001All right. So, it is 12 o'clock. So, I am going to call the Conquer Carell Regional School Committee to order. And because we're on Zoom, we need to roll call. >> Present. >> Her present. >> Morano present. >> Sne present. >> Ranken present. >> Wat present. >> Williams present. >> Okay. And we have, let me just pull up my agenda. Sorry. It's a I have to get used to Zoom again. Um, okay. We're going to review I've asked Brian as the chair of the um there's one agenda item and that's it and it's just to review the letter to the conquered select board. So Brian chaired the campus completion subcommittee and so I asked Brian to take a shot at the draft lever letter to the select board and I shared that with everyone. So
002Brian, can you screen share? >> I can as long as I have permission. One sec. I've got it right here. >> Wait. >> All right. And I don't know how visible that is for everybody. So let me know if you need me to zoom in further. But um yeah, in writing the letter um you know my my focus was I think three parts. One is you know by no means are we questioning the the legitimacy of the actual election itself. I mean um the residents of conquered went to the polls uh and they voted and and the votes were counted. Our concern is much more uh just about some of the material in the voter information packet. Um as especially the you know one the error that um was in there in terms of the
003amount per household and um secondly just a question in terms of what is considered acceptable language in the pro and con statements. And then the third thing is just to reiterate our support for this project and wanting to work with the select board on on what's to come. Um and just to refresh everyone's memory, we want to get this over um to the select board in conquered because we know they are um meeting tonight. Um and so that's why we we wanted to get this uh meeting uh scheduled today so we can just review it. Uh hopefully any edits will be will be minor. Um and we can send this off. >> Okay. Um I think the letter looked great. So if uh we can just maybe go around the room. Any feedback on the
004letter? >> I thought >> Andrew, do you want to start? >> Yeah. Yeah. I thought it looked great. I think um I think it's implied so I'm not necessarily recommending any edits but I think the process uh the questions on the process are spoton and it's not just uh from for school related ballot questions it's for any questions right so like pro and con statements um reviewing of the packet just want to iterate and again I'm I believe it's implied so I'm not recommending an edit but this is just for all questions like we we tried to chase down the process and there was some confusion on our counterparts, the people we spoke with on on just the actual due process. So, this is for all aspects of town government. >> Good point. >> Yeah.
005And I'm just kind of skimming through to see if there's any modification we'd want to add, but my >> I was definitely implying that this is go forward regardless of of school or any other issue. >> Yeah, I actually don't think there's an edit. I I think I think it was written great. So, you didn't say this is on behalf of the, you know, schools. We want these edits. I think it's pretty clear that it's for all all voter packets. >> Great. >> So, thank you very much for doing this. >> Go alphabetically, Lynette. >> Um, yeah, thank you, Brian, for doing this. Um, it looks great. Yeah, I think it is implied that it it is, you know, for all questions moving forward. And um yeah, I just think it it's important to just
006highlight that, you know, uh we're paying attention. We're concerned about these things. I mean, most of you are conquered citizens, so this is good information to be able to access for you and everyone. So, yeah, great job. It's good. >> Thank you. Um before I go to Tracy, Michelle, I see you're on um I just and I think alphabetically last day you are next. So, I just wanted to give you a chance as well to chime in. >> You I think this is a very well-ritten letter. Um obviously I didn't get a packet. I did hear the discussion about it last Wednesday. Um the only thing that I have to offer is um under the what guidelines are in place regarding acceptable wording. Um the third bullet point I think that they thought it was
007appropriate because they included it in the packet. So, you know, that last bullet I, you know, have a little bit of question on whether or not that's needed, but other than that, I think this is really well written and great work. Thank you for taking care of this, Brian. >> Thank you. Why don't we get all the feedback and then we can discuss that that third bullet of making notes as we go, Tracy. >> Um, no, I thought the I thought it was great. I think you've hit all the points that we talked about the other night. Um, and I think there is clarity. Our intention is clear. We're not challenging anything about the election. This is just really about the information in the voter packet. Um, and then my only other comment would be
