Well we don't want to let's change something to what we voted on. Like once it's been voted on, it's voted on. You can resend. There's no rescending things isn't bad. It's just you're saying like, "Hey, this this thing that we did last week, it turns out we didn't do it right, so we're just going to like wipe it clean and do it again and do it right." I mean, that's what it's for. Member Webb. >> Um I know we just had a conversation briefly about we were going to say the subcommittees were going to come back to the committee with their goals and expectations for the year and what they believe the committee would expect from them. So, I mean, when I go on to our district website, nowhere does it say what the goals of any of the subcommittees are from previous years. Um, I do think it's good practice to have that listed so people do know, but it is not there.
I think it's there's just some things that have been expected along with like policy and handbook. you know, it's kind of very to the point, so therefore it hasn't been there. But I just want to say, you know, I think it would be hard for um Chair Ston to tell us what this policy is for if we're asking policies or we're asking subcommittees to tell us what they think their expectations are and what they're tasked with. Unless I'm reading all that wrong. >> Um that's a separate issue though. >> Yeah. So as far as like charging like and just making a description of this is the purview of this subcommittee I've already like yeah I I should be the one as chair to be providing that to you all and then you can choose to say yes and this is sort of like I think this is a thing that maybe only Greenfield does where we allow the subcommittee to redefine itself within certain parameters if it chooses but that's a discussion that then comes back to the full committee um for for a bigger discussion and then a full vote to charge that subcommittee with that item.
Um and so at this moment I think within within some reasonable I think like you know budget and finance sort of knows generally speaking what you're supposed to be doing because it's the same thing you've been doing every year Pinky um trying to take over the school district. Uh but um but I think you're right for like the facility long-term facilities use. My intention was for that to be a successor to the ad hoc redistricting. Um because it seems like we've now gotten a ways away from the original data that we were using to make decisions. Um so that was my intention with that. But that should be written somewhere. You're right. >> Yeah. Not saying that I'm like not going to be for all of the things that are coming up. Like >> please don't like look at me like I'm the devil here.
I'm literally could be for all of this, but if we don't know and we don't vote on it, then it doesn't exist. It's just it's just it's in our policy. It's that's just kind of how it is. I mean, >> and and I bet you anything there's going to be stuff down the line that we're going to do like the same thing with and we're going to have to rescend it and figure it out. Like it's just life. It's just what happens on committee. We don't always do the right thing or like we might mess up and this is our way out to reset ourselves and it's not saying that you guys like didn't do subcommittee work or aren't going to continue to do subcommittee work. It's just now you're going to get even more information and you're going to feel more empowered by what you can do.
>> So I guess like can I ask a very leg like a a logistical example? Let's say we do vote to rescend this um and give me a month to bring at the next meeting all of these descriptions and we take um votes on those. Then what happens to the March 3rd budget and finance subcommittee meeting? >> They still meet. That's why I wrote out all of these motions because we don't necessarily need the charges tonight. We can vote to like we can vote to say we're interested in this and have you go off and craft the charge. We can say, "Oh yeah, we're interested in having the warrants in budget and finance." You can bring your rationale and we can we can second it and discuss it. You can say, "Hey, I want to bring forward a facilities use subcommittee. This is my dream.
This is what I want." We can second it and discuss it. And then you can say, "I'm going to bring forward the charges next month." and then we can read them and vote on them. It doesn't stop the subcommittee work. There's no stopping the subcommittee. >> But if we resend the vote where we appointed subcommittees, doesn't that that effectively >> dissolve them? >> I guess I'm I'm I'm cur I like I genuinely am curious how this works >> because me if we nullify the vote then we nullify the action of the vote and the action was to create the and and put people into those roles. So if we rescend the vote, then we don't have the people assigned to the role. >> But I think that your motion wasn't to to create these subcommittees. You didn't make a motion to create these subcommittes. You your motion was to your your motion was are you all comfortable with where you've been slatted.
Like it wasn't about the subcommittees like none no motion has been made. So maybe there isn't even a rescending that needs to happen. Maybe first motions need to be made. Maybe we're working without motions >> in the first place. >> Okay, >> this is all this is where knots get tied. This is just how Robert's rules are. This is just how it is. >> Robert's rules >> like Yes. I did. I see hands over here. >> Mayor, do you have a hand? So, I I think you could get attorneys in here that could look at all of the things and how we voted on that and find people who had different opinions on it or different interpretations of everything that we had done. I am still where I am. I think that rescending this is not what we need to do. I don't think it adds harmony to the group either.
