build, you know, what their, what they're putting forward. Um, I also wanted to sort of, you know, I'm not, I'm not sure about seven being necessarily being the right number. If, if eight people want to volunteer, I would be okay with eight people volunteering or nine people want to volunteer. I, you know, I'd think we should ask for the, you know, how many people wanna volunteer for this rather than set, you know, set a limit on seven. And I understand sort of, you know, part of the reason why I do in this, it's tough to get 23 people to put together a presentation if 23 people volunteer, but I guess I'd like to see how many people wanna volunteer before committing to the seven number.
[Caldera]: And also this would, right, we need to be, mindful of quorum and open meeting law too with that. So if we have 23 people volunteer, then we all need to be doing this publicly in a, in a meeting.
[McCabe]: Great point.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you. So Maria, did you want to say anything?
[Rocha]: Yes. I would say to Ron's amendment that to frame the work of this committee as though like we should only be presenting on the names that we have a passion for is counter to the mission because we are supposed to be an objective entity, regardless of, yes, we all do have opinions, we all have our favorite names. But that should not. If that is limiting our scope or our ability to consider one name or another, then I don't think that that person should be on the committee. But If we're going to be presenting, then all volunteers on the subcommittee should be able to present on every name equally as opposed to only feeling able to speak on those that they're passionate about.
[Giovino]: Point of information, my point again was that in the interest of time, It doesn't make sense to me to form the draft should be somebody, if it was, you know, I understand what you're saying, we should all be unbiased, but we all have our passion and we all have come here with, you know, we're all gonna stand up soon to say our three names. I'm saying in the interest of time, coming up with a comprehensive presentation then everybody in the seventh committee gets to read them and edit, and then the 22 get to read them and edit. There's no, there's no, you know, coercion. It's just that To me, having seven people write three names takes a lot more time than it does to break it down to each name. Again, it's a draft. It can be edited. We can have a discussion. But we've been talking all night about interest of time. That's all I'm trying to provide. No coercion. And I do think that we should all be able to make this presentation. I'm not so sure that everybody wants to. Thank you.
[Caldera]: who has a strong opinion and a. you know, I would strongly suggest they volunteer to be on the committee to do this. And then, or, you know, at any, when we are doing the walkthrough presentation in front of the committee, we can propose amendments to make sure that we add content about an individual, right? So there's always, if something is missing, we have a chance as a committee to add onto it. And so, you know, we're not, the final draft isn't necessarily what that seven member committee has come up with. We will have the ability to add additional information if we feel like it needs to be added when it is presented for everybody as a whole to then walk through and add it and we can do it in real time right on the slides. And so this is again, just trying to get things started so that we're not at a point where we have three names and now we're starting from scratch and trying to get a presentation done for the committee. We can start kind of doing this in parallel with the information that we already have. And then as we get those names in, we can add, you know, start working on those particular names.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you. Seth, you have something?
[Hill]: Yeah, thank you. Really just bridging what Dr. Caldera was saying in response to Ron, it seems like the, the subcommittee of So if it made sense to do two by two by two on each individual name so that they would be able to do it more quickly rather than having round and round with seven, that would be a decision that the subcommittee could make. And then if one person Theoretically, uh, uh, chair Lister, uh, wanted to take over, um, writing about procedures and that theoretically, if chair Lister was on the subcommittee, that would be a decision that the subcommittee could make. Um, it just seems like to some extent, uh, Ron, your concerns are, are, we could just kind of fold it into what's already there.
[Jim Lister]: Um, and that's it. Thank you. Okay, did I see anybody else? No more hands. Lee?
[LaFleur]: Yeah, I thought I saw Ken too at some point, but I was just also going to agree with that. I think that we're getting into the details of how the subcommittee would do its work, and I don't know that we need a resolution or a motion specifically about that once the subcommittee is formed. perhaps a friendly amendment. We might not have three recommended names. We might only have one or two. So I don't know if we need to specify the number three. It could just be recommended names. And then I'm not sure if I heard that seven is the magic number for staying under a open meeting law, but whatever that magic number is, is probably the one we should use for ultimate flexibility.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you. Okay. We had an amendment and we had it second. Ron, do you still want this amendment?
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, so we'll have to vote on the amendment first, okay?
[Evangelista]: Aren't there two amendments on the floor, Grace's and Ron's, and both were seconded?
[Jim Lister]: She's a resolution, he's an amendment to her resolution. We're gonna vote his amendment first.
