--- title: "Stamford Select Board — December 19, 2024" date: 2024-12-19 session: regular speaker_labels: 1 cluster(s) named from the roll call and that meeting's chair in the minutes, 1 named from roster attendance, 4 of 6 clusters unnamed voice_ids: {"SPEAKER_01":2,"SPEAKER_02":8,"SPEAKER_03":1,"SPEAKER_04":28,"SPEAKER_06":3,"SPEAKER_07":12} duration_min: 109 audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvyVoKJsIZs audio_source: YouTube (@jgramlin78) minutes: https://townofstamfordvermont.org/mediaItems/Sbd%20Minutes%2012-19-24.pdf minutes_pending: false present: [Nancy L. Bushika, Michael G. Denault, John Dunn, Douglas Wright] absent: [Kurt Gamari] transcribed: 2026-10-12 (faster-whisper large-v3, CUDA; names corrected per data/name_fixes.json) diarization: pyannote/speaker-diarization-3.1 (automated; cluster labels may over-split a single voice; unattributed paragraphs have no reliable speaker) --- # Stamford Select Board — December 19, 2024 **Session:** Regular · **Duration:** 109 min · [Audio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvyVoKJsIZs) · [Minutes](https://townofstamfordvermont.org/mediaItems/Sbd%20Minutes%2012-19-24.pdf) **Present:** Nancy L. Bushika, Michael G. Denault, John Dunn, Douglas Wright **Absent:** Kurt Gamari --- **Speaker 1:** Shouldn't we have a meeting right here with the rest of the board of directors? We should be recording that right now. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** We have a meeting to order before, but I'd like to do the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance is to be provided by the United States of America to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We have a meeting to order before we are recording this group. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Now we're in the open part of the meeting. If you have a matter to discuss that is not included on the agenda, you may do so by addressing the chairperson and stating your name and address. You will notice that all our meetings are recorded, and this is to aid with the summarization of the minutes. Visitors are welcome, and we allow five minutes of comments per visitor and 15 minutes for topic. Discussions will be held in a calm and civilized manner and respectful of others. Select board members present are... Point at all. Nancy... Trishica... **Speaker 2:** John Bray... John Dunn... **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Will there be any adding of items on tonight's agenda, or removing of items? I have new correspondence as the agenda was created. Yeah, I have an update on the auditors' course service. I just got a letter from them. An update on the reappraisal for Act 68 blisters. What's going to be happening, might be happening in the state. Will there be any adjustments to the agenda such as... Changing the order of items. Jeb is recording tonight's meeting for his YouTube video site. We've got a lot to cover tonight, so let's hear the visitors. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Visitor? Yep. Do you have my insurance application so I can allow it to go to the classical road on County Road? **Speaker 1:** Yes, I have it. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Yes. **Speaker 1:** Yep. I put in your box the draft agreement that you used in the past. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** We've allowed this before. There was no problem with it before. Dave, according to this, you'll sign it and everything. It's going to be recorded in the land records. Every year, you'll have to update your certificate of insurance. Dave will inspect it every year. If there's a problem, then we will address it and either withdraw it or make suggestions. Was there any other comments on this? Nope. **Speaker 3:** Commercial item. How do I do it? Commercial item. Yes. **Speaker 1:** A million. Yep. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** With all the other ones. Okay. Yep. Do you want to see it? No, I haven't. No objections? Nope. Nope. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Make a motion to allow Brian Jallet to plow from the bottom of, well, where's he plowing from? Where the 30-pound. Somebody else has already plowed. Less than a quarter mile. Yeah. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** You plowed through the driveway. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** From where the other person is. Stop. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** They decided not to. You want permission to be over here. I think. Yeah. **Speaker 4:** I think permission to plow the whole thing. **Speaker 1:** Yeah. So the beginning of the class four. Yeah. If you want to . Rich, can we ask you to do that? **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Sure. I'll do the whole row. . To your gate. And we passed it. Sometimes we pass the gate. We have the gate. **Speaker 5:** Better walk to them. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** With you on the property. And then there's the camp. But we changed it to another. Sure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** . . **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** . . . . . . . . . . . . . **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Climb everything up. . **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** . **Speaker 1:** . loop so yeah um can you leave someone on the right certainly i'm a snowmobiler myself so **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** i don't want to scrape it down and make it yeah **Speaker 1:** thank you so i'll work out the agreement **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** happy months uh reading and approval records and orders from december 5th motion second all in **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** favor yep road conditions dave better than the states doing hey that much it came over last night nine o'clock trash your trailers they just made it by and then they shut it down right after well **Speaker 6:** they keep using that color code to plow the state highways and that's what happened yeah **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** they didn't follow searsburg at all which was making better because there was enough to stay in the road that's not not again that's why i was getting nervous on the tractor trailers there's other tractor trailers coming over the crescent nobody's following them flashing the lights slow down they've made it treacherous enough for themselves they've had their own trucks off the road right **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** um dave i wanted to thank you for applying for the um about the loss control follow-up for the safety measures that the lct recommended for the garage um and you got the eyewash station the eyewash lorry submitted 453 dollars and we got reimbursed 134. however we were penalized because **Speaker 1:** we hadn't made the effort to correct at least 50 percent of the items they listed so they are only **Speaker 7:** reimbursing us 40 percent so what i'm going to suggest in your budget put a little extra money **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** so we can do a couple other of the items uh that they requested and a couple of them aren't bad at all yeah i think we did a good number of them yeah i mean workplace posters we can **Speaker 3:** get an update this year is it 50 percent of the recommendations or 50 percent **Speaker 1:** should be 50 of the costs we incurred in buying the items so if we bought 500 dollars worth of **Speaker 8:** items the penalty was because we didn't hit 50 of the items mentioned of all of the safety features **Speaker 1:** that they called us out on when they did the inspection on the highway garage so if there **Speaker 4:** was 10 we had to do five five **Speaker 9:** they don't say tell us they don't say we didn't say that in which five is it the big ones **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** yeah well check over the report again and figure out something for the budget whatever we fix i think the worst thing was what the the heat **Speaker 10:** they don't like our wood stove or something they don't like solid no fuel burn they don't **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** like it doesn't mean an issue they're just they're an insurance company we'll deal with it some **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** we'll deal with it they'd rather do something else yeah so we can pick something out figure it out in the budget how often do they do that once a year i think i've had it done three times **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** it depends on they forget about us yes **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** kobe didn't help and like you said they forgot about us we're a long way from montpelier and we're quiet anything else on road conditions recycling we had to do a repair to the **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** want to do something yeah at some point i'd like to move the shed but i have to look at the shed and it's in the bottom it's got some the back of it would have to come probably off and put back on i don't know if it's really worth it i was able to push it in here and we're working at 6 o'clock enough that i get my loader past that for some removal so at some point oh we also talked about some kind of heat uh you know pro electric heater or something yeah it's a nice it would be nice to do that but i mean there's going to be costs to that we're going to have to have electric running that pole so there's going to be a service put on the pole and how often one of them there on saturday are they inside are they constantly outside i mean they're inside using that that's in the main building yeah you know but i'm saying when they're that other than that they're outside really you kind of gotta be out right because i purchased one of those outdoor heaters the propane ones yeah if you stand underneath that i don't care how cold it is off you're warm and i got mine for it was on sale for 170 bucks and i got cool you know i just had a crystal party we put it outside it was amazing you know maybe something like that by the actual unit up there i mean it comes up high it shoots down so it's coming up you know **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** ten people stand around it all we need is two people **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** to be good but it's enough to keep keep it up and keep warm a lot you know and that said it's perfect but it's better than what they have now yeah i mean if that's something you guys want to do well i just don't get it i think that you know it's better than what they have **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** you know yeah i have nothing else i'm recycling Anything else on highway? No. Review of the guy's highway ordinance. Laurie sent us the latest version. Just a couple housekeeping things like renumbering. But everything that was in there last time, if you look at all the last time, we did. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Yeah. I learned to pass it last time. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Yeah, we did. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Found some spelling mistakes. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** There's a couple of stuff that I know of. No, the computer spelled it wrong. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Oh, the computer. It was a computer problem. Yeah. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** So I think we found everything else. **Speaker 1:** Yeah, I have not made the housekeeping things we talked about today, because I know you guys already have this draft here. I hope there will be more after tonight. Yep. If you want to see a final title at your next meeting and approve it, **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** you know, I think we'll go with that. **Speaker 3:** So any housekeeping you need to do, you can do. Yep. I like that you made a motion to approve it. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Yep. Approve it with corrections. Start the process. If it's approved tonight, then Laurie has to clear the paper. And it's got 60 days if someone wants to look it over and make suggestions or come to the board. There's a way that they do this. 60 days. **Speaker 1:** So it becomes effective. 