But then again, you know, everybody kind of knows each other. They probably already know each other maybe the way the superintendents all know each other. It's a small pool. >> Member Goodwin. So the mayor sits on the school committee to be that bridge um and has the whole city, the whole budget, everything in her head. And we have struggled with a collaborative approach in the past. It's been more blame. Um, and I would like personally to have the mayor sat on the superintendent search. I felt that was appropriate. I also feel it's appropriate if she can't do it that she appoints somebody. I mean, they don't have to have a vote, but they should be in the room. I've seen hiring committees and South Hadley that had 30 people in the room to hire a superintendent from that but stakeholders felt they had a voice and I think that's important.
Any additional comments or questions? Yes, member Deneve. I still don't see the problem statement. What is the problem What is the problem statement? Like what what what is the issue? I think that the issue is personal rather than an issue with the actual work. Personally, um and we do have a very uh mayor-centric city. Um and the mayor is very busy and I would can't imagine her wanting to do six interviews. Um so I don't see what the problem is. The problem is that I don't think one person represents all the stakeholders. Um when we did a we did the whole thing for searching for a school committee member, we had three people from the school committee doing that process. By having one person from a school committee do the business manager search, I I just This is not personal. This is really about feeling like there to me, both jobs are equally important.
Um I just don't want to be in this position. There are six people who have applied. I guess I would love to see a finalist in front of us um you know by next month. It's just it's it I feel like we're kind of stuck. And so this motion really is about hopefully us more stakeholders, more energy into this >> member child and then I would really like to move move us along. >> My concern about being stuck and slowing things down is if we add more people that adds more schedules that have to be juggled to find times and I I worry that adding people might slow us down. Also, I I wanted to know what you meant by um let me see where is it. A rep someone to represent the city of Greenfield. >> I was thinking the mayor or somebody who she would designate to represent her if she couldn't do it.
And and I feel like we're just um it's not happening and I I just and I hear that people aren't applying. I get that. But I feel that we need to move forward. Um I watched three people hustle a superintendent search in a way that I haven't seen, like the energy that you guys put into that was amazing. And I just think I I would like to see the same energy and I don't think you know, I mean the idea when we work together in subcommittees, there's three of us. I mean, we bring energy to a group. Um this is not personal. This is not in any way. The idea was that many hands make the work lighter. It was not in any way personal. Um so, if it gets voted down, it gets voted down, but I I think what you should hear is frustration on that, you know, how can we help this process along?
>> Any additional comments or questions? Yes, member Deniv. >> I still don't see the problem statement. What is the problem? What is the problem statement? Like what what what is the issue? I think that the issue is >> personal rather than an issue with the actual work personally. Um and we do have a very uh mayor centric city. Um and the mayor is very busy and I would can't imagine her wanting to do six interviews. Um, so I don't see what the problem is. >> The problem is that I don't think one person represents all the stakeholders. Um, when we did a we did the whole thing for searching for a school committee member, we had three people from the school committee doing that process. by having one person from a school committee do the business manager search. I I just this is not personal.
And that's what this motion is about, helping the process move forward, but also including the stakeholders who work with this person. This person who will work with the city. I mean, we all have the same the the that's going to happen. Um if you don't want to include them um in that process, I mean, that's what your vote will say. So, I'm just I'm going to say one thing on this if I may. Go ahead, Jamie. >> Um Um I I you know, I think we did have a lot of good energy when we had a few people from the school committee being on the superintendent search, but I am feeling, you know, I'm hearing what others are saying. I don't feel like this big need to have oversight into what is happening here, but um um maybe we could have a compromise by adding another person from the um ways and means committee.
This is really about feeling like there to me both jobs are equally important and and I feel like we're just um it's not happening. And I I just and I hear that people aren't applying. I get that. But I feel that we need to move forward. Um, I watched three people hustle a superintendent search in a way that I haven't seen like the energy that you guys put into that was amazing. And I just think I I would like to see the same energy. And I don't think, you know, I mean, the idea when we work together in subcommittees, there's three of us. I mean we bring energy to a group. Um this is not personal. This is not in any way. The idea was that many hands make the work lighter. It was not in any way personal. Um so if it gets voted down, it gets voted down.
