Orono committee advances conflict-of-interest rules for quasi-judicial boards

[0:00] Sarah Marks: Good morning, this is a meeting of the nominations evaluations and council policies committee. I am here with Jacob Baker, counselor, Clint, town manager, myself, Sarah marks, town counselor, Rob, also John counselor has message. He will be joining us shortly. I guess I should say it's Thursday, October 8. There you go. All right. Charge, everybody had given Clint and I instructions on what to update and fix in the charge. We did that. I got messaged individually back from both Jacob and Rob saying it was good to go. So, I think charge is good to go. I've loaded up our discussion about the three committee referral forms from our last meeting and send that in an email to Amanda. The bcc or cc do you all on it did anybody see any problems there or did that all look fine to go to look good to me okay we don't have any outstanding committee form so it was fairly simple just to report the dates those things have been finished I think we are good to go on that so look at that we're through items number one and two discussion of goals so this is something being asked of every council standing committee to be thinking and discussing every time we meet from here until whenever The kickoff is which one day is the kickoff now December 23rd there you go [1:33] Rob: And then again a piece to this too and again that's as and why I wanted this on the agenda because it wasn't really going to be on every agenda but the council sets goals right and every committee is created at the best of a council so I just want to make sure that there's a connection here saying if the committee has goals you've got a kickoff retreat on November 23rd yeah that's when as councillors and committee members you should bring some of those and you're gonna see and this is dominant You know as this there's a kneecap committee I will be sending out homework there since you decided not to run for reelection you will not get a copy of it because we don't need them sorry but right around probably just before the elections the six the five that we know will be back we'll receive them and then after elections the two people that win will receive the other two but I want because it's probably seven eight questions I want the council to think about regarding goals to bring to the Meeting, so yeah, that's the only thing I think about is because I want to make sure the connection of this committee may have goals that you talk about in here, and those should get back to a council so that they can get on a goals list and annual work. [2:43] Sarah Marks: That's great, and we'll talk about it today if I have things to share, and it will show back up on the agenda for the November meeting, I would assume. So it's chances for people to think about any specific goals related to things we've noticed in our committee work that you want to bring to council to say, hey, what do you think about this? Would this be a useful goal? Talk about it at the end? But I think it's the tracker. No, we got it actually before we finish the number 5 conflicts of interest. Yeah, we'll get to that one in a bit. I just want to point out that also on number 6 on our agenda today, there is a tracker that I asked Amanda to create a couple of months back where I've been typing in anything that we notice in the policy and procedures manual that might need to get updated in the future. And also just other issues that come up in this group's discussions for things that we might want to work on in the future so that when we get to that might kick thoughts about goals also potentially. The only goal I'm aware of that this group has now that isn't completed, we've completed a lot this year, the only one I'm aware of was getting all of the policies online, which staff are working on, and I know you got any message about earlier today, but you can update on that if you want at the end. I'm sure that's the only goal I'm aware of that's an ongoing goal that this committee has brought up that hasn't yet been completed. Is there anything you're thinking [4:09] Jacob Baker: about for goals for next year, Jacob? Not big goals, just reading through that policies and procedures tracker. I mean, I don't, yeah, none of those, I guess, rose to the level of goals, but they're still items to discuss or items that we're working on. [4:32] Sarah Marks: Yeah, that makes sense. Okay, everyone feel good if we move on to number four then? That's just a update on 360 degree surveys. Hey, Rob, nice to have you. We are on number 4 on the agenda, which was just checking in about the 360 degree surveys. So they're completed for the town manager. That data has been sent to council. Council moved our executive session discussion on it from our last meeting to our next meeting. So that will happen in our next meeting. Clint, you've already received the data also, right, from Lori? And then and our meeting, I guess in November, we would have a discussion briefly with Clint about it. So I think everything's on track with that side. The council survey is open. I haven't yet bugged counselors to fill it out about ourselves, but we are supposed to do that. We met