60 days from the date that you approve it. But I will have to publish it in the paper and wait. And as long as there's no objections, that'll be just. Do you have a second? **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** And I'll make a motion. I'll second. All in favor? Aye. I did get a response from the staff attorney at VLCT. If there was a conflict of interest. If a delinquent tax collector holds more than one office like Justice of the Peace. And there is no state law that prohibits this. Because I'm sure you would have found it before now. But then she goes on to say it depends. It's everyone's favorite lawyer response. It depends how the delinquent tax collector is paid. It depends on the delinquent tax collector. Or the JP if they feel there is a conflict of interest. So right now, in two weeks, there's going to be a whole new Vermont code of ethics. That we're going to have to follow and do a conflict of interest policy. So that was the response from VLCT. And then there was another question about the assessor clerk having input with the assessor. No. The assessor clerk does not have any input. Just driving around, putting in the values that he sets. So that is our response. And that's it. Yes. **Speaker 6:** So that's definitely not indicative of the questions and the issues that I rose. I mean it's a small piece of it. But you're kind of sidestepping the main issue. So first of all, the VLCT, what you should have definitely called the ethics committee. The VLCT is like. They're not going to give you that. You should have 1,000% contact with the ethics committee. The thing is, is it's not a matter of the positions being held together. We know that. We've discussed this. It's on film. The issue is, is that she 1,000% had input with the assessor. Because it happened to me. She was on my property with some of you people giving her opinion. And I didn't pay my taxes. That's a conflict of interest. That's a conflict of interest because it directly affects her pay. Period. Okay. So why wasn't that brought up to the VLCT? Like this issue isn't just one of those things. Well, you know, the state says that there's no issue holding these seats together. That's not the issue. The issue is that she's had a say in people with the assessor, with the board of abatement, and in the board of civil authority. Like that is a conflict of interest. You cannot. You cannot hold the position. And if you read the new ethics stuff that comes out, I mean, it is a dummy proof list. If you did this, you move to this. If this happens, this. If this, conflict of interest. Like a child could go through that. If you stand to make any financial gain from any position in the town that you are paid for, conflict of interest. Period. Period. And the issue is she refused to recuse herself from these meetings. That's the other problem. So I don't care what the VLCT says. No lawyer there. They don't care. Okay. They want, oh, you know, the issue is we don't have people to hold these positions. We've been down this road in this rabbit hole. The issue is we have somebody. Nobody wants anybody to leave the position that is the tax collector. Okay. The delinquent tax collector. That individual, though, should not have a say moving forward. Listen, I don't care if you think that she didn't give any opinion because she did. It's an outright lie to say she did because she was on my property. Okay. So then you lied. Then you just lied. Saying that she didn't have any input because she did. She was there having an argument with Kurt Amari. Right. Am I correct? It's yes or no. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** I don't remember that. I was. **Speaker 6:** If you were there. How can you. I remember it was it's specific to my property. You weren't there for any other reason. Right. Okay. So that's the issue that I'm having. And now you're trying to sidestep and say that things that happen. Things happened. Okay. So everybody can hear it. Nothing didn't happen. She went above and beyond and is benefit and benefited from the decision that she made on my property because I had paid my taxes. And she stood to collect 10% or 5% of the delinquent taxes for that property. Okay. Conflict of interest. Would you say so? **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** And we made that. **Speaker 11:** You just didn't say that we made that decision as a board to what, to allow it to happen. So then you're a knowledge or not. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Abate them or lower them. **Speaker 6:** Okay. But she had a say in it. Why was she there? **Speaker 11:** Well, I'm sorry, but at that time, so I have to get my attorney involved together. **Speaker 6:** We'll come with another lawsuit because I got no problem with it. Okay. I don't want to go that route. I just want what's right for the town people. Okay. So she, she, she financially benefited from her decision for me. It's all on film. It's all on tape. It's all in minutes. And my attorney will chew that up. So if we want to go down this road and that's fine, but I think that it would behoove you to do what's right for the people of the town and not just, oh, we'll call the BLCT. I've been pretty patient and just bringing forth the basic stuff, but to sit there and outright lie and say that she didn't have a say in the assessment is kind of aggravating. I apologize for raising my tone if I just did, but it's, it's one of those things where this isn't a baby issue, this is a massive issue. How, who else did it bother? Because I've talked to a handful of people that it's affected. Okay. For whatever reason, people don't want to step up and have this conversation, but I'm good. It affects my dollar in my money, in my house, in my family. So guess what? Again, it's not personal. Like we discussed. It's. Everything to do with what's right and what's wrong. So I can assure you when the new ethics committee stuff comes out in the first, and I'm sure you've read it or some of you have read it. At least you're going to see that if I make that phone call to the ethics committee again, that they're going to be like, yeah, that's an issue. So if it's going to be an issue, not then, why isn't there an issue now? **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** So I want to know, um, I've already voiced my opinion last meeting about how I feel. The only thing I disagree with. Is or not disagree. I think they, the wording of now, I think Nancy's a liar, by the way. I think that I don't think she's a liar. Let me finish. Well, I'm talking, okay. Let me finish. Well, I'm talking. Don't talk to me like a child. Don't don't. I didn't cut you off. I let you talk. **Speaker 6:** I'm just saying, I didn't say she was when I'm talking, don't say you misrepresented it. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I said she lied, but I'm making an opinion. Now I can talk to me, but I would like to finish before you cut me. Off. Okay. Done. Can I have that move back? I gave you that. Sure. Okay. And I'm not talking to you any louder than you thought. Okay. So what I'm asking is, is when we say, when we say she didn't have a say, or when Nancy says she didn't have a say, and then there's an opinion that she had an opinion, I think there's a definition that she's saying, well, when she talks to the assessor to her opinion, doesn't. It doesn't matter that say part of it, he doesn't put that into account no more than your opinion or my opinion. It's just an opinion. And every person, no matter if they hold a position or not, can go to the meetings, can go even a hearing. They can sit in the hearing and voice their opinions, no matter what that, that first part of it. I don't really agree with, I don't think Nancy's a liar. I just put, I just, I don't really think that any time that Nancy makes an opinion or a statement, she, her, uh, intention is to lie ever. Okay. I mean, I have all the integrity in the world for her that, that being said, the conflict that ends up interest part of it is I do agree with you. I did last week or two weeks ago, whatever it was, I do agree with you. I think that the conflict of interest of the vote part of it is a conflict of interest. If I'm voting on something, I shouldn't recuse myself. That being said, I don't know when this is, I admit, I don't know what the board of select boards authority is on an elected position. She ran for an office and was not only did she win the justice and peace, but she's a top vote getter. And now what do we do? Where is our authority to tell her you must step down other than asking that she should vote? If I'm asking that she steps down, if I ask, if we want to set, okay, would you step down, which would be the easiest way to avoid all these problems? And she said, sure, I'll do it. That would just everything. But then down the road, another person, like you said, it's not personal. Another person comes in and does the same thing. What do we do? What does the select boards authority do for an elected position? And I don't know the answer. I don't know if you know the answer. I don't know if you know the answer. Okay. I don't know the answer. Where both her positions are elected, both, they're not appointed. It's not, it's not the same as a planet board, but you're on the planet board, you're just as the piece. So I, I make a motion that we release you of your duties on the planet board, right? You're done. We kick you out. We got the authority to do that. But as justice and peace, we don't, and I don't believe we do. And I think that that's something we, if we don't have the power, I don't know what we can do. If we do have the power, then I would like to follow through on it and say, okay, well, if there's, and I do believe that ethics can be with hands down, say there's a conflict of interest because I do agree. And I like both you. I like you. I like Sam. It's not about that. No, I just believe that anytime you're making money from your vote, it's a conflict of interest. I do believe that wholeheartedly. **Speaker 6:** I don't think it's just a vote though. I don't think it's just a vote. I think it's, you shouldn't even have a say because you can be influential in the community at any level. And sadly is very, now I'm sorry for using her name, but I only did cause you did. So she's extremely, she's extremely influential in the community. A lot of people listen to her. A lot of people take what she says. She's been here long enough. I think she's earned that. Okay. Nobody's saying that she isn't being right with whatever she comes up with for a topic, but she 1000% sat there and put in. In my assess. Well, the assessor did. So when you said she doesn't, she didn't have a say with the assessor. You don't believe that? Well, she wrote that my property had upgrades on it, driveway, septic, and well, she said that. And what was in my report from the assessor, that exact thing. So yes, she did do that. And again, I don't speak for anybody else in the time. Okay. I speak for what happened to me. And so all these things. So she did do that. So she did have a say. She did have an influence because she, her exact words were put into my assessment that he specifically said that you, that guy said in return, returned wet and rebutted a little bit by saying, Hey, yeah, he's got a driveway. So why? I mean, there's no structure here and no, there's no septic there. That's fine. But bottom line is she had to say she's influential. Anybody in that position should not even have a say, should recuse themselves from the conversation. Period. Okay. It's not just a vote. It's a vote. Because again, you may be more influential than Doug. Doug may be more influential than, you know, anybody, you know what I mean? I don't know, but we know some people have more clout in the town than others. And so when they speak, people listen. **Speaker 12:** So you know, and when you come in, so if that's true, I'm not debating you on one, one issue, **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** you know, or one time that it happened. If that's true. Okay. So the justice of the peace is the part that makes her on all the committees. The justice of peace puts her on the board of civil, puts her on all the boards, right? If she wasn't a justice of peace and she was the clerk assessor and they're working together that day and she says, just her and him says, peace properties got this, this and this on it. Still