That That's what I was thinking as I was listening to all of your, you know, back and forth, much of which was very valid. I I don't care about that myself, but maybe we should put another person from ways and means on it so that two people are looking at it. And and yes, I am very busy. I don't have the need to do it, but um maybe we should have one more person on it cuz we do want to get it to the finish line. I think that's what I'm hearing is that we do want a new business manager. Are you saying just question, Ways and Means is part of City Council? Are you talking about the subcommittee for Oh, I meant Yeah, I I call you finance. I call you finance, Ways and Means all the time cuz I think of it like that.
But I I think what you should hear is frustration on that, you know, how can we help this process along? And that's what this motion is about. Helping the process move forward, but also including the stakeholders who work with this person. This person will work with the city. I mean, we all have the same the that's going to happen. Um, if you don't want to include them um in that process, I mean, that's what your vote will say. So, >> I'm I'm gonna say one thing on this if I may. >> Go ahead. >> Um I you know I think we did have a lot of good energy when we had a few people from the school committee being on the superintendent search. But I am feeling you know I'm hearing what others are saying. I don't feel like this big need to have oversight into what is happening here, but um maybe we could have a compromise on this by adding another adding another person from the um ways and means committee.
You're budget or finance committee. Maybe have one more person from that on so that but that's just a thought. All right, that sounds like a uh an amendment that is being offered to Did you say you hate this? Um, an amendment that is essentially to drop the second clause after the semicolon uh or actually Oh, uh sorry, to drop the clause after and like after finance, no one to represent the city um and just do one from business and budget and finance, not business. Budget, finance, and warrants. I don't know why that's in there like that. Um is that amendment accepted by the mover and who seconded that? I think one seconded it. Who? You Did you second it or no? I made it. No, but who seconded the original motion for member Goodwin? I think it was member Webb. Okay. >> me. Great. Um, member Webb seconded Okay.
That that's what I was thinking as I was listening to all of your, you know, back and forth, much of which was very valid. I I don't care about that myself, but maybe we should put another person from ways and means on it so that two people are looking at it and and yes, I am very busy. I don't have the need to do it, but um maybe we should have one more person on it because we do want to get it to the finish line. I think that's what I'm hearing is that we do want a new business manager. >> Are you saying just question ways and means is part of city council? Oh, you're talking about the subcommittee for >> Oh, I meant Yeah, I call the finance I call your finance ways and means all the time because I think of it like that.
Do you accept that amendment? Uh I just want I just like clarification on the amendment. So, it's that the school committee Oh, no, wrong wrong line. It's really too late for this. Um So, we would have one person from the school committee and one person from Ways and Means. That's the amendment. Or just one person from Ways and Means. Nobody from Ways and Means being very clear that Ways and Means is the name that the City Council has for that. It is Budget, Finance, and Warrants, and I want to be really clear because we are not allowing the City Council to have a vote in in in in the screening committee. No, no, no. Yeah. Yes. So, just being being very clear. Um So, you're the the mover of the motion is good with that amendment. Is the second amendment. >> Yes. Okay. So, that is the new amended motion that is on the table just for one other person.
Your budget or finance committee. Maybe have one more person from that on. So that but that's just a thought. All right, that sounds like a a an amendment that is being offered to Did you say you hate this? um an amendment that is essentially to drop the second clause after the semicolon. Uh or actually oh uh sorry to drop the clause after and like after finance. No one to represent the city. Um and just do one from business and budget and finance not business. It's budget finance and warrants. Why that's like >> um is that amendment >> accepted? Yes. >> By the mover and who seconded that? >> Did you second it or no? >> I made it. >> No, but who seconded the original motion from member Goodwin? >> I think it was member. >> Great. >> Okay. Do you accept that amendment? >> Uh, I just want I just like clarification on the amendment.
Um From my perspective, we would have been moving already except that the superintendent had to pause the process so we could have this discussion now. Like, we could have already been scheduling if we didn't have this motion. Um you know, and I don't want to lose any of these six candidates. I want you to talk to them all so that you can then have a smaller pool that comes to us. And I really appreciate the um really appreciate what people are saying about the energy of the superintendent search. I agree it was a very energetic process, but if we're wanting candidates by next month, like the superintendent search was a 4-month process. Um we don't have 4 months, I think, to get this done. Um So, for that reason, I will not be voting uh yes on this on this motion uh even as amended.