[Evangelista]: I thought she didn't accept it. Did she? Sorry, I could have lost them.
[SPEAKER_06]: She didn't accept it as a friendly amendment.
[Jim Lister]: But we still have to vote on it.
[Evangelista]: She didn't accept it. You'll vote it separately, okay.
[Jim Lister]: Yes.
[Evangelista]: Okay.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. Lee, you got one more question? Lee? Okay, thank you. All right. Ron, can you repeat your amendment one more time for me, please?
[Giovino]: My amendment is to assign the group of two committee members per name of the top three and have the chairman be responsible for the process piece of the presentation as only the beginning of a first draft process.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, thank you. Brie Brothers?
[Brothers]: I abstain.
[Jim Lister]: Dan Puccio. Yes. Aaron Genia.
[Genia]: No.
[Jim Lister]: Beth Fuller.
[Genia]: No.
[Jim Lister]: Grace Caldera. No. Ken Mallon. No. Kristen Scalise.
[Scalise]: I honestly don't understand it completely, so I'm going to say abstain. I'm sorry.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. Laura Rotolo? Did I hear a no?
[Scalise]: No.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. Thank you. I just barely hear you. Sorry. Leila Fleur?
[SPEAKER_06]: No.
[Jim Lister]: Lewin-Tarpa.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Maria Rocha. No. Melissa Miguel. Yes. Patrick McCabe. Yes. Paul Donato.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Ron?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Seth? No. Kathy Kay? Yes. Matt Havistrow? No. Kaitlin Shaughnessy? Can anybody help me there? I don't see her.
[Kathleen Kay]: I think she's saying no. Is that correct, Caitlin? She said no.
[Jim Lister]: Janelle Garland-McKenzie? No. Josie DeFore? No. Okay, I vote yes. That's on to team.
[McCabe]: Sorry. I believe it's 12.8 with two extensions.
[SPEAKER_06]: 12.8, yep.
[Jim Lister]: We've got 12.8 with two extensions. Okay. So that amendment doesn't pass. All right, now on the resolution. Sorry, Grace, can you read your resolution one more time and we can vote on it.
[Caldera]: Yep, not a problem. Be it so resolved that the advisory committee establish a seven member subcommittee to draft a presentation to the school committee explaining the advisory committee's three recommended names, the process by which the recommendations were arrived at and why the selected names were chosen. This subcommittee shall provide a draft of the presentation for the advisory committee approval during the final meeting of the advisory committee prior to the school committee presentation.
[Hill]: Okay. Point of order. Did Lee have some friendly amendments for that?
[LaFleur]: I only mentioned that we might not have three recommended names so that we could just strike three and say the recommended names. And then I mentioned the magic number, which maybe it is seven so then it should stay.
[Caldera]: And we can i'm okay with a. since we need to stay under quorum and we're at 22 now, we can say, change it so that it will be established subcommittee of up to 10 members. That would give us some wiggle room and still keep us under quorum for open meeting loss. And with that, I can also change the three to explaining the advisory committees recommended names. Yeah, we can just pick out the three. So Lisa, would you like me to reread that with the changes?
[Jim Lister]: Please, and then we'll vote on it.
[Giovino]: Just clarification. First, since we're visiting this and don't want to revisit it again, can we determine how the members will be elected to this committee? Appointment, volunteer, vote, I mean, if we have 14 people who want to do it, how do we decide? I just think we should put a bow on this before we have to go back and revisit it. Thanks.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you. Any other hands up?
[Evangelista]: If I could just say, Grace, whatever you've rewritten, you can just forward whenever. You can just forward it all together tomorrow sometime. It's fine. Whoever, like I said, whoever makes a resolution or amendment, if you can just forward it to me after the meeting, it's appreciated. Thank you, Patrick.
[McCabe]: Did you have something to say just to Ron's concern? I mean, I think we could easily vote that as a second amendment rather than trying to vote it again or included as part of this rather. Okay.
[Jim Lister]: Brian, you good?
[Giovino]: Fine.
[Jim Lister]: Okay, on the on the resolution put forth by grace. Sorry.
[Evangelista]: Sorry brief.
[Hill]: Yeah, just so we theoretically and I don't want to necessarily hold things up further but we could take a straw poll to see whether or not it would be an issue of 10 or not. But, or we could move on to actually voting on it.
[Jim Lister]: Why don't we vote on it? I'm sure we're going to come up with enough people. Question may be, we may have to limit it is what the problem may be. Okay. All right. We're going to move the motion now.