And what do we do about meetings that already happened and their work that was done a month ago or a few weeks ago that we I think we move forward. There is some definition and that's all. I'm done. >> All right, member Goodwin and then I think we should move to a vote on this. getting tired. Um, I'm going to be voting no. Um, and it's more about the the fact that we've started. Um, and I already feel like we're behind, especially like with budget season coming up and everything. I think I understand where you're coming from, but maybe we can address that by every subcommittee bringing forward. We have what we were charged with by a chair and I remember we took a whole meeting with community engagement talking about what we were given by chair Johnson MSAD and kind of getting the language the way we liked it and it coming back.
Maybe that's the step that we need to do now. I know with budget and finance um Kate had all the goals. The last meeting we met was her and there was actually a formal passing of electronics to um yeah so I I think there is stuff and maybe we're we're not publishing it which is something we should do probably on our website. I agree. Um, and warrants came about because you all went to a training and heard about warrants and I mean came back saying we were doing warrants wrong. So I I I still don't know where that you know ends up but I do believe it is the role of the chair. Um, and I feel that that it was done with good intentions. Okay, I'm gonna call a question on this and would love a roll call vote, please. Member Webb. >> Member Dyman, >> abstain.
>> Member Goodwin, >> no. >> Chair Ston, >> abstain. Uh myself I'm going to pass. Vice Chair Childs, >> no. >> Member Denive. >> Yes. >> Mayor Disorger, >> no. >> I am also a no. >> Right. The motion does not pass with one yes, two abstensions, and four nos. Thank you everyone for that like back and forth discussion. I do think that it is good and important that we have discussions that get into things. Um so I really appreciate it. Moving on. Um item F motion from chair ston to formally move the ad hoc handbook subcommittee work which was dissolved into the policy subcommittee. So basically this is formalizing a change that already occurred but I don't think we actually voted on it. Second. All right. So I made the motion measure seconded it.
Any discussion order? I think it's wonderful when we combine things and we put an ad hoc in another committee so that there's because there certainly are a lot there's a lot of work to be done but it's combining it and having one less evening for people I think is a great idea. >> I won't take credit but I think I would agree. Any other discussion? >> All right. Member Webb, will you call the role? Member Dyman, >> yes. >> Member Goodwin, >> yes. >> Chair Ston, >> yep. >> Member Webb, I'm a yes. Vice Chair Childs, >> yes. >> Member Deniv, >> yes. >> Mayor Disorger, >> yes. >> All right, I think the motion passes >> Unanimously. Amazing. Uh, item G. Hold on. Hold on. >> Take your time. Let me know when you're ready. I'm good. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Pause.
>> Yep. Item G. Motion from Chair Ston to have the Greensfield School Committee charge the budget and finance subcommittee with the work involved with warrants, including signing them. And so this would maintain our my rationale is this would move warrants, which it does involve financial matters into the subcommittee that deals with our financial matters. Um, it charges them with the work of reviewing the warrants. Um, and I I like having that to make sure that there's a consistent group of people looking at the warrants over time so that they can start to notice any patterns on our spending. Um, and making sure that they catch any items that we might want to ask more questions about, that sort of thing. Um, and then having one member of the three member subcommittee, it can still, we're still following the procedure that we have about having a member, one signatory, but making it to be one of those three folks and then trusting them with that work, understanding that they will have done the work to really look at the the warrants.
Um, that being said, I think that if there is ever a catastrophic situation where all three of those people are down for the count, um, I trust that they will. I know it I wouldn't I don't want to think about it but anything is possible. Um that they will communicate their need to have somebody else fulfill that function. Um so I I I don't see it necessarily impeding the work of um our lovely warrants person and other uh other finance officer uh I think she what is our deputy or assistant business director Vera um in the office. I don't see this impeding her work as long as the budget and finance people can promise to answer her emails. >> Um second. >> So with that Okay. All right. I made the motion. Mayor disorger seconded. Discussion time. >> Okay. Going to hear from member Den and then she will be voting no because I think that the warrants need to be more widely available than they are.