it in the meeting once, but eventually we'll send some text reminder to all counselors. We have until the 21st. Is there can Lori see [5:36] Jacob Baker: see who's completed these? Because I feel like I've completed them all, but it's kind of been piecemeal. So I think I have, I think I might have done one twice. I think she can see. Yeah, so what [5:48] Rob: she can't see is that they've been done, and if you check the box at your counselor, she can see that, right? Six out of seven did them, right? What you can do is if you go back in to try to do it again, it won't let you. It'll tell you, really? Yeah, it'll tell you. Yeah, if you log back in, it won't [6:03] Jacob Baker: might you take it another time? Well, there was like, one of Clint's, it had 12 counselors respondents. So that must not, I don't think that's what the 12 means. I looked at that spreadsheet and [6:15] Sarah Marks: I think that spreadsheet's a little wonky. If you look later, I think it actually says she thinks [6:19] Rob: that what happened with that, when a Survey Monkey counted that six of you went in twice at different times and finished it. Yeah, which is weird because it normally doesn't do that. You didn't, but we got [6:29] Jacob Baker: got six overachievers and one done. I like it, and one may have missed it, or maybe only five of you [6:35] Rob: went in twice and all seven didn't finish it. But that's the only thing from a numerical, and she'll talk to, she's willing to come talk. Yeah, she's kind of shared with Dan some thoughts, I think, on this. I think she did, and if you want to, I think there's improvements all the way around. I mean, I don't mind sharing to the committee. I think the, you got to live it and learn it. I think the survey for the town manager is too evaluative in nature and needs to be more survey like, and because and even Lori, I think she missed it. She's like, I guess I'm confused on why you're surveying it. So, the surveys and check in my evaluations in the spring. And she's like, oh, and I think, and I'm like, I don't know how you missed that 1 because I thought I was pretty good. I thought we had a pretty good discussion. So I think we just got to kind of drill it back a little bit. Yeah. Yeah, but that'll be up to the council to kind of look at and see what you think. But that was 1 of the takeaways that she had. And I had. Yeah, it was. And to the point where some staff said, yeah, when I told them to do the council survey, they said. [7:30] Sarah Marks: I don't know if I can fit it in because yours took so long and I said, well, it's I've done it. Yeah, it's shorter. Trust me. But I agree about that. That was 1 of the things we had said was to shorten the survey this year a good bit. And then Laurie had come back and said, well, we weren't really able to shorten it that much and I wasn't really sure why, but that explains it. If she had that misconception, because I'd like to see a survey that's like, 5 questions. Yeah, like, that's it 5 pretty short questions, general categories, and then a free form answer. So, if anyone has anything else we missed that they, I think, in fact, keeping the same person doing it for another year. [8:03] Rob: You're right to that goal if that's what you want as a council. Yeah. [8:07] Sarah Marks: So, I think there's feedback on that we'll be able to. Talk about, we'll have a public discussion about the surveys on council when we talk to the survey ourselves. That's a public discussion, not an executive session. And that's another time when we can get feedback on what we think could have been changed in the process. So. I won't be there for that, but you guys will be okay. Anyone have other feedback on survey. Okay. Okay. Okay. Clint has an update on the conflict of interest for people serving on quasi judicial boards, I think, because I think you talked to M. M. A. Correct? [8:45] Rob: Yeah, right. So it is a talk to so sometimes what happens at my summary of this is that M. M. A. The question is not on point. It's not to a specific nature that they could give you a genuine legal analysis and legal answer. So what kind of happens can we chat first and it led to a phone call and at the end of the phone call I said I go let me update them and I was intending to send you guys a memo and unfortunately my job got in the way of doing that one task and it just and that's why I messaged you at one point to share that I said I'll give you an update here the I think to the question that was specifically asked can we use those yes comment back especially in the board of appeals board of assessment review The one that we had the conflict before definitely legal standard easy to have a disclosure the person's elected and they're going in to take the job have them sign the oath no debate whatsoever the other ones and again this is where I'll talk it gets subjective you know who are you friends with what does that mean what are you a friend you know it kind of hit me like a ton of bricks when the attorney shared it I'm like okay that's actually an interesting suggestion what if we change the Application to say do you feel you have a conflict with any of the following as having an immediate family member that's