008maybe we want to list all of our names on it, but that's really for the committee to decide. >> Perfect. I'll make note of that as well to discuss in just a second. Uh, Sandy, >> I like a couple of things. I think two of them came up. Uh the the I I I love the fact that you have up front that we're not challenging the legitimacy election legitimacy of the election. Love that. Um I also did flag the the third bullet point, you know, I I don't necessarily know that's needed. uh one additional statement that I don't know if it makes sense to add is is uh in in that second paragraph itself sharing something about the the the importance of accurate data in democracy. Um you know it even something as simple as
009citizens can't make you or and leaders right can't make uh informed decisions without accurate information. So, um, yeah, that's it. Okay, thank you. We'll talk about that one, Carrie. >> Yeah, I had a um couple of thoughts as well. Um, first of all, I just echo what everybody else said that it's a really well-written letter. Thank you, Brian, for leading the charge on it. Um, and I love the fact that you like first note that we're not challenging the results of the election. Um, I too flagged that third bullet. Do you believe the con statement as it appeared was appropriate? I just don't know that that's helpful at this moment. But I do think that there's um a way to flip it into more of a process question that would be something like um how
010do we ensure and maybe it's maybe it's in these other bullets already, but like yeah, I think it already is. Are there established criteria regarding tone, faculty, clarity, or fairness? Cuz I think the the issue with the that statement in particular is that it wasn't based in fact. it was based in opinion. So, how do we make sure that these pros and cons statements are based in fact and not opinion? That would be my framing um or my my question. Um I also um don't love this the first bullet where it says who is responsible for drafting the language. Um I just I wonder if that is more um like just again to go back to process like what is the process of drafting and approving language? I think that gets at the same point
011without like singling out one person or whatnot. Um, so that would be my last thing. And then my I guess my like my biggest question with this whole thing and I would love to see added into the letter is that um and you allude to this but don't explicitly say it is at the end just say that this does not change the fact that we are not in compliance with the law. um like we respect the vote, but it does not change the fact that our um bathroom situation at the high school, at the stadium in particular, is not in compliance with the law and especially with regards to access by um people with disabilities. So, I um I just that that to me continues to bother me that we're we are not in compliance
012with the law and that to me is the one of the biggest issues. So, I would love to explicitly state that um if others agree. So those are my my few pieces. >> Thank you, Michael. >> So I can certainly appreciate you did yman's work in pulling this together over the past few days. I I'm concerned though that it's it's not speaking to what our charge is. If our charge is to work toward getting funding secured and getting the project uh moving forward, this this this document is backward looking. I understand the concerns that we have about the process, but I would wonder I guess more in line with my comments at the night of the meeting uh that we're looking for funding. We're looking for giving Carile confidence that Conquer has the funding to
013go ahead with the project and even even in the summation we don't really speak to that. U we're we could be outlining how we're applying for CPC funds C the CPA funding. Uh I I spoke informally with Mark Howell uh over the course of the week and I believe you did as well, Tracy. Um and he suggested there are ways that we could get funding for this project that might not require borrowing at all. And if we could uh I I guess the the the the two-track uh focus that we discussed in our meeting. I I the the first track being looking at what we do for that plan B and and stating what we do for that plan B. And then the second thing is looking at the process of what got us to
014this point. And and if we want to get the job done, I would like our letter to be talking about what we want to do as a committee to to marshall our forces to get our project done, which I fully support and which I believe our community fully supports. We just got to figure a way to do it making certain that the financial burden on our citizens is the least. So well put together, well written, but I think it's sort of focusing on stuff that has happened rather than what we need to do to get this across the finish line. So that's my two cents. >> Okay. Thank you. So I think we've got all of the feedback from everybody. Um what I'm actually going to do is I'm going to go into the editable