[Brothers]: I'm sorry. I don't know what I'm voting on at the moment.
[Jim Lister]: OK. Grace, could you read it one more time now?
[Caldera]: Yes. OK. So be it so resolved that the advisory committee establish a subcommittee of up to 10 committee members to draft a presentation to the school committee explaining the advisory committee's recommended names, the process by which the recommendations were arrived at, and why the selected names were chosen. This subcommittee shall provide a draft of the presentation for the advisory committee approval during the final meeting of the advisory committee prior to the school committee presentation.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Giovino]: I'm sorry, can I just ask a point of procedure? If we're doing this presentation and the public watches us do this presentation, do we not lose some impact when we actually make the presentation? Is there a way of deliberating or just doing this clerical piece in an executive or private session? You know what I mean? I'm more about the impact of a presentation. We lose it if we rehearse it in front of the audience.
[LaFleur]: Just a question, maybe a response to that. The amendment says to provide a draft of the presentation for committee approval. So I don't know if that means an actual live demonstration of it or a PowerPoint presentation, for instance, or a recording, which could go on the share drive. And so we could discuss it here if we wanted to, or not, but we could have a draft of it without it being public.
[Evangelista]: Well, irregardless, Jim Lister would make the presentation, whether it's a PowerPoint or not, because he is the chair. So to be fair, he would probably be the one that would address the school committee with the presentation.
[Jim Lister]: and the rest of you would be at the meeting and the committee members could, you know, take pieces during the powerful- The way I envisioned it was yes, I'm gonna go through the procedure and then we're gonna have three groups of two or more do a presentation on the three people is what I thought we agreed on here tonight.
[Kathleen Kay]: I think it was Ron. What he meant, though, is if we're presenting it here for us before we go to school committee, that that presentation loses its impact. Ron, is that correct?
[Jim Lister]: I agree.
[Caldera]: I believe it would need to be made public either way under the open meeting laws.
[Giovino]: That's why I'm just asking for parliamentary process if there's a way to do it the other way.
[Kathleen Kay]: We, I'm sorry, through the chair, I have a question. Yes. So we would not be able to look at the presentation in a PowerPoint kind of like we're going to do with all the public information we got and then have a conversation like we're doing now on that PowerPoint without showing it. Is that something we can do?
[SPEAKER_06]: I would think we should be able to do that. That was my question.
[Evangelista]: Yeah, that's that's probably the best idea. Yeah.
[Jim Lister]: Then yeah, we just won't. We can discuss it at meeting, but we won't actually execute. Okay. Everyone get that any any Patrick I see a hand up.
[McCabe]: Yeah, I'm not sure the clarification on that. I mean, the concern is open meeting law. I mean, how are we, you're saying like we would just get like a copy of the PowerPoint and review that on our own? Yes, on the file, on the share drive. So we would say, so for example, we'd say Grace talks about this candidate and we're not going to have Grace do a presentation.
[Jim Lister]: she's not gonna do a presentation. She's gonna write her presentation for you to read individually, and then we'll discuss in a meeting.
[McCabe]: Got it. Thank you for the clarification.
[Jim Lister]: I think that would be a way we could do that and have some suspense in the delivery. All right, back to the motion. Can we vote this? Okay, Grace, did you finish reading it again for me, correct?
[Caldera]: I did.
[Jim Lister]: All right. Maria's hand just went up though. Okay.
[Rocha]: This is just a logistical aspect of the, if we're not going to have like an actual presentation verbally. In Google Slides, there's the speaker notes option, so we could write everything that we're going to say and have it available there for everyone to read so that we all know what is going to be said, just we won't hear it verbally.
[Giovino]: As long as that includes no deliberation, then I guess that's okay. That's excellent. Thank you.
[Kathleen Kay]: Well, it also depends too, how high tech you want to get, because you can do voiceover in a power point. You just have to know which keys to click.
[Jim Lister]: I have to have somebody do that for me. All right, Patrick, did you have something else to say? No, just didn't take my hand down. All right. Thank you. All right. Back to the vote now. Were you ready Brie? Yes. Dan. Yes. Aaron. Yes. Beth. Yes. Grace. Yes. Ken. Yes. Kristen. Yes. Laura.
[Evangelista]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Lee.
[Haberstroh]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Lou.
[Haberstroh]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Maria.
[Brothers]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Melissa.
[Brothers]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Patrick. Yes. Paul Donato.
[Haberstroh]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Ron.