an employee your friends with employee you know I put it in there if yes please explain now what your relationship is she goes because the flip side is that she goes it seems so my word cold very procedural saying okay you must verify are you friends with anybody that works of the town frank what do you mean because it said acquaintances I think we use in one of the teams and So I think her suggestion which I'm kicking back to you no legal reason why you couldn't do what you're doing would you prefer to just update your applications to have a question that everybody was asked that kind of alluded to the fact that there is a conflicts area that you may run into when you serve on these committees and boards and she didn't even say the planning board might be one where you want to have a sign off as well it's a little bit you know but definitely for the board of Appeals that was easy but the planning board was the next you know and then and again and I think from my takeaway is that does the council sign anything like this when they take their because we didn't put the council in there right because there are and I mean so the question is that right are you acquaintance with the town manager [11:15] Sarah Marks: It works for you, yeah, I think I agree about, so I think that's really helpful, and I don't know about the discussion about put it in the application or have it be something that you'll sign later, but actually the language actually doesn't say acquaintance, it says I'm a personal friend, and we have talked about maybe and say a close personal friend, I don't care, but I do think personal friend or close personal friend is very different than acquaintance, and also it doesn't say anybody on the staff. For each board it just lists the one staff member who every single case would be about, right, so for one it was the town manager, which is the personnel board of appeals, for the planning board it just lists the orno town planner and orno code enforcement, which is the person who every single decision being appealed would be about, so it's not about all the staff, I just want to clarify the two things, it would be a specific staff member or sometimes two for each of these quasi appeal boards, and I. Would certainly think language said acquaintance would be ridiculous, I mean, I and so whether we want it to be something people sign or something people just tick a box on their application and then have to explain to us about that, I don't know, I guess we should talk through what the different implications of that would be, I mean, I guess, and that's what the attorney said, right, you like to talk it up figure out what you think, it's nice, yeah, those are good questions, I mean, it would be nice, I guess. In that it gives people a chance to tell us up front, but the problem is our current application is very general, it's the same application for every single committee, and most committees this is a non-issue because most of our committees aren't these quasi-judicial ones that get to make actual sort of judgments to overturn previous decisions, right, most of ours are just like join the trails committee or join the beautification committee or serve on the you know home committee, and it's completely. Irrelevant, it's only relevant these kind of relationships when someone's in an actual judgment role like making a, I mean, they're not judges, but it is, I mean, they're quasi-judicial words, they overrule other decisions, there's a couple ways. [13:24] Speaker D (unidentified): That we could approach that if it was on the application, it could specify if you're applying to this board, of this board, you know, or if you're applying to court of appeals, do you have a conflict interest with these specifications, yes or no, explain why. If you are applying to planning board, do you have a conflict of interest, specify. Do we feel like that is less cumbersome than a separate form, as a separate sort of conflict of interest statement that we have people sign, like a separate document, or does that feel reasonable to integrate into the existing application without having to create a bunch of separate applications? [14:02] Jacob Baker: That was my thought as well, Rob, is that having these signature forms is yet another piece of paper to track, whereas just a simple on the application check box with an explanation is in my mind would be more efficient, because then it's only one piece of paper to track, as opposed to an application and an author statement, and does it feel like [14:35] Speaker D (unidentified): that there's a way to do that and sort of the way I vaguely laid out there, that doesn't totally reinvent the wheel as far as the existing application, I think it [14:48] Sarah Marks: it maybe, and I also think Amanda may have more insight. My guess is you can't make it a required question, because not everybody needs to answer it, only the people applying to that specific board. It's like if you, it's going to have to have a bunch of them, it would say if you're applying to the planning board, please also answer this question. If you're applying to the, there are six of these, right, or five, I'd have to count, so there would be these