015version of the document so that we can work on the fly. Uh, and just as a reminder for everyone, we do need to wrap this by 12:30 because I know a number of people had other meetings to get to. Um, okay, >> Ryan, will you do that? Can I just ask a question following up on Michael's statement? Um, I had to leave early on Tuesday or Wednesday, so I apologize, but my I did watch the video of the discussion prior to this um, meeting and I'm curious um, my takeaway from that discussion and again I wasn't there so maybe I'm misreading it was that this was um, my that the this letter was was backward-looking um, about process and but it doesn't and I but I agree with you there's a way to talk about
016our commitment to moving forward but I just want to make sure I understood our charge um myself before we go into editing line editing. >> Yeah. And I feel like that was the intention of this letter is looking at the process. Um we did talk about at the meeting we are definitely applying for CPC funds. We have the deadline for all of that. Um and the only another just alternative that I talked to Mark about you know suggestion and you know I'll I'll say it in front of everyone the to put it into a capital plan for the high school and that would be something that wouldn't require borrowing. So that's where that was uh put. But you know that would be a a discussion of the full school committee. But at this juncture, Lori
017and Bob are putting together the CPC application for this year. And I think I believe their deadline is September 19th. They're meeting on the 16th, but their deadline is the 19th. >> Okay. Um thank you for that. And that's good information. I didn't know that last piece um about capital. Um, so as we went around it sounded like a number of people were concerned about this statement. Do we want to or this bullet? Do we want to just remove it? >> Are we good with that? >> Works for me. >> Sure. >> Okay. Um, the next feedback was to include our names. I'm not going to make everybody watch me type those in, but I will get those on there alphabetically by last name. >> Well, that's up for discussion. if you don't want to
018include our own names, but I think it it just kind of humanizes the letter a little bit more, but it's up to the committee. >> No, I mean, I personally agree with adding >> Yeah, I agree, too. I'm fine with that. >> I'm good with it. >> Go with it. >> Uh, Sundep, you mentioned uh a statement about the importance of accurate data in making decisions. Where were you thinking that might fit? Maybe right before the last statement in the second paragraph >> right here. >> Yeah. Again, I I I think it's it's it's worth it for the committee to debate whether we need a statement like that because, you know, it's it's one of those things where I I think everyone understands u the the importance of data and accurate data, but I think
019putting that in there is specifically calling it out explicitly calling it out. uh if if you know that there's differing thoughts about that on the on the committee. I think we should hear that out first. >> Sandep, do you want to suggest a sentence and then we can put it in and then people can look at it. >> Yeah, sure. Uh how about um accurate data is the is the lifeblood of democracy. that it citizens leaders cannot make informed decisions or or hold uh institutions accountable the spelling there but did I yeah I think that's good >> sorry I was mut Is there a word missing without it? >> Yeah, >> but I like >> I just added it in. >> Okay, thanks. >> Cannot I think cannot make informed decisions or hold institutions make
020>> this right now informed decision. >> Cannot make informed decisions. Yeah, >> thank you. >> I like that. >> I like it. >> Yeah. Okay, >> I think that's good. >> So, we'll add that in. Um, Harry, you said here what it basically to change the language to what is the process for >> drafting and approving and then we'll remove that. >> Would you want to keep the and is there a designated review team? Do you want to keep that part of it? >> Yeah, I I think that's that's wise. Does that work? Everyone comfortable with that? >> Yep. Yep. >> Looks good. >> All right. And then I heard from Carrie and Michael that this last paragraph needs to be stronger. >> I I'm struggling with that a little bit. I I my interpretation
021of the point of this letter is is just to seek out the process and maybe look to a better process for future for future um um um scenarios. We're going to have to be doing this every year at very least for the budget and other stuff that comes up. I almost think that second paragraph, it's very important, but it's almost like a separate letter. And I don't mean to unwind all this stuff with 10 minutes left, but >> I actually really agree with that. I think it takes away from the purpose of this letter. Yeah, I I I I have to say that I think that that in some fashion puts the card people with the horse because if our overall charge is to advocate for and fund the project, looking backward process is great