has an opinion. It's a vote. But she doesn't have a vote anymore. That's why I say it's the vote is what matters. The, the influence on him, she can call them on the phone and tell him, I mean that part of it is you're not going to stop that. I could call, I mean, you look at people on Facebook and go, Hey, you know, Pete's properties, this it's out there. And who, depending on who says it becomes gospel, I get what you're saying, but I'm saying vote. the justice and appease part of this equation is the big issue. I think we just contact the state. Is that correct? **Speaker 6:** Yeah, I think we contact the state and let them know that there's been a conflict of interest in the town. We're voted in position. Okay. Financially benefited from a decision that she was a part of and she should be removed as justice and appease. Okay. It's **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** pretty simple. And then the process is that the select board has to vote on if there was a violation if they feel like there was a violation. I clearly think there was a violation in the fact that she is a JP and has say so. That's clearly, like you said, this part here is, you know, I don't think there's really anything there. But you need to vote on it. It was there. Yes. Then a letter needs to go to the ethics commission and the state. **Speaker 3:** And then they **Speaker 13:** go back to it. Unfortunately, we did **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** not know it back then when Sally... When they took offices, had these two offices for more than 10, 12 years. We've never had this problem. It's never come to any of our minds that there was a conflict. Going forward, we have to abide by the code of ethics. So that's what we... We know we've got to do that. So we'll follow up on it then. And Pete, you have to do what you have to do. **Speaker 6:** So what you're saying is that you don't have to vote on whether or not you're going to send this to the state. Because you didn't know what happened in the past. But it's like knowing that somebody committed a crime just because you didn't know at the time but you know now doesn't relieve your duty to report it. Right? **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Were we required to report it then? **Speaker 11:** I don't know that. I think you're **Speaker 6:** wholeheartedly should be reporting it. I mean, you're an elected official. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I think they have to take a vote on it. Well, that's... My question is not... I guess what you just said, Nancy, is were we required back then? You know, when you said you brought it up, that was the same year of this process, right? Same year. It wasn't 10 years ago. That's what I'm saying. **Speaker 14:** So what Nancy talked about was 10 years ago. I've come in front of boards in the past for time clips. This is from... I've probably done it three times. Well, I remember you doing it with your home this year. And I've done it in the past, too. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** But it wasn't 10 years ago by any means. **Speaker 14:** Might have been. Actually, yeah, I'll have to pull my record. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I don't remember it, but that's okay. I've always done it. Well, no, I'm just saying I don't remember 10 years ago that there was any athlete to say one that would those two positions at all. It might have been that person, but I don't remember the two positions. **Speaker 14:** It was definitely a conflict, yeah. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** But now, is what Pete's saying, is now that it has been brought up to this level, we have to look at it and say, is it or is it not a conflict of interest to have these **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** two positions? Only if the delinquent tax collector gets paid the way she's paid now. **Speaker 11:** Yes, that is correct. So if you go and just **Speaker 6:** change her pay, it doesn't eliminate the fact that it's still going to be a conflict of interest. I mean, that's what you're saying right there. I know what you're getting at. Honestly, honestly, and that's funny. I mean, good for you. Kudos, because I knew that was coming. You know, bottom line is, the position, why I'm calling for that right now is because she is elected, but she isn't sworn in, technically. I mean, she might be sworn in already. She might have, because I think she's allowed to, technically, because she already holds the seat. If I'm not mistaken, I'm not sure, Lori. But if she hasn't, let's say she hasn't been re-sworn in for this **Speaker 15:** coming term. **Speaker 6:** Okay, so I wasn't sure if she could, because she was still... So we have a time frame, a short time frame, where that's person does, can, like, it can change, because I guarantee you, like you said, if you went to the JLP or the state and said, hey, we had a runoff election, we had somebody that was on the board that's about to lose their seat, they ran against them in an election and lost, but that person will assume that seat against speculating, but I'm assuming the state would be like, sure, no problem. And that seat would be covered. Because the issue is, is again, you can't recuse yourself from every job, as a JLP, and hold the position in good faith, you know what I mean? It's like being a selectman and just never showing up. You know, it'd be, like, it'd be ridiculous. So, you know, kudos to you, though, for saying if we change your pay. It doesn't negate the fact that it's already happened, you know what I mean? Yeah, for the next cycle. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** For what? **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** In case she ever leaves, it's something to think about. **Speaker 5:** For changing the pay? Well, no. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** For changing the pay or position or whatever. But, Megan, you have an ethics, something that you have to... **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Those rules, and they say in there, you've got the whole thing, from what I read, yes. Do you answer this question? Yes, go to. And then go to and just follow the flowchart. But it doesn't say you have to remove yourself **Speaker 6:** from the position. Well, no, no, no, you're right. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** You write it out that I have to recuse myself because I know you're or I might benefit from it. **Speaker 10:** Actually, when you do **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** recuse yourself, you're supposed to give a **Speaker 6:** reason why. Well, now, with the new ethics coming out, they're not going to accept, I don't want to recuse myself. Like, they're going to have to give a good faith reason, and the state will make the decision whether or not that they're going to have the ability to **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** know. Even if we were to go to the person involved and ask if you would like to recuse yourself, this doesn't solve the problem. See what I'm saying? If it would be, would you step down as justice of peace? Yes. Let's just say for argument's sake, yes, I will. We go, we fill in the blank for the justice of the peace, and that goes through just like you just said. Five years from now, someone takes over for justice of peace and we're back to the same square one. How do we stop the process? You've got your bylaws, and that's what **Speaker 16:** we need to do. Bylaws or ordinance? **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** But the bylaws don't say no. I mean, not the bylaws, but you were just talking about your ethics. **Speaker 14:** We have to start, we have **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** to follow it. So the time is after January 1st, we have to come up with this, but this never, this was never in front of us at that point. So I would like to I just want to make it clean. I want to clean it up. It doesn't make sense. **Speaker 6:** Not to. I think if we had an issue with people like joining boards and like wanting to be a part of the community, I could understand the hesitance and being **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** like, eh, you know, I don't want to do that. Because if there's a money conflict interest, then we should No, no, I don't want to mention them, but they have people that are, they're making money in, and it's in the state of Vermont, they're making money, and they're on the boards, and they're not having it. **Speaker 12:** I just think **Speaker 17:** it would behoove, **Speaker 6:** it would behoove the town to not allow those positions to co-exist. I mean, it's it sets you up, and it sets the person in the seats, whoever that is. **Speaker 12:** We have someone **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** similar, if you're on Well, I can't run for treasurer. I can't run for treasurer. She can't be on the ZVA. Yeah. She can't be a justice. She can't be a justice of the peace, or a justice of the peace, can't be Once we write off, once we write off. But at this time, and when the so-called violation, or whatever you want to call it, and I truly believe, like you said, it's not whether there was an intent, **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** it's just happening. So if you could call it a violation, you know, whatever it comes with, it's happened. It's already happened. Right. So if it's happened, we can't change it. You know, we can't go back in the past. Let's stop it, though. Let's change it. So I think, you know, we can't go back in the past. Let's stop it, though. Let's change it. So I think, you know, we can't go back in the past. Let's change it. So I think, you know, we can't go back in the past. Let's change it. So I don't have a problem with writing an ethics by ordinance that says that you can't run for JP and hold that position. I don't have a problem with that. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Hold in what position? The clerk? **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** The clerk, assessor, or **Speaker 10:** Tax collector. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** You know, tax collector, whatever you want to call it. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** But they're both elected positions. How do you tell people you can't run for both? That's the election. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** There's no reason why she couldn't be elected. Because, just like we just said, a slight board member cannot hold the treasurer. Right. **Speaker 5:** You can't run for those two positions. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Right. But those are by state law. But by state law, I'm JP. And tax collector, there's no conflict. **Speaker 14:** State law also says if there is a perceived ethics violation or a perceived conflict of interest, you must step away. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** What law was that? **Speaker 18:** From the **Speaker 14:** From the It's in the evidence. No, I just want to look it up. I don't have it memorized. From the hearing, though. Pardon? From the hearing, not from the position. In general, if there is a perceived conflict of interest, there is. There is. And I think that's what's going to happen, you know, with the new laws that are coming out in January. It's, guys, you're arguing something that we all know is a conflict. So, we all know it's a conflict of interest. The cat's out of the bag. So, how is she going to be effective going forward? She's going to have to recuse. Recuse. Right. Recuse. Right. So, why put her in that position? I thought you guys did address it with her and say, hey, this is a conflict here. We know it's elected, but do you realize what it just reads, I know we're a small town, but you read about this stuff all the time, corruption and these types of things. Look at Clarksburg and the money that just vanishes. Wow. **Speaker 19:** And you don't know. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** This doesn't happen with anybody in any of those positions. **Speaker 14:** So, you just need to nip it in the bud. She can't be on both. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** But, okay, so something comes up with Healy, you're just elected JP, and you're going to hear something on, you're going to have to recuse yourself if you get it from the CBA, right? She doesn't have a financial gain. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** There's a difference between recusing yourself because her neighbor is asking for a permit, right? Or, that's a difference than a financial gain. So, and I don't think, I don't know why, I thought we got past the argument whether it was because you said we're arguing. I thought we got past the argument part of it and said, how do we fix it now? I thought we were trying to get, **Speaker 20:** I guess I was trying to get past the argument part of it. **Speaker 14:** Did anyone ask her, would she step aside? **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** So, I thought she was going to be, we had an executive session tonight, **Speaker 3:** and she didn't come. **Speaker 14:** So, that's what I wanted to address at that point. So, we went through a special election which could have been avoided, a thousand some odd dollars, and this wasn't even addressed with her prior to? I thought, you know, I... **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** The special election was... **Speaker 14:** Wasn't it before? **Speaker 16:** No, you had brought it up. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** No, I brought it up before that. **Speaker 14:** You brought it up well before then. Yeah. **Speaker 21:** I just, again, I think that it would behoove you guys, **Speaker 6:** again, it's my opinion, it doesn't mean anything to hold any clout, but I don't think that, just like you shouldn't hold her position, I think the best move is for anybody holding that position that both positions shouldn't co-exist. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** So, here's my, and again, I'm not in disagreement. I'm not in disagreement with either one of these. I truly believe there's conflict of interest. This is my, I'm not talking for the board. I'm just part of the board. I think that there's conflict of interest. Not I think. I truly believe there is. Okay? It's not an opinion. I believe there's conflict of interest. You know, 100%. You only can have 100% not a thousand. **Speaker 22:** Just close enough. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I'm just kidding. But it's there. What do we do? So, let's, whatever we... The question is, what do we do? I can't get the answer. Okay? Which way to go? Let's do it. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** We're going forward. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Let's do it. Now, again, I would like to bring the party into an executive session, ask that to make it a smoother transition where the justice and the peace before the first of the year, whatever, is to dealt with, but on the other side of that is, let's just say, no, I'm not doing that. It can happen, right? Yep. Then we still go through with this process to make sure that there's an ordinance put in place now that down the road, we have it in place that that doesn't... Whether it's state law or not, we can make our own ordinance, right? So we can say these two positions are in the thaw of urgency. Clarity. And the board believes these two positions are a conflict of interest because of the gain of financial gain. **Speaker 14:** Isn't that what the VLCD, though, said? Didn't they make it pretty clear that the way she's compensating, it's a conflict of interest? Sure. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** You guys got to understand something. When you write a letter or an email to VLCD, they're going to give you a decision based on what you told them. It's not what really happened. It's what you're saying to them. So if you're saying something to VLCD on the same issue that I'm saying, we might decide differently between you. Sure. So it happens every single time. But may I make one suggestion? No. You just made a proclamation that you believe there was a conflict of interest here. Mm-hmm. May I suggest to the board you make a motion, and that way you can open it for discussion and then decide what you're going to do? Yeah. I'm working on it. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Going forward, we deal with the code of ethics and our conflict of interest. Conflict of interest and work on it from there. Okay. That's my opinion. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** In order to make this investigation, we have a process. Is that correct? Because I've never done this. I mean, I'm not a government, so that's why I'm asking the question. What do we do that says, okay, in the event that the party says no, there's a process that shows, yeah, there is. Look at it. The state said there is. The L.T. said there is. I said there is. The board said there is. Yes, there is a conflict of interest. What do we do to make it happen, not just a suggestion? **Speaker 14:** Well, one of the positions would have to be. She'd have to either not be tax collector or not be- **Speaker 23:** Have to is different than want to. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** So they're both elected. She was elected by the people. And I don't know. And that's my big question is, can you tell an elected official, you're out of here? I don't think so. But in your treasury, I guess, is it stated that you cannot be both? **Speaker 5:** No. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** No, not these two positions. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** So the thing is, if there's a board of abatement or DCA here or whatever, just ask that person that's in that job there, collect their delinquent taxes, it's going to affect your pay to not serve on that year. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** So that would be every year? Every year. Every abatement? Every abatement. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Every abatement. Not so much, well, not every abatement, because maybe they're not asking for abatement of their taxes. How about their assessment? The assessment, I think it would be. **Speaker 6:** If you're coming in and have any opinion that affects the payment of taxes that you have delinquently, not paid yet, is a recusal. **Speaker 11:** Taxes, but what if it's a part of your taxes, not your taxes? **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** It doesn't matter. **Speaker 6:** If you stand to make a financial gain from it, what's the decision? Because it has nothing to do with the taxes or the penalties and interest. It's everything to do with the year's taxes that were not paid. So if I come in for an abatement, regardless if it's for my school tax or whatever the case may be, it's still a conflict of interest. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** So I think that we can change the process. You know, going forward. What I want to know is what do you do with the problem at hand? So we could change the process and say we have an ordinance, just like Jed was saying, just like we have with these two boards, even follow the state law on the slot and treasurer, just make it the same thing. Those two positions can't be run together. We could do that, you know, right away. Boom. That's an ordinance. But that doesn't stop that she holds two positions now. And she was elected prior to her. **Speaker 17:** That's only for one year. **Speaker 6:** That's fine. Because, well, I can say that I'll be a part of those boards. So I can ask her to recuse herself at that point if there's ever an issue or a conflict that I feel I can't tell her to. But I can bring it to the rest of the people as a recommendation on the board to say she needs to recuse herself from this position. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** So I go that route. From here on out, these two positions will not be. If the judge says one piece is a one-year. **Speaker 1:** It's not. **Speaker 9:** Or two-year. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Two years, you've got to ask someone to recuse themselves. I mean, for two years. I don't think in the law, I don't think that's an option. I think that is a job description. Love it. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** If I'm not mistaken. I think so. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I don't think you can remove it. I believe what you need to do. Not from every state. Right. You need to have the board on everybody on, you know, an official. **Speaker 14:** I agree. **Speaker 16:** Step. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** That's what I was just going to say. And so once that step starts, then you have ammunition and teeth when you talk to them. I want to know what the step is. That's why I had to make a motion. We need to know all of these. If it doesn't pass, then you just have a conversation. **Speaker 14:** Mike, you've made it very clear, and I appreciate that. But I think we're going on three times now. The other members have not said they feel this is a conflict. It's a conflict of interest. And until you all say that, it's just you that wants to move forward. So I really want to hear if. **Speaker 6:** Well, Mike and Kurt both said that they, you know, that they both voiced their opinion. **Speaker 21:** Kurt, but he's not here. **Speaker 6:** I'd like to know. He's supposed to reach out to the ethics committee of the state. **Speaker 14:** I'd like to know what you guys think. **Speaker 21:** Where are you supposed to go from here? Well, I think like what you said is, it's a no-brainer. **Speaker 6:** Okay. You make you. It's the simplest thing to do. It's to eliminate those positions. Let's stick together. So vote on it. **Speaker 17:** It's ridiculous to have somebody in that position if they're going to have to continue **Speaker 6:** to refuse themselves. Correct. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** There may be instances where Nancy brought up where she might not have to vote. If you're going to be on the board and have to continue to refuse yourself, then why be in that position? **Speaker 17:** And that's the point here. **Speaker 6:** So Mike brings up the point. It was an election position. How do we tell the people that you elected her? You elected her. You were wrong for electing her. And what we got to do, tell her you've got to step down? I don't think we can. What is the right way to go about this? **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Once you realize that you have an ethics issue, you write a letter and you send it to the ethics commission to the state. Meanwhile, you're having a conversation with her saying, you know, this can't happen. You're on hold? I just got one question. And I think this will answer everything. One question is, did she or did our tax collector benefit by her decision with Pete? I think that's a valid question. No, that's . What was her decision? I mean, she didn't make it that she wanted. No, no, no. I don't know what the decision was. I wasn't there. I have no idea. Was there some monetary deliberations of Pete's thing? I don't think we can talk about it. **Speaker 2:** That was an executive session. **Speaker 24:** It doesn't matter. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** She had a decision. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. **Speaker 10:** She had a vote. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** So you guys, now, so keep that in mind when you're making decisions. If there was a monetary gain, that's an epic — The answer to the question is different than did she get paid. **Speaker 10:** Did her opinion or her vote matter? **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** We're not supposed to talk about that. If it didn't matter, she still got paid. If it did matter, she got paid. Mm-hm. So the answer to did she gain financially, even if she didn't show up, yes. **Speaker 6:** But it would have been a different issue. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I think it would have been a different issue. You'll need to answer your question. But she didn't necessarily sway the board. I'm not saying she did or didn't because I'm not promising that. **Speaker 14:** She benefited from the business. **Speaker 1:** She could have reduced herself and still benefited. **Speaker 6:** And still benefited. Right, but I think it would have not been a – for me, that's not a conflict of interest at that point. If she recused herself from any deliberation or any voice in my property, there's no conflict of interest. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** So here's the thing. This is – it is. I'm going to be honest. The whole system is a touchy situation because we all know each other. We all have to – quote and date, we have to live in the same town together. I'm kind of – and that's true. It's a very – you don't want to look at it like I'm going – it's a personal vendetta. You're saying in this – correct me if I'm wrong. You're good with her recusing herself for two years. **Speaker 6:** No, not really. I thought it was a year. Okay, even if it was a year. But at least we could have gotten through the – like a – kind of like a waiting period because she was elected. I mean the only other thing is that you – I think if you – I don't know. Right. Right. Right. Right. If you wrote a letter to the Ethics Committee or the JLP and said, hey, listen, we've got a conflict of interest here and we had one. She was just elected. We've got town people looking for her to step down. What do you suggest? Right. Because she benefits from decisions. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Can – I think that's – my question is, and I don't know if anybody in the room knows, can state say you must step down to an elected – If that's what the Ethics Commission does. Or do they – We can't remove – we can't remove her. I don't believe they can. It would take two years. It seems like the simplest, easiest way, and I'm not trying to cater to anybody, is that we make the ordinance right away. So this never happens again. And then after she's – her term goes up, she can't run. Or she can run for that, but not this. Yeah, I don't – And in the meantime – **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** You're saying the delinquent tax collector benefited from the decision the board made. **Speaker 6:** She benefited from it because she had a say in it. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** But you're – **Speaker 11:** There's no but. **Speaker 6:** She fought. I actually think she benefited whether she had a – I agree. Okay, but my point is, is we don't know exactly what the vote is because you can't say. Right. Okay, but – **Speaker 11:** But you know. **Speaker 6:** I know. Okay. So bottom line is, is she stood on my property in a site visit, in the board – as a board member, as part of the board of civil authority, as JOP, and voiced opinions and had a say and a vote. That's a conflict of interest because you stand to gain from your vote. Let's say that the vote was one by one. I don't know. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I personally think that we've already agreed on it. But she's asking now. She's asking. So I'm just – I'm saying that – **Speaker 6:** So let's just make a motion to make that happen and see what happens. And then we'll go from there moving forward. I think that's your best – you can – I know you don't want to do it, so you're going to vote no, which is fine. Everybody has a vote. Make it the two positions that coexist. Well, we're going to. Yeah. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I think I'm going to make a motion that we're going to have ordinance that they don't happen in the future. What about the two years that she's still – **Speaker 6:** What? In that meantime, I think you send a letter to the Board of Ethics that says that there was a conflict of interest because she would acknowledge that. You have to acknowledge the State Ethics Department. Right. **Speaker 2:** Well, I think if you could say, okay, that – okay, she collected so much money because of these comments, you know, then you got it. And that would be an issue. I guess what I'm trying to say is, is there a violation? Was there – did she actually collect? Did she collect some – more money because of that? Well, no, she collected less. That would be real easy. She collected less. Yeah. Yeah. She still collected. That would be real easy to go to the State and say, yeah, there was like a – she used her position. I don't – I don't see that. And it could be sort of what you want to see. If you can hold that, then we can take her off because she did something wrong. She violated her position. **Speaker 6:** I think – I don't disagree. I understand what you're saying. And, no, she actually didn't, like, gain anything. She didn't gain more money because my – some of my stuff was abated, more so on – not enough to really matter. But she still had a say in that money. You know what I mean? It could have went down lower. It could have went down lower. It could have raised up higher. Right. It could have stayed where it was. And she had a vote in that. So if you stand to make any financial gain whatsoever, regardless if it's $1, 50 cents or whatever, that's a conflict of interest in that position. And that's just what I'm bringing forward. And, in fact, it's just – again, I think we're trying – we understand that we don't – you don't want to go down that route. But I think moving forward – and I think a lot of people in the town would agree that anybody that holds a position that stands to make a financial gain in any position is not okay. And that's just not that position. That's – that could be Lori's position. That could be your position. That could be anybody's position. People are going to be like, oh, so you – You can make a – so you're going to have a say in what happened to my taxes, and you can make money off that? Now, one person is going to be like, I'm okay with that. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** So I did read the ethics decision when it comes to conflict of interest. And one of the words that they used is a perceived monetary image. So perceiving that it looks like you're doing it is almost as bad as it being doing it. So – and, again, I've already – Good with the – I'm not arguing at all about whether it's a conflict or not. And I think that even if there isn't, like, peace – you know, did he or did not – or did she not gain money, if it's perceived – you don't know what the deliberation was – but it's perceived that it could be happening, it looks bad. I don't like it. I think it's a no-brainer to me. I don't have a problem making a motion that we need to have an ordinance. That says that the two positions – assessor, clerk, or whatever – or tax – I keep mixing up things. She owns other stuff. But the assessor – or what is it? Delinquent tax collector. **Speaker 25:** Delinquent tax collector. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** That's where she gains the money. Yeah. And justice and peace do not coexist. That they – if you run for one, you can't run for the other. I don't have a problem with that. Just like the state law says select board and treasurer can't run. Yep. And I will make that. I will make that motion if you want to clean that up a little bit. You can't make an ordinance on like that kind of – they're both elected positions. I will make a motion that we look into making an ordinance. I want to put forward on that. I think that is easy. The second thing I want to say – well, there's a motion, so unless I get a second, it doesn't matter. Second. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Agree. But I don't think it's legal. I don't think we can say you can't run for both. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** No, no. We're not talking about that. What's that motion? My motion is that the two positions can't coexist. Uh-oh. Just like I came to my office. I thought you were in the same motion. So you can't run for – no, this isn't about the violation at all. It's just that the liquid tax collector cannot run for justice and peace because there's a conflict of interest. There's a conflict of interest. perceived conflict in the interest of a financial gain. Okay. Okay. All right. That's my hope. **Speaker 6:** She's coming out for election this year for tax collector. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Right. **Speaker 6:** What if she doesn't want to be tax collector and she wants to stay justice of the peace? That issue. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Okay. That's right. But it seems we should still put something in our order. So if we can, I don't know. If we can. I want to make a motion that we look at it and do it then. How's that? I'm sure that we can. Yep. **Speaker 6:** Well, you already made the motion. It was already approved for you to make the motion. Now you should probably make a motion to look into it. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I don't care how you look at it. So, you know, this isn't my full-time job. It's not my job. So I don't care. I don't care how you guys want to spin it. **Speaker 14:** We know what we want. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** My point is I want to do it. Okay. So whatever the motion needs to be, go ahead and do it. All right. Fill in the blanks. My second thing is I don't think we should send a letter until. And this, again, the board didn't shoot me down. I would like to have whatever your executive session with the party involved and ask and talk about it. Your opinion, maybe the step down where it happens. And then it's clean. And then the motion that I just made that Larry's going to write up, whatever it says, is going to clean that up. **Speaker 12:** Yep. **Speaker 6:** So if. That's best case scenario. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** But going forward. Without sending a letter, if that doesn't happen, that wouldn't send a letter. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** But going forward, it could happen again, though. If it's legal. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** If it's an ethics policy. If it's legal. If it's an ethics policy. Right. A policy. Yes. A policy. **Speaker 6:** You can make an ethics policy that has to deal with that. You just can't. You can't go under what the state recommends or what the state has put forward. But you can exceed it. Right. Okay. So my point is. Because I think it's legal. We do. Because ethically, this is an ethics issue. But I'm not 100%. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** And I apologize that my language might be a little stern. Because it's the first time down the road. But I hope that everybody understands that whether I dot my I's and cross my T's, I'm trying to go forward and make this happen. This isn't something that we've ever done. You know, we want to make sure that the language. Is good when it goes down the road. The bottom line is. I agree. And so does in the board. We just voted on that. I think you guys have a good plan moving forward. You know, nothing compared to the ice cream shop. **Speaker 3:** Exactly. **Speaker 6:** Exactly. Nothing compared to what's happening in Pennsylvania. **Speaker 12:** That was a lot. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Thank you. Thanks. **Speaker 10:** Is there anything you want to say? **Speaker 3:** Thank you. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Please vote on it. **Speaker 3:** I'm not voting. You did vote on it. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** But I would vote on what you said there. If. Because you changed it to look into it. I agree with that. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I amended it. I'll make a motion to amend it to look into it as long as it's legal. I agree with it. Oh, it's going to be legal. What if you see the signboard? **Speaker 3:** That you will have to. **Speaker 26:** And it's out. **Speaker 1:** And our motion is to look into it. **Speaker 4:** I just want to say. **Speaker 17:** If it's not legal, of course we can't do it. **Speaker 6:** So, yeah, right. If it's legal, which I believe it is. If it's legal, then you're. Then it automatically. It gets pushed forward. Or do you have to vote again to say that. That's a good point. Yeah. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Yeah. **Speaker 6:** If you. Because then that was. That's a good point. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** If it is legal. **Speaker 10:** We'll deal with that when it comes out. **Speaker 6:** I don't think you should deal with it when it comes out. Because I don't think you're going to have this conversation all the time. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** It will be a policy. We'll bring the policy. Perfect. Thanks. **Speaker 9:** No problem. **Speaker 1:** Are we okay? Do you have a second on your amended motion to look into it and make sure it's legal? I second. Okay. **Speaker 6:** It's legal that the two positions don't coexist. It's not that the positions coexist. It means that the same person can't hold both the positions. **Speaker 25:** I don't think it's going to be an issue in the next year. I don't think it's going to be an issue in the next year. **Speaker 6:** I think we're going to have an issue with having somebody that's put a lot of years into the town and has been dedicated. That's not an issue. That's not an issue. That's not an issue. That's an issue. That's not an issue. I think she means well for the town. Don't disagree. Nobody says that she's doing it maliciously, which I want to make sure that everybody understands that. Like, I am not going after her saying that she wholeheartedly had an agenda against Peter Greenbush. No, that's not my thing. The whole thing is that it's just a conflict of interest regardless of who holds that position. And I know somebody would take over both positions tomorrow. So, I mean, I don't want to go down there. Hold up. Right. I think we're on the path to going in the right direction. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** I just want to ask Dad something because you've been on the Board of Civil Authority for a while. Fifteen, thirteen of us? Twelve? This has never come up, talking about conflict of interest on the Board when we had a BCA hearing? **Speaker 14:** No, we... At the Board meeting. Nope. I was only on for one year. Okay. All right. And we... I was maybe involved in... Three meetings? But, no. At that time... You've been there longer. Lori spent... Lori would probably be... Not during any of those meetings has it ever come up. Not during the meeting. We just never, never crossed any of our minds. Well, I think that happens a lot with what we've been going through in the past several **Speaker 1:** years. **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** We are evolving as a group. And there's a lot of input. A lot of people care. There's a lot of... **Speaker 14:** There's a lot of... There's a lot of... There's a lot of... There's a lot of... There's a lot of... There's a lot of... There's a lot of... There's a lot of... There's a lot of... There's a lot of... There's a lot of... There's a lot of... A lot of people care enough to make things... Right. Right. Stuff that we don't know and didn't know. We have gone through... Look at the zoning position. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Sure. **Speaker 14:** There's been other issues where we said, well, that's the way it's always been. And it was wrong. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Exactly. Ooh. Yes. Say that. Yes. **Speaker 20:** Yeah. **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** No, I agree. **Speaker 14:** And I think it's the testament to... You know... Yes. One more. I'm just going to... **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** Were you willing to be... Yeah. Are you willing to be... Well, one or three. Okay. More. some of us got this room kind of big enough for the two of us did we officially vote? **Speaker 1:** can I answer a second? **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** alright special did we move on? we're going to be working on while we're at conflict of interest we need to appoint an ethics liaison officer I brought it up last meeting and I but I didn't appoint you I just thought **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** we should let Kurt I think we should when do we need to do this first of the year? I would like to have Kurt in the room when we do that it might be a good idea **Speaker 10:** I know one guy doesn't want to do it **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I know one guy doesn't want to do it **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** oh no okay that's fine Laura you had some we're good? yep special town meeting it was held on December 9 3 minutes **Speaker 6:** did you get the truck in or no? **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** it's coming Monday **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** that's only because I was late I had to get a chair **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** yep but we will have to ratify the vote on when we have our regular town meeting in March we will have to ratify the vote pursuant it has to be readopted ratified or confirmed and the LCT said we could wait until the March meeting and not hold a special meeting because one of the advertising requirements was not met **Speaker 3:** we screwed up on the screw up **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** we screwed up on the screw up you mean our just this last election? what's that? **Speaker 10:** no the fire truck one oh the fire truck **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** we screwed up on the screw up but we don't really need to have a special town meeting because I think that the people spoke during the meeting they spoke one time one time **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** yay **Speaker 11:** two yays so we're good **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** no nays anything else on that Lori? I think we're good **Speaker 1:** correspondence so our auditors have sent to us the engagement letter for the 2025 audit we're not ready to schedule an appointment to come here yet we'd like to wait until the year ends and everything is situated and folks before coming so like last year we may not have the fund balance figures by town meeting like we're used to but um the price this year is $26,500 oh we knew that before didn't we? so it's a duplicate copy so they will have one **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** or we will have one didn't we sign this didn't we sign this last time to we had to take two years yeah **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** more than one of us **Speaker 4:** when they accepted **Speaker 1:** well all four of you should **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** they gave you three lines last year talked to us and explained a few things **Speaker 1:** for you guys to know we're going to send out our hauler renewal paperwork for 2025 so I'm going to begin with that **Speaker 6:** is that a hauler you say? **Speaker 1:** the haulers like um Del Molino and Casella people who pick up trash they have to be filed with the state and with us by the time I was appointed the resident representative district the house of representative seat there was a challenge a petition was filed with the state I had a four page 16 question letter that I had to answer concerning the election how it how the process and everything about it it followed up with me today in a 30 to 40 minute phone call with more questions they had they told me I may have to testify in front of the legislature and answer questions if needed I don't know if it will come to that they have to do an entire investigation and make a report to the legislature who will at that point decide will there be a re-vote for that seat and what it will look like if all five of our towns will have to do a re-vote if just Pono will re-vote if only the people that were affected balance will re-vote I don't know how they will end up doing it we'll have to wait and see yeah it's really involved I spent hours just trying to answer all the questions that they gave me and I don't think me as representative clerk really has anything to do with error but I guess I'm the one in charge of all of it somehow so I wanted you to know that as in the works I have no idea where it will go they do not know if at this point when the legislative session starts in January if they will allow Jonathan Cooper to sit because it's been challenged but if they don't then we have no representation and that's really not a good thing either **Speaker 27:** they allow both of them to sit **Speaker 25:** until it's resolved **Speaker 1:** yeah I don't know I mean at this point he's been declared the winner until it changes but and this is I don't know if this has ever happened before she said like 1979 **Speaker 14:** what was the voter spread was it pretty small 25 I think **Speaker 6:** 25 **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** I agree with you it's simple **Speaker 6:** listen go back to the original if you're out on military if you're out yeah if you're out of town like you're a snow bird whatever the case may be everybody the whole state getting a ballot listen I knew it was going to be something was coming something was happening **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** the dead people got them **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** no it's happening throughout the whole country this is happening **Speaker 12:** I got the wilds ballots **Speaker 6:** and honestly I burnt them damn right I did but that's amazing **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** but you could have voted too **Speaker 6:** well no because you have to come in when you had to check in but my point was is that like anybody could get I don't know I'm not saying that anything was **Speaker 17:** going to happen **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** what happens **Speaker 6:** I think they're still recorded **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** they're not on the checklist oh yeah yeah yeah they were still on the checklist nobody knew that they died right because people **Speaker 28:** yeah but I think that's **Speaker 6:** I would assume that the ballot would have some representation of who was voting on it if they sent them out to everybody because if you didn't send them in you had to bring them in when you voted **Speaker 17:** right but if the wilds like **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** say it was one year ago you know it wasn't challenged yet even if they didn't die they just moved and then it comes in and it could possibly still be on a ballot **Speaker 14:** and they would have to legally count that like they couldn't make that decision not to because they've already gone through all the **Speaker 16:** challenges right **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** it's a big like you said **Speaker 6:** just make everybody go and vote you need to do early voting do early voting whatever you need to do but no more mail-in ballots **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** you do when people move they left Stamford **Speaker 4:** two years ago **Speaker 1:** so I have to send them a written letter asking them do you still live in Stamford or have you really moved and can I this is kind of a they don't have the authority I don't **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** and if it's an apartment it's even harder so the reason why I ask this is I think I have **Speaker 9:** two of my kids that are on **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** the ballots here I know this one either one of them live in well we have many **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** do we challenge them we don't know if we challenge them **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** they can vote but I'm just saying well it doesn't matter but the point is they're on this one and they're on the town they live in right that's the federal so they're voting in their town **Speaker 1:** once they register in that new town with the computer stuff now it sends me an email to kick them off but if they don't register it's a **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** so same day in this town my daughter voted in North Adams and she's out **Speaker 10:** I think so **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** so it didn't go through yet it's got to go up to the state and back to **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** if it's a different state my daughter lives in Arizona she didn't vote in both places I don't think but it could be done because like I said you could come in here day one right after election day and say I want to register register vote and get away with it even though it could be challenged but who's going how do you know I'm chapter one **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** and he wouldn't sign