five or six additional questions, and none of them could be required, because most people won't need to answer them, just someone applying to that board. So my concern would be people will skip them, and that will make more work for Amanda to go back and track and get people to answer them, depending on whether they're applying to this board or that word or the other thing, or maybe she won't even notice and will notice in the application process. So I don't mind the idea of them, I guess I think that's more of an Amanda question, I think that might Actually be harder than simply, you know, then when we decide to nominate somebody, maybe there's a, it could be in an email that goes back like they're, they're interested in nominating you for this role. However, we need to know this. I don't know, I don't know, you have to ask Amanda, like how people skip things on applications. We can see on the ones we get back, people skip questions all over the place. So my concern would be how much work we might make for Amanda tracking down who skipped questions. So I don't know, I'm good with either way procedurally. I would just think we need Amanda's feedback would be my guess. That makes sense. Does that make sense to you, Clint, that we would need to get feedback from her about which way would be easier for her? I [16:23] Rob: don't want to sidetrack this because this is on the committee level and we're good because you need to say if you want to do it, so more procedural, but I guess I could, yes, you're right, we should ask Amanda. I haven't asked Amanda about any of this because I wanted to see where you're going because I can spend a lot of time on the what ifs, but [16:41] Speaker D (unidentified): this really is just a question of what is the easiest mode of efficient path for this [16:45] Rob: information to get where it needs to go. So the information is on the conflict they can have with other staff members, and this is rising to a higher level than having them swear an oath that they will not conduct any business where they have a financial interest in the outcome, right, is what you're telling me, because they can't do that either. None of them, if you have a financial, you're supposed to step out, but we're not going to make them swear an oath that says I will never ever do anything where I've got a direct financial interest, right? I think the difference is that if [17:13] Sarah Marks: someone has this kind of a relationship, they're going to be conflicted out on every single issue that comes before this board, so it makes no sense for us to appoint them. It's not about what they're swearing, it's that if someone has, right, this doesn't make sense. If we appointed somebody to the planning board who was the spouse of the town planner, or the best friend of the Orono code enforcement officer, they're conflicted out for every single issue that ever comes to that appeals board. And that just doesn't make any procedural sense. They're going to have to recuse themselves every time. So there's no point in us appointing them is the only point in my mind. [17:49] Jacob Baker: So how often do these conflicts actually occur? [17:53] Sarah Marks: Her well, these boards meet and differently, like some meet very rarely, some meet regularly, but anytime anyone appeals, right, any decision that is getting appealed, for example to the Board of Appeals, every single time, if you were a close family member of the town planner or code enforcement officer [18:16] Jacob Baker: You have a conflict and you need to recuse yourself. Out, no, I understand that, but how often does that occur? So my point is, are we making more work to solve a problem that doesn't exist in great? Are we trying to solve a problem that really isn't that big of a problem? Do you mean how often do we get appeals cases? No, how often do we have somebody on the appeals board who is a related to the Assessor? I don't think we've done it, but we all, we almost did it [18:54] Sarah Marks: With Dan's spouse who there was a state law about and that got caught, but if we had done that by mistake to one of the, a different board, it wouldn't have been caught by the law and the clerk, and then it just would have meant that's all these boards do, they have no other purpose other than hearing appeals, so it means that the entire purpose of the board, anytime that board is called in, they would have to recuse themselves. No, I, understand that. Yeah, that's what I think. And once we set up. [19:21] Speaker D (unidentified): Again, I think the goal here is a fairly efficient way for us to just understand that this is the case. I would think that this isn't, this is like a long discussion for us to have, but I don't think this will be a ton of work for whoever has to go through this. Just say no, I do not have this. And just so everybody's on the same page about, I'm fine if it's a separate statement that if anybody is applying to that board, we send them that email. If you think that makes more efficient sense. I know that's the question that we're going to have to go that in advance and just put it on the application. [19:53] Sarah Marks: As long as you think that what I said on the application