022for doing a post-mortem on what went wrong, but it's not advancing us toward getting the project funded and getting the project started. So, I'd much rather have this letter and again speaking back to what I brought up at our school committee meeting. I'd much rather have this forwardlooking joining with our select board looking at the mechanisms we have to fund and get this project started with an eye toward showing that to Carla to say, "Hey, we have these ducks in a row and this is something that we can do. Maybe you'll extend your August 31st deadline. we can do that and then talk about uh now the process on this was a bit messy. The first thing I again if our job first and foremost is to advocate for and support this project why aren't
023we doing that and then doing this afterwards? So that's that's the quibble that I have. That's that's the problem I have with this letter. I think that section on where it says as we consider the next step we would like to partner with the conquered select board on how to best proceed. Um like that to me does read things like capital planning. Um and and I guess my question still in this section of the Carell portion the funds expire in August 31st. Brian, do you have any clarity on like the legality of that? Because that was a town meeting vote. Do you have any clarity on that? Uh nothing further at >> okay >> at this point. Um >> no and I kind of wanted to see what kind of discussion happened um you know
024in tonight's conquered select board meeting as well but uh no there's been no further conversation in Carile. >> Is there a plan for the conversation tonight? Does anybody have talking points or an idea of how they're going to discuss this with them? Any potential solutions? I don't know if they have it actually as a discussion item on their agenda. I have to look at that if you just give me a minute. >> When I looked this morning, I did not see it. >> Didn't see it. So, I'm not sure it's a discussion. Um, and I can't be live in the meeting tonight. So I you know the the only thing that we could do is have someone read the letter during public comment if we wanted to or we just send the letter. Those are
025the two alternatives but I don't believe it's on their discussion. And one other point I I might again question is that we're looking at the select board to I guess I wonder since this is a project that we want to put forward and shouldn't we be the ones putting together the steps that we're bringing to the table to move this forward and so put our cards on the table. This is what we have planned to bring forward to the select board. How are you going to join with us? Not asking for them to put what they have on the table and then we put our pieces. We should lead this since this is something we're advocating for. Again, I I I like that we're looking at process, but I think we should come to this
026looking at process already stating what we have in the works, what we're planning to do so we can move the project forward. >> But Michael, we say very clearly we would like to partner with the Conquered Select Board. Um, we're not saying we're looking for the conquered select board to tell us what's next, but we would also, you know, we've now talked about what three different ideas. It would be good to hear from the select board if they think A is better than B or B is better than C. Um, so that we're a bit more coordinated. Um, you know, my feeling from watching this as from afar last fall is there are a number of different starts and stops as we talked about the process. And so I think the alignment right out of
027the gate off of this election is what's going to be important. >> So So again, if I look at this paragraph, I don't see anything that says we're applying for CPC money. Uh I don't see anything in it that says that we are looking at uh the the the the points that were brought up uh that Mark brought up with me and with you Tracy on how we could do this or that without uh incurring a borrowing penalty. So if we could I if if we led with that and then said hey then then this is what we're bringing to the table. These are the eyes that we the ideas that we as a committee have to move the project that we're we're backing forward. What do you have to bring to the table and
028we're we're we're glad to join with you. This just says we're glad to join with you but hasn't got any meat to it in a sense and I I thought, you know, let's put meat to it. Do that first then look at the process. But in all of it saying that we're reaching a hand with with these the ideas we have show us your ideas and let's move right now in this paragraph that you had highlighted. I don't see the ideas in that. >> I don't think we need to include them. >> Okay. But sorry, Carrie. >> I was just going to say I actually I think it was Andrew who when we started this discussion was like I think we and forgive me Andrew if I'm misrepresenting what you said, but that we should