So, it's that the school committee No, wrong wrong line. It's really too late for this. Um, so we would have one person from the school committee and one person from Ways and Means. That's the amendment. Or just one person from Ways and Means. >> Nobody from Ways and Means. Being very clear that Ways and Means is the name that the city council has for that. It is budget finance and warrants. And I want to be very clear because we are not allowing the city council to have a vote in in in the screening committee. >> No, no, no. >> Yeah. >> Yes. So, just being being very clear. Um, >> so you're the the mover of the motion is good with that amendment. Is the secondary amendment? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that is the new amended motion that is on the table just for one other person.
Are we voting tomorrow? Well, I don't know. Are we Remember to leave, and then I would love to Call the question and move along. Yeah. Okay. When I vote no, that doesn't mean that I'm ignoring stakeholders. And I do not think that anybody should state what somebody's vote means. Everyone here can vote however they want according to their conscience or whatever, and I personally am not going to make any judgments about any of you however you vote. I have taken some real difficult votes. I've been the only one. I have like started all kinds of crazy things. And I hope nobody judged me, but they certainly have. And I'm not going to judge any of you. If you want to vote yes or no, that doesn't say anything to me about the type of person you are or whether you're including stakeholders. So, like I'm just going to say that that I don't think that that's okay to say that about anybody's vote.
Um, from my perspective, we would have been moving already except that the superintendent had to pause the process so we could have this discussion now. Like we could have already been scheduling if we didn't have this motion. Um, you know, and I don't want to lose any of these six candidates. I want you to talk to them all so that you can then have a smaller pool that comes to us. And I really appreciate the um really appreciate what people were saying about the energy of the superintendent search. I agree it was a very energetic process, but if we're wanting candidates by next month, like the superintendent search was a four-month process. Um we don't have four months, I think, to get this done. Um so for that reason, I will not be voting uh yes on this on this motion even as amended. Are we voting?
I'm voting no because this is just job hiring. And I'm going to bring you the people that you guys will all get to talk to you and hopefully form a relationship with. And also, gosh, Andy, thank you for sitting here and listening to all of this and sticking with us. And I'm so incredibly sorry that we're having this discussion in front of you. And I just feel real bad about it all the time. And I just want you to know. If you I'm not If you're going, I totally understand. I know judgment. So, I'll be voting no on this. And I and I hope that I go forward and do a great job for you guys out there. It was It was smooth and easy last time, and I'm sure it'll be smooth and easy this time. Thank you for that reminder um to not ascribe people's motivations to them.
>> Well, I don't know. Are we member Den? And then I would love to move. >> Call the question. Move along. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> When I vote no, that doesn't mean that I'm ignoring stakeholders. And I do not think that anybody should state what somebody's vote means. Everyone here can vote however they want according to their conscience or whatever. And I personally am not going to make any judgments about any of you. However you vote, I have taken some real difficult votes. I've been the only one. I have like started all kinds of crazy things. And I hope nobody judged me, but they certainly have. And I'm not going to judge any of you. If you want to vote yes or no, that doesn't say anything to me about the type of person you are or whether you're including stakeholders. So, like, I'm just going to say that I don't think that that's okay to say that about anybody's vote.
If you have a question about someone's motivations or why they vote a way they do, you are welcome to reach out to that person individually and have a conversation. Um I would like to call the question. Please call the vote. Member Goodwin. Yes. Chair Sexton. No. Member Webb, I am a yes. Vice Chair Childs. Abstain. Member Geneve. >> No. Mayor Disorder. Yes. Uh Member Deitman. No. Sounds like I can't abstain. That's correct. To me I see it is six of one half dozen of the other. I I I don't see that much of a functional difference one way or the other. So I'll just vote yes and we'll be done with it. Okay. Okay. So the motion passes and now budget finance and warrants needs to nominate someone to be part of the sub committee and I would love for you to send the name of that person to tomorrow.