is, they won't be required questions. There'll be 6 separate ones and if they don't answer that's more work for Amanda to track them down. [20:03] Rob: I guess the only other thing I'd say is that they're already swearing an oath to not do it because everybody who takes office has to swear an oath to hold the laws of the United States state of Maine in the town of Warner. Every board has to swear an oath to get sworn in to take your position all swear an oath to hold those laws. I can double check that with the clerk, but the law is already saying that we're asking them to doubly verify. Aren't we? Then why are we asking them? Because the reason we're saying you've got a conflict is because it's against the law to make a decision because we can get sued and lose. But if you're a normal [20:37] Sarah Marks: community member, I don't know what every law in the state of Maine says. I don't know that what it says is I have a conflict of interest, I need to recuse myself out. I mean, that there'd be no way I would know that. Maybe so. I just think I agree, we just do this when they come in and sign the oath, they take the oath and they get given this piece of paper to sign ahead of time which just clarifies this is a section. I mean, if you want to add something on here. The financial thing is only a 1 time thing that's going to happen. Then we don't appoint them. I mean, because it's our job who we appoint. I mean, we can't appoint people that can't serve. It makes sense. It's a waste for taxpayers. Then we have people serving on there. We can't actually ever participate in a decision. [21:16] Speaker D (unidentified): I wonder another approach to this is in description of the boards. If they have to take an oath, that would. Presumably cover this, but we want to make sure that they know what the contents are of. The conflict that they're swearing that they don't have, if that's part of the description of the board, when they're. Applied, like, we include that anybody who's applying sees, like, if you have this conflict. Do not apply here. I don't know, I mean, it's less of a verification process I suppose on our part, but I think when they swear the oath, if it's if it's found that they have that conflict after having sworn that oath and they had the information when applying for the role, then they are removable. I don't know, and does that feel not safe enough of a system from your perspective? [22:16] Sarah Marks: I'm good with any system. I just want us to avoid appointing somebody somewhere that can't actually serve on this committee. It's a waste of our time. It's a waste of their time. It's a waste of taxpayer time. So, and any way that I think logistically works best for staff is fine by me. But I think it's important to clarify for the person exactly what a conflict of interest on this board would mean, because it's different for every board, right? For each of these quasi-judicial boards, it's different. If it's the planning board, they're two different staff members you shouldn't have close relationships with. If it's the personnel board of appeals, it's the town manager. If it's the, I don't even know what the other one is, but they're different each time. So I think, you know, being clear with people, and also the law is very specific on some things, and I put in my early notes it's not as specific right on other things. So you know where we decide and our lawyers advise us whatever to set the bar. Some of it is not debatable, there's a clear line according to state law. Other part we have to decide where are we setting that bar, right? So for example, spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, sibling of an Orono town counselor is a bar that we, I made it up for you guys to look at and talk about. It shouldn't be someone close to an Orono town counselor because that's that conflict of interest thing, you're making a decision that's overruling something that the Orono town council appointed the people who made the decision. So it should be there, but where we put it, I mean you could make it narrower or broader than that if you wanted, and I don't know if our lawyer he said was fine the way it was. So and like we already debated, do you say a close personal friend of these specifics, so those things are not, they're important by law, but the law doesn't get that specific. We have the right to say here's the bar we're going to put because we think that's a reasonable bar in our size town. The law takes that into account too from what I understand in case law, like if you live in a teeny tiny town everybody's related to everybody, it's not possible, but in our town you know where's a bar that feels reasonable [24:32] Speaker D (unidentified): legally and reasonable practically. Yeah, I in a sudden misunderstanding, we've talked about this far, the language that in front of me, the document that we have, I am fine with it. I'm really just also trying to ask the question of where we put it because that is I think the more important question for us. I think we're largely in agreement of the nature of conflict [24:51] Sarah Marks: So the bar feels pretty reasonable, and it's just where we put it that we're looking