029just almost remove that paragraph. Like we open this letter saying the purpose of this letter is to um talk about information that was sent um to to individual homes. And if that's the purpose of this letter, then let's just stay focused on that and actually figure out what our path forward is as a committee before we um put it in writing to the select board and we can express our commitment to the project without saying this is exactly what we're doing because I don't know that we or the town know exactly what we're doing. But >> well, the only thing I do think that's important is I mean we are looking to continue to part with the psych board. Now in terms of you know if this were to go into capital that would be
030a larger scale discussion through the budget process like we're not ready today on August I don't know what date it is 25th to really you know put this in there like like if we were to consider it part of the capital planning process for the region like we have to consider that as a package and we do that in conjunction with the select board and with the finance committee so I don't think today. We can necessarily say that in a letter, but I do think we can say I I do think we have to say we are looking to partner with the select board like we are trying to collaborate with committees in town. You know, we've had a lot of feedback come in that they want to see us doing that and I think
031it's important to say that. >> Yeah. >> And you've got your hand up. >> Yeah. So, so all great points. Uh I I to me the purpose of this letter is to make sure that you know the the the election that we have here in town or are um you know are fair or legitimate or based on uh process that everyone understands is based on data that everybody agrees. Uh I think that's a whole lot more important than the outcome of this one vote that happened. So in my mind, I think the the the the order of you know the the the content written where we're first talking about the election and then paragraph orers about the the last vote is fair. Uh I I I could again to to what Andrew and Carrie said
032be on board with dropping that paragraph by itself and just keep this focused on one message. Michael, I completely understand that's, you know, uh, talking about what happened in the past, not necessarily the path forward, but I do believe making sure that, you know, some things are are, you know, beyond reproach in this town is is more important than the one election that all center piece thoughts from others on this par on this paragraph. Um, >> we're pushing up against 12:30. >> We are. >> Yes. So I think it's a matter of you know I personally like to just reiterate that this is an important project for us. Um I don't think it has to spell everything out. This is uh you know it's conversations are still to be had but if the majority feels
033we want to just remove this paragraph and at least get the rest of it out then you know I can be persuaded >> I'm I'm good to keep it just to be clear but I think following up with you know different paths forward in terms of CP fun CPC funding etc that that is a separate exercise but I'm fine keeping this as is in this letter. >> How does this make sense to you? >> I'm fine with that. >> Okay. >> So, just to reiterate, we removed um one bullet. We're going to add this the sentence that I have highlighted in yellow. We're going to also tweak this bullet uh in yellow. And we will add I know why that's in caps locks, but I'm running with it. Uh, add everybody's names. >> And Brian,
034once um once you've done that, can you send it to Erin so she can put it on letterhead and distribute it? >> Yep. >> And then I guess my only other question is um is anyone available to read this letter at the select board meeting tonight? I I can um virtually joining uh I don't think I'll be there in person. >> Or if we think that we should be doing that. I guess the first question is should we do that or not? >> Yes, I think we should. I think I might be able to. I I Yeah, I think I might be able to. Can I follow up and then if not Sandep can be a virtual backup? Yes, thank you for the offer. Sorry, I have a conflict. I have a >> No, that's
035okay. >> Child. >> Um, I think what we have have what we need. Tracy, do you want to take it back over for the motion of the vote? >> Okay. So, at this point, I would accept a motion to approve um the letter to the Conquered Select Board as discussed in our meeting. So, moved. And >> hey, roll call. >> I >> Keller. I >> Morano. Iardi >> I. >> Ranken. I >> Wat. I >> Williams. No. >> Okay. So with that, uh, I'd accept a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. Okay. Roll call. >> Um, Herk I. >> Bella. I. Morano. I. >> Charity. I. >> Rank. And I. >> Wat. I. >> Williams. I. >> All right. Thanks everybody. Have a great happy back to school week.