I think more members need to be looking at them than not looking at them. I and and former chair Johnson Mousad were the only ones who signed warrants for a long time. Um we were the only ones and I would wait and I would wait and I would wait until Vera's like we need one more signature. We need one more signature and then finally I would just be like well if nobody else is going to do it I'll just do it. So I want to encourage people to look at them like everybody needs to see them. And in fact, I have a motion that I want to bring forward next month that warrants that there's a place for warrants on our website so that the public can view it because this is public information and it shouldn't be confined into budget and finance. I understand the idea of regular people looking at it to see red flags, but those regular people should be all of you, I think, should be looking at them all the time.
Um, and that's just what I think and that's also what I've learned from the training is that you need to encourage as many members as possible to look at it and or have somebody go down to central office and actually physically look through them. Many districts do that where somebody has to go down and flip through the book and make sure they have eyes on them before they sign them. We do it by email. >> Yes. I do want to make a just like a clarification about this motion that this does not mean that warrants will only go like they they will still be emailed to all of us. So we still will all have the ability to look through these warrants. I'm not restricting that in any sense. But I am saying that we are dedicating >> people's eyeballs and brains with specifically getting in there and looking at them.
Um and that by definition will also mean that those will become part of your meeting records. They will become part of your meeting minutes. you'll report out about them to us which is more than we have done to the past. So I I totally agree. I think that they should be more transparent and accessible um because they are part of how taxpayer dollars are spent. So I just wanted to add that clarification in case that was like a question about the process if that part of the process was being changed. It's not. Okay. I advise Sher Childs and then member Goodwin. So procedure process question because we do have the policy in the handbook for how warrants are done now. Do we need to rewrite a new policy in order for this change to be made? That's an excellent question. Um looking for the warrants policy.
I think we're making it now. We already have >> I don't see how this actually substantively changes the polic as currently outlined. It is still >> Yeah, please. >> Just u your policies that may need consideration would be DGA >> is one, DK is the other and then BBA. >> Yes. So, I'm looking at DGA, authority for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies, and services is extended to the superintendent through the detailed listing of such items compiled as part of the budget-making process. The purchase of items and services on such list requires no further committee approval except when by law or committee policy, the purchase or services must be put to bid. So, I I don't see that changing I don't see that designating looking at the warrants to our budget and finance changes that policy at all. Um, and I am wondering is there a particular policy that we do think will actually be substantively changed by putting looking at warrants into the budget and finance subcommittee that will change?
Yeah. policies in front. But when I called I was concerned and what I was told whoever signs for all of us. >> They represent all of us. I spent hours looking at every single time I had the right to sign because I was told that's budget finance because as you're budgeting to everything to staff. So I see it as a meware signature. Okay, I've got the mayor and then member Deniv um I'll be voting yes on this and I think it's a very good idea. Um like you I read the warrants. I have to sign them at the end as the mayor. But I will just say this. I've been on this committee for two years and two months. And when it gets to this full committee, we are not having discussions about things that are on the warrants. And I think that many of you may have questions.
I've been on committees and subcommittees for like 25 years. The subcommittees are more relaxed. There's a little bit more discussion and I think that you'll have three people together that are looking at them and they're able to talk about things that they have a question about. And I think that most of us are looking through them, but I I would love to have that be done with three people looking at these on a regular basis. >> My my very first day on school committee, like literally day one, I got an email from Vera asking for signatures for the warrants and I said, "Oh my god, what is a warrant?" And I literally had to call MASC because I had no idea like and neither did Kate and both of us were like what are we supposed to do? What are we supposed to do? And then the chair I heard that the chair said that we were too new and we weren't allowed to look at warrants and we shouldn't even open such things.
At that time it was a three signature requirement in 2021. That's what they needed, three signatures. And we would get these frantic emails saying we need two more signatures. We need one more signature. And the problem was that nobody got around to doing it. That was really why it got changed is that they couldn't get three signatures. Not enough people looked through them. So it was changed to one signature purely for uh efficiency, I guess, but nobody really talked about who that person would be or what that person should look for. There was really nothing in the policies about that. And so I was really heartened to find a class that covered that in Hyannas last year and took it. And everybody does something different. But the most important thing is that it's as accessible and transparent as possible. So I've ne I didn't vote for the one person sign ser.