at. Yes, and I think perhaps it would be wise that we loop Amanda in on this discussion and you guys come back to it next month when I'm not here about where it goes. Because I think it really, I think that's more of an administrative thing about where does it easily work for staff. There is a question that we need to take it back to the council. Then to say, okay, we've chatted with staff, we think this makes sense procedurally, but more importantly, how do you guys feel about where we set these bars, right? Some of it is very specified. Number three about the sixth degree of consanguinity is legally what the state law says, but numbers one and two, we picked that bar. That's an ethics question, but what feels like the right place to be at? And you're back, the content to the full council, right, for [25:41] Speaker D (unidentified): review and as far as practicality, efficiency, process, we await staff perspective. Does that [25:49] Rob: make sense? Yeah, I, yeah, I got one question. I mean, MMA's advice is free, fun, non-committal, I'm in this situation. Is this something where once Amanda's had a review, this is, we should take that language and have a glance at it by our attorney with a very specific question of, because I think I've heard you correctly, that we want this bar and we want an acknowledgement by anybody who's done it to sign off that they've seen the bar. So with that being said, I think the only question that you're bringing up that kind of came up with the MMA attorney, which should we have our attorney say, what's your recommendation, better place on the application or afterwards? Because the one process question I have is, that's the oath. We have that, you gotta sign it when you take it. They're acknowledged it, told they're gonna have to do it, they get it's a daily oath, here's a piece of paper, we're gonna sign it, no, I'm not signing it, and so now I gotta bring them back to kneecap and saying you're candidate, you're nominated, got all the way to the finish line, so don't do that. [26:52] Sarah Marks: Don't put it there in the process, put it earlier, wherever we're gonna put it, put it somewhere so [26:56] Rob: they gotta sign it with their okay. If you're concerned about, can I, can I ask, having plausible deniability saying, wow, I just, I've kind of thought it through now, Jacob, can I ask a couple [27:08] Jacob Baker: of questions so I want to make sure that I understand this all? So for these specific boards, is there state statute that defines conflict of interest? So if you look at the first page [27:32] Sarah Marks: page of, yeah, that I send you, I have it for you, what the relevant state laws are. So the first and most important state law is MRSA 7161 MRSA, which very specifically says that individuals are disqualified from serving in judicial or quasi-judicial roles when they are related to a plaintiff or a defendant up to the sixth degree of consanguinity, yeah, that second cousin level. So that part is state law. The next thing that state law is, that there's a very specific, so again, it depends how you would define plaintiff or defendant. I'm sure the lawyer could get all into that, but it seems pretty clear to me that when a board is looking at a decision made by the town planner, probably that person's going to qualify as a defendant. Also, the council potentially is not to that level, but we're over them. So again, I think it's worth getting the lawyer to say 30a title 30a 2691 is the next thing that's very specific, that it says that the spouse of a counselor cannot serve on the board of appeals, so that's extremely specific. And in our discussions with the lawyer in the all the work on the policy and procedures manual, this originally I started down this path because our lawyer at the time very specifically commented in one of his comment boxes that it would be better for spouses and close family members of counselors not to serve on any of our quasi-judicial norms, so that was legal advice that came from our attorney during the policy and procedure. So and then the only part of the whole thing that didn't get mentioned by either one of the state laws or the direct advice from our attorney that we haven't asked our attorney about yet is the close personal friend thing, like if I am best friends with plan, maybe I shouldn't be personnel board of appeals, or best friends with you know Pat maybe I shouldn't be on that one. It seemed logical to me and I looked at other things around and about which I didn't cite here, but that some have them some don't. I don't know, I just know my relationship. I looked at it from my perspective personally of where I'm biased. I'm actually probably a lot less biased for things that have to do with my sibling than I am with my best friend, so I was like I'm going to put it in because I think personally I'd be more biased, but you guys could that one there [30:06] Speaker D (unidentified): isn't any state law. I know I'm totally, I mean I don't know Jake, but I'm totally fine with that content-wise. I guess Jake do you have any issues with that part of this discussion? I mean I [30:19] Jacob Baker: I, could argue against it, but if it's something that other people are