the affidavit **Speaker 5:** that he lived here if he lived here **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** he'd sign the affidavit **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** and he wouldn't sign it we have people in this town that don't live here 100% not just kids either they don't live in town they live in a different town but their mailing address is up there **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** but they register through DMV too so they could do that do you check off that DMV do you read what you're checking off **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I'm a registered voter **Speaker 5:** I'm just amazed at the amount of voters that's passed **Speaker 6:** 87% instead of **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** mail ballots that's amazing **Speaker 12:** you're right it doesn't hurt **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** it's the way it should be I don't believe there was very few like any people that weren't living here one or two that might have been college kids or something but other than that I think it's pretty honest like I said that's unheard of that just doesn't happen **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** not in small towns I think in small towns we know everybody **Speaker 5:** well Laurie knows everybody now **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** they get 40% that's a huge yeah 25% that's what we know **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** ok anything else Laurie under correspondence no you sent something to the select board about the the job group a few weeks ago about the permits yes I did receive a final approval for them just this week yeah so we had to sign off on permits for Teegians put something in a box tonight about forest service **Speaker 1:** they want us to hang that map up the timber sales area in two different areas **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** it's off of county road it looks like it's beyond Klondike south of county and then north of county but it's all beyond Klondike and it looks like it goes behind Mr. Jowett's property too there yeah and what do they want us to do I didn't read it just post up **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** somewhere around we had that out before **Speaker 9:** it's been marked for years **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** just yeah oh well it may include plowing a section of county road so maybe he doesn't have to do as much as he thought he am I posting this maybe sending both landlords up there **Speaker 10:** they'll help us **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** is it for a bid or is it for you can put the minimum bid in on it I mean I think it was all pulp pretty much firewood or pulp or are they actively cutting in and letting some of their cutting in **Speaker 5:** no they're not cutting in **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** they're putting it out timber sale will be active this winter they tally those words yeah we got that it's all wearing off now I'm not sure they did that 10 years ago they just can't there's nothing there that's worth good luck trying to solve pulp right now yeah no one really wanted to cut it and plus it was like a winter cop so yeah minimalized destruction of forests **Speaker 14:** did those log trucks **Speaker 16:** do any damage to the **Speaker 20:** what a mess **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I shut them down the other day **Speaker 14:** because what were there four that went up **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** yeah and I shut them down again today **Speaker 16:** okay **Speaker 14:** wide loads no flagging no nothing **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I bet they cut the truck because obviously it was 50 degree and everything was getting soft and I told them to come back when it froze up but they showed up today and there was a section there by the caves it was already getting soft I told them no you can't come when it's froze they respect it **Speaker 5:** anything else Laurie new or old **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** okay Jim is old this is the fiber thing we had an hour of money and $7500 we talked about did we ever decide can we what we can do it with **Speaker 5:** I would like to get that done **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** before the first of the year we were talking about throwing it towards something that Dave has **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** yeah so we should be getting $7500 back from DV Fiber have you heard anything close to that I have not okay we need to designate it before the end of the month **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** we've got to designate it before the end of the month $7500 what do you want to throw it at how about the town garage the doors of the town garage I'm sure we can easily something he's done on that didn't he just get a grant right not for the doors for the doors **Speaker 1:** the big how many doors do you have there's four I think we got a grant for three your little one that you walk in and out **Speaker 9:** on the side **Speaker 1:** when was that **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** didn't you show it off hey we all have another one I didn't know we got it you're all the enemy I wasn't at the last meeting so maybe you guys talked about that but I haven't heard about getting the actual **Speaker 1:** maybe it was the last meeting **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** it was recently **Speaker 1:** okay what else do you want to throw it at **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** is it a match for the door use it to order something easier for you recycling we can use it for some kind of improvement how much is the shed going to cost he said the sheds are out now maybe we should buy another shed probably could get a shed **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** highway department improvement **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** building improvement building improvement you just got to designate it for something then we can figure out what we want we don't even know how long it's going to take to get it back it's not in our hands **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** highway department building improvement agree sure all in favor yes **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** anything else Frank no I just got a question about that what do you need to do **Speaker 14:** did you ask them for it back yet you don't want to put it towards a sign no I thought it was **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** it is I was it's been a long week jokes oh that was a joke **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** okay we have a question today from the Vermont Department of Taxes regarding their final report that they have to send to the state regarding reappraisals assessing in town if anybody wants to read it it's on the Vermont Department of Tax website it's 109 pages I didn't print it out but you can go there about 80 people attended the report **Speaker 5:** 23 years **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** you're right recommendations nothing is approved yet it might be coming and I'm pretty sure this six year cycle for reappraisal is going to happen reappraisal or reassessment reappraisal the whole thing like we just had **Speaker 11:** every six years the state is going to require it **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** but they're going to try to lump some towns together there's I think four or five of us and then we could share firms with these towns it might make it better for the towns to find some money because we're such a little town that these firms don't want to come here it's not worth their money we can share costs one of the changes is they would like to try to combine local BCAs and have a professional on the BCA with state and hearing appeals to be on the local BCA it would be a statewide board get a professional on there because some of their other boards they have an attorney a professional for everything they hear they might want to change the date of the filing of the grant list instead of April 1st it would be January 1st what it sounds like is that they are encouraging a lot of sharing among towns and if you want to read more there are 109 pages to read and nothing is set in stone yet **Speaker 14:** when will they vote on that or when will it be set in stone or is it a process **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** it's a process this is only their final report to them money wise we still would get the $8 per parcel that we get right now maintain the grant list and as far as helping for reappraisal no **Speaker 14:** that's on the town they are mandated to do it every 6 years **Speaker 18:** that's the **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** 4 to 6 years and they feel too that this would be greater for the tax payers because we appraised probably in 14 years 17 years so there was such a big jump between my assessment 17 years ago and the assessment now that if you are reassessed every 6 years it wouldn't be that much of a jump it would be more with the market the cost is the same yes I'm sure **Speaker 6:** we'll give the school department more money **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** yeah that's basically **Speaker 6:** that's all they want to do is keep jacking it **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** that's a that's a no brainer it's a formula my assessment went up everybody's did if everybody's school is up **Speaker 12:** the town budget **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I'm not talking about the town I'm talking about the school **Speaker 6:** right **Speaker 14:** that's a state statewide because they're talking about state taxes going up 6% **Speaker 18:** did they discuss that? **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** no but with this new system they were saying it would be like a regional CLA it won't be at the town set CMA or CLA they called it an L common level that's based on and the school tax is based on that too so I know this might be coming **Speaker 1:** we gotta watch it I hope it will not be good for us **Speaker 3:** we're gonna get hammered yeah let's see **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** right now we are **Speaker 25:** I have a question so so a few months ago the school board and the sub-board met and discussed possibly the idea of bringing some of the expenses that the school has to the town and just shifting that not making it more just shifting how it gets paid for in the budget on the school **Speaker 29:** where has that ever gone? **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** because we're going through budgets now I would like to ask a couple meetings ago I don't know when I say the other day it could have been a year ago and I can't remember when it was I asked to sit down with the school and Zoom to join me because in the summer time they never want to do it so the school board I believe the ball is in their court and I don't remember anyone getting back to us I'm a big advocate of pushing that and saying look you guys want to do that the school wants to take these numbers and I agree with them it makes sense for the tax people to demand or whatever and vice versa you're right **Speaker 29:** we've talked about kicking a can down the road **Speaker 25:** this is going to go on forever we haven't really addressed the school's budget we're addressing the Supervisory Union's budget so I think once we get that then we can do **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** our local school budget Supervisory Union would be all set **Speaker 25:** that's that time it's come up to actually **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I mentioned that four years ago I know I've got a funny face but it doesn't make sense **Speaker 25:** but I can bring it up we have to cancel our meeting tomorrow I mean tonight so we can maybe bring it up at our next meeting when we start doing our budget talk let's bring this to the town so we identify line items that would be appropriate for the town to pick up **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** we