[Haberstroh]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Seth. Kathy Kaye. Yes. Matt Habistro.
[Haberstroh]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Kaitlin Shaughnessy. Can somebody tell me if she's got a thumb up?
[Kathleen Kay]: I think she said yes. Yep. Yes.
[Jim Lister]: All right. Thank you. Janelle Gollin-McKenzie.
[Kathleen Kay]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Josie DeFore.
[Caldera]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. And Jim Lister. Yes. So 22 in the affirmative. Okay. Motion passes. All right. Sorry. I don't believe we have anything else on our agenda. We go to whole business or anything else you'd like to discuss tonight. Ken.
[Mallon]: To Ron's point, can we now figure out how people are going to get onto the subcommittee?
[Jim Lister]: Sure. Okay, would I have volunteers and then we'll have to discuss if we don't have enough or if we have too many, then we'll have to find a narrowing process.
[Giovino]: Just to make a suggestion, I don't wanna see the people who, if Vito Corleone gets picked as one of the three, I may not wanna be on the committee. However, I think we need to do the top three. We can determine that it'd be done by volunteer, appointment or vote, that's fine. But to do this prior to the top three being selected, I think it does a disservice to the quality of the process.
[Mallon]: I thought that the point of deciding to do this right now was so that people could start doing the work and start building the presentation and getting the draft together.
[Giovino]: But what would you build it on, 18 people? We haven't decided who the three are.
[Caldera]: You can still start this process without having the three names, right?
[Giovino]: So we should write about all 18 then?
[Mallon]: It's a PowerPoint. It's getting the bones of the PowerPoint together, figuring out how the pages are going to look, doing the process part of it.
[Caldera]: The subcommittee can work on figuring out what the outline of the presentation is going to be. We can figure out exactly what Ken had stated, what the slides are going to look like, how we want to go about writing the script, if that's what we're doing, what are we using. You can also the subcommittee can also start working on talking and putting together things about the process, what we've talked about how we got to the place, we don't have to have the three names yet in order to start some of the beginning work that that needs to be done. for this presentation. So we don't have to wait until we have those three names. We can get everything done up to those three names. We can just have slides as placeholders, name one, name two, name three. And then as those names are decided, we can go ahead and start filling in all of those details.
[LaFleur]: Anybody else? Lee? I'll just also add that, you know, we could do the volunteers tonight. And if it turns out that somebody is really enthusiastic about being on the subcommittee, once they know the names, the membership could change. So it doesn't, deciding tonight doesn't prevent us from swapping the membership as long as we stay under the number. All right. Thank you. Good point.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. So volunteers, can I, I guess, Let me see, Maria's got her hand up first. You volunteer, Maria, or are you... No, I'm volunteering. Volunteering? Okay. Well, if there's anybody that wants to volunteer, raise your hand and I'll make a list.
[Kathleen Kay]: Josie has her physical hand up.
[Jim Lister]: Okay. Wait a minute. Let me... I gotta get to the... Yeah, okay. I'll read them, and anybody, if I don't read your name off, let me know. Maria? Grace Caldara? Kristen Scalise. Ken Mallon. Ron Jovino. Melissa Miguel. Paul Donato.
[Evangelista]: Josie has her physical hand up, so you may not see that.
[Jim Lister]: OK.
[Evangelista]: Bree does as well.
[Jim Lister]: Yes. OK. Josie. And Laura Rotolo.
[Kathleen Kay]: And did you get Bree too?
[Jim Lister]: Yes, Bree Brothers. OK. That's 10. Let me read them off. Maria Rocha, Grace Kildara, Kristen Scalise, Ken Mallon, Ron Givino, Melissa Miguel, Paul Donato, Brie Brothers, Josie DeFour, and Laura Rotolo. Did I miss anybody?
[Brothers]: Sorry, Jim, don't you make 11?
[Jim Lister]: 11, yes, well. Point of order. I have my presentation.
[Hill]: Point of order. There's nothing in the charter that the chair actually has to be a part of the presentation. OK.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you. Any questions? I see Ron and Melissa. Questions? That was just your hand up. OK, thanks. Motion to adjourn. Anything else under old business?
[Evangelista]: I would just say that as chairperson, he would introduce, Jim would introduce, whether it's a PowerPoint or whatever you present to the school committee.
[Hill]: Point of order, there's nothing in the charter.
[Evangelista]: He doesn't have to say that, he's the chairperson. That's the respect you would give him as a chairperson to address the school committee and say, this is our presentation. He doesn't have to talk for 10 hours, I think by virtue of being chairperson, that's respectful.
[Hill]: Respect, I mean, that's an opinion, but it's, and I may share it. It's just, it is not part of our specific.
[Giovino]: Matt has his hand up.
[Haberstroh]: Harmon Zuckerman, PB – he, him, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his,
[Evangelista]: I cannot. We have a subcommittee meeting that I have to attend. And if you want to meet Tuesday, you have to advertise it tomorrow. So you would have to have all resolutions to Susie by, I don't know if it's 11 a.m. tomorrow, if you're going to meet on Tuesday, because I think it has to be posted by 4.30 tomorrow. I'm not available Monday or Tuesday. The only day I'm available is Wednesday. I just want to be clear. I'm sorry, but I already made plans to take Friday off and it's a long weekend, so I'll be heading away.
[Caldera]: Can I do a quick point of information? The resolution that we just passed regarding the subcommittee for the presentation doesn't actually say anything about who is presenting it. So that can be decided at a later date. This is just doing the draft. And so I don't know if that will change anybody, but I just wanted to clarify that this is just simply getting together a presentation and a draft. We can discuss who's doing what, when, at a later time and date.
[Evangelista]: Yeah, that's a good point, Grace.
[LaFleur]: And I will just add to that, that 10 was a consideration for not violating open meeting law. If the presentation is at the school committee, the final presentation, maybe it doesn't matter. That's not an issue for the draft team committee.
[McCabe]: Point of clarification here. Everyone that volunteered is now on the committee. I thought we said that subcommittee was seven.
[Mallon]: No, that number was changed to less than a quorum. And it was a friendly amendment. Thank you.
[Jim Lister]: OK. Anything else?
[Haberstroh]: Did we already talk about meeting twice a week, or did we just?
[Jim Lister]: Well, we started talking Tuesday and then Tuesday's out. Wednesday is not a night for me next week, I'm sorry. Monday night, we can't do Monday night, because we don't have enough time to advertise.
[Evangelista]: Plus we have school committee, so I couldn't attend. Unfortunately, this is what I mean with the meeting. So I have one Monday, Tuesday. Wednesday is my only open day. And we do have a meeting, but I don't have to be at it. and Thursday night I'm gonna head out. Unless you wanted to meet at four, like from four to like 3.30, four, I can do that, but I can't stay later than six.
[Caldera]: I have a quick question. I'm not sure who to direct this to, but is it possible that the superintendent appoint a different note taker for us? Lisa can't do that. And if not, is there?
[Evangelista]: Well, it would be Susie and she would have to do the meeting on Wednesday and Thursday she's taking off. She won't be in. So it's one of us, like we piggyback on each other. So that's the problem. So really I should be covering three meetings with her Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, but I can bump out the Wednesday. She can handle that one. Thursday she's taking off and I'm taking off Friday, but I'm leaving Thursday night. So I could do Thursday, like a four to six. And then I could head. So the only night you're available Wednesday or at four o'clock on Thursday, I could do a four to six. Oh, you weren't available on Tuesday, Lisa. I'm not we have a subcommittee. Actually, I think you'd probably have to be at that one too. It's the strategic plan. So I don't know if you'd have to be there, Kath, but I know I do.
[LaFleur]: Jim, I was just going to suggest maybe we just get a poll out and with as many times as possible. It sounds like for this next meeting, if we're voting, we're going to need all of us. So it just might be difficult to find that time here. I know, for instance, I sometimes have time during the day or could move things around, but a poll would, like a Google poll would be helpful for that.
[Evangelista]: Can anyone meet during the day or at a certain time during the day? Because I obviously could fit that in on Thursday, but if not, or Wednesday, but. Sorry, sorry, long weekend, sorry. Apologize.
[Hill]: Also, I'm sorry. things are recorded. And so from a technical standpoint, I'm not sure how much of the of an actual note taker we need because theoretically notes could be taken after the fact.
[Evangelista]: Yeah, I suppose that's fine. I would have to I'd have to do that I guess I would have to check with the superintendent what she wants to do about that but I guess I could do that I get I just don't know. I'll be away the weekend so.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay.
[Jim Lister]: All right, we'll have to get back to everybody on when we're going to have the next meeting.
[SPEAKER_06]: All in favor. Seconded I thank you.
[Jim Lister]: Thank you everybody.
[SPEAKER_06]: Good night everyone.
[Scalise]: Thank you.