have to explain to the townspeople let's just say the town budget goes up by 10% because of that we have to explain to them **Speaker 10:** and show that the school budget **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** is going to go down by 10% is it feasible to do that my understanding is the lower we can have the school board budget the better for the townspeople because it goes to the state so it's better to keep it here **Speaker 29:** dollar for dollar **Speaker 25:** I don't know if they understand but the reason we're talking about that is because when our school budget goes to the state we have to chunk out so they can do their work and then we get a little tiny chunk of it back so if we can take some of that money that we send to the state you get dollar for dollar **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** yeah we get a better deal I think too Beth there's certain things that we could take over but there's other things to run the school **Speaker 25:** that they won't allow I think we're talking things like building expenses like the maintenance of the building snow, whatever we pay for the whole school, the town benefits from we identified some really good I forgot what they were exactly **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** they were related to the building so you're the chairman of contact that's what I would say so does that mean that if the town takes that over you're going to have the authority over that that's one of my big things when you say I can't use your building because of xyz for instance when they have an election where they tell our our elected volunteers they're over there just helping out and they can't step out of a spot because it's their school that doesn't fly with me and that's been going on for 10 years **Speaker 1:** that I've been there they were not allowed to walk around the gym **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** and stretch their legs **Speaker 1:** so when you hear stuff like that it's a bitterness they were told to stay in their seats they were not allowed to walk around the gym I come down I follow the parking lot **Speaker 1:** now when Rich was here he'd be here before me **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** blow all the snow out where I could push it away currently when we have a storm I come down and follow the parking lot and whoever does it can't get here early enough and then blows all the snow out where I already we've already tried to address this last year and we went to a principal that no longer is here and the principal said they were addressing it and it didn't happen and now we have a new principal that I've never met and I thought the principal would come to this board and say hey how you doing I'd like to work with you but that's the same issue we had last year and I know as soon as we start getting more it's the timing of the storms I personally think the janitors should be under our control not under schools if we take over the maintenance part it makes sense it's just ridiculous that I have to come back and clean up a mess after I've already cleaned it up that's waste counterproductive and if I don't know about it **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** or I don't come right away there's going to be a slip and fall I mean right now we just talked about the trash that they have over here we are lucky enough that there's a woman in town that uses her own truck that puts trash in her truck and brings it up to the transfer station now the janitors do that but all of a sudden I can't do it **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** and it was allowed so okay I'm not doing it anymore so we have someone we're lucky enough for $10 a day they move your truck up bring it up and put it in the transfer station so why don't you just get it dumped there because it costs more it doesn't get dumped in the summer there's all kinds of issues but we had a janitor that did it all his job description was never written down by the board I hate to ban him off the school board it was and not what it is now I understand that but we didn't have a job description we've asked for it numerous times it's just like this board we admit when we say we've never done it before alright let's get a job description though that's what they need to do and I'm not blaming the janitor **Speaker 25:** whatever janitor the janitor has to be a security background check so they're safe to be around kids **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** you know what my answer was that I got from the board well Richard's a superman **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** we'll hire another superman but I think he did more **Speaker 10:** than he got paid for **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** it's just like when Kurt would say we have people that care and people that don't it's my it's my title I don't want to tell the kids to work out here the gym was built for the purpose of being the community **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I agree with you 100% the school can't control it we have three documents three deeds that say they cannot I agree I understand that they couldn't control it during their school hours after that they can't **Speaker 6:** I can't believe they totally can't get up I can't believe they totally can't get up what do you want us to come for? **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** we can't walk around officials cannot leave their table and walk around the gym **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** that's not the school board that's the principal but my point with the school board and I'll bring this to the school board I know this isn't the school board I'll bring it to them what authority does the school board have and what are they doing isn't that what their job is to look in to be a representative of the people to the principal and the administration and say hey look this is what we're allowing **Speaker 30:** I understand that **Speaker 25:** but they're not doing that right there was a long discussion at our last meeting and it was more about communication and how it was communicated and then we had a superintendent who wasn't familiar with our sharing the complexity of sharing the town business and the school business so he didn't understand that **Speaker 6:** would it be possible not to cut you off Beth I'm sorry would it be possible for the trash to be able to just have that like maybe somebody what's there two of you Dave that work how many are in the town I'm sorry there's two of you maybe one of you guys at one point during the day of course provided that there's no catastrophic event going on that hey I come by at two o'clock make sure the trash is in the barrel outside they come by they throw it in the back of the truck **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** if you guys want I can be a teacher too well I'm not saying you should do that I'm just saying we hired to do that no we have a girl that we hired I thought they were just doing it as a but my point is it's taken care of like ten dollars a day take your own truck put the trash in your truck bring it up and do it and be responsible to show up every day for the time of today we're very fortunate we have that that's my point but before we didn't have to do that we had a janitor that cared you know that's my whole point is the school is in my opinion it's not the board it's that supervisor they're prima donnas they get away with everything they get six figure salaries I don't know how many people have **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** the superintendent he makes all these decisions does he come down here and say hey how you doing does he come to the board and introduce himself you know when you run your meetings who runs your meetings **Speaker 25:** he does pretty good Eric is the chair Eric is the chair person Eric is the chair she does her business the superintendent gives a report we talk about the report how it affects the supervisor and the school and the principal gives a report she's phenomenal she's bringing grades up and everything but she gets her report and then Erica carries on Erica is the chair of the board and I put her down but he has because the business of the supervisor **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** affects the school and they kind of muscle their way in to make all the decisions and kind of push just like you said it's not like the old days it's just my opinion **Speaker 29:** right now there's a lot of discussion **Speaker 25:** because assessments are coming up we have to figure out **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** how we're going to be assessed well if they want to talk about budgets we're more than welcome we're willing to sit down that's coming up probably we mentioned it months ago I'll mention it to the we always have to join the meetings just show up show up show up well you guys can go **Speaker 10:** it's open **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** it's difficult to hear in the gym very difficult **Speaker 6:** they don't let you talk like we let you talk no they don't well they join the meetings we can do a little better a little bit more join the meetings we can do pretty good we can talk you can't push your weight until next time to answer your question it's a different principle that's there **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** so it's a little different there's some hidden ones there's hidden ones in here you're doing okay **Speaker 1:** because you haven't had a sheriff there in a while **Speaker 6:** why don't you put stickies on them I'm at those inches **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** I just want them two but they were hidden so I can't that's it Luke is here so we want to go back into executive session and we want to do a budget work session and start working on uh you probably want to leave so you don't want to do your highway tonight right I want to leave too **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** it's a little late it's our budget at 8 o'clock yeah **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I would agree so why don't we do this why don't we next meeting have another early meeting start the budget right away **Speaker 5:** was this our last one of the year though **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** yes this is the last one I mean we operate on the budget **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** it's not even approved well we did come out we did make a motion to **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** we'll have to go back in it doesn't matter that we have it we still have to executive session with Luke so it's 8 o'clock now **Speaker 1:** so to give you some deadlines you are going to want to sign your warrant on January 30th which means your entire budget has to be reviewed decided finalized **Speaker 7:** that's our last date **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** that's your very very last date so we probably will be meeting every Thursday in January or come in very early to work on **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I mean do we have to **Speaker 5:** I don't have a problem **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** we'll have to see or keep a light agenda **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** but I'd rather come in every Thursday **Speaker 5:** and have a staple pen tonight **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** Lori executive session on the probable civil litigation nothing okay just keep that on so we can go in when we hear something so so do we want to **Nancy L. Bushika (Chair):** do we want to make a motion to go into the **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** I've called you a half a dozen times but I quit do you want my new number **Speaker 30:** call me **Speaker 25:** Jesus somebody's calling me **Speaker 29:** you want to buy some stuff **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** you'll get back to me **Speaker 12:** that was a well-ordered **Michael G. Denault (inferred):** call I called you you said we'll just **Speaker 14:** did your father go down and look and what did he say **Speaker 3:** I figured we'd go to mm-hmm my ass