passionate about, that's, I'm fine. So, okay, so there's where the state law citations are. Okay, so this is broadly defined in state law. Law and so before coming onto these boards again, you take an oath saying you're going to abide by state law. Is that correct? Yep, I understand that from Clint anyway. Okay, so then I go back to the redundancy of these statements, and yes, we can go back and ask Amanda what the best process is, but that's her time. And then now we're talking about asking our lawyer to a pine that's, I'm gonna back off of a lawyer because I think you don't, I don't [31:18] Rob: know, I don't know if I understand the questions quite well enough yet, so keep talking about it. [31:21] Sarah Marks: So I don't think I got a good question, Jacob. The only thing I'm going to say about is what I said before, is that I just want something simple so that we don't make a mistake and get somebody on a board where they actually shouldn't be there. And I don't think it's fair to hold everybody, you know, in the community responsible to read every state law that exists. So I just think they have, it would be courtesy to hand them something and say, here's something where you're going to be conflicted out for every possible decision this board could ever make. So we just want to be clear that you don't have these conflicts now. I mean, to me, it just feels, I wouldn't know, and I wouldn't want to be asked to take an oath about something that I didn't understand, right? Like, if you have other things you think they need to know about state law also before they take their oath, I'd be all for explaining those, too. But I think, you know, the only thing I think that's missing here is then, you know, if you have a financial interest, which would only happen on an individual case. And what will happen then is what happens on the planning board. The lawyer opines and says, you know, you have this level of conflict. It's too high. You need to step out. But these are just every time you would have to step out. [32:30] Speaker D (unidentified): And where do people go to apply to these things again? On the website somewhere? [32:36] Sarah Marks: Yeah, it's in the, sorry, you guys can keep talking. I can find it on the website. Because I agree with you, Jacob, that it's in the law, but it's a lot, a high bar to expect people to know what all this stuff in the law means and says. [32:52] Jacob Baker: Yeah, I mean, we took an oath as counselors to abide and I couldn't tell you all the state laws that I'm, I agree to abide by, I just know that [33:03] Sarah Marks: yeah, that's fine, we would just then conflict them out every single time once someone realized [33:09] Speaker D (unidentified): They were related and then it would just be a mess when we apply or when we are running for Council. One of the things that we need to be aware of is that you can't be on Council if you are say, a current staff number of talent, we were made aware of that in the process. So I think it's a similar thing. We're just trying to make sure people are aware of whether or not they're qualified to be on the committee or the board in question. And I don't think that this needs to, I mean, I'm concerned about adding redundant work too. I mean, I'm more just, but I agree with Sarah that if we could just make sure that from the beginning, and people know what they're signing up for that's really what I'm when I see this as being about and so if we can just place that in the description of the committee or something wherever they're applying then we don't need to have them sign an extra piece of paper I mean I really as long as it's clear whether or not they when they're applied to be on the committee should be on the committee That's all I think that this needs to be. [34:19] Sarah Marks: So the application is found in the section under town council there's a link for boards and committees if you click on that then it takes you to an application after it has a directory of what the committees are at the top and you can choose or not choose to click on that directory and actually that doesn't even give a description that actually just tells you who's on the current I'm actually think that to get a description, you have to go to the left and another board separate. And I think it would be very difficult to expect that anyone who was applying had necessarily had those descriptions. So, I do think it would have to be an individual. Questions in the survey then about, or at the top of the survey, please note before you apply, but it's a lot of text at the beginning. So. [35:08] Rob: So can I think Amanda's probably feedback is what we need and I think to wrap that up. I think I want to bring Shelley into she works with the host, but I think I've got it clear enough from you right now. And I brought that comment. It just made. I've made even my notes because we're gonna go back and I'm gonna let the team listen to it. I think I get it because I work with Sarah since day 1, we saw this and it's like, yes, this is so simple. It makes so much sense. You can just fix it. And I think I kind of got caught into this a little bit when the attorney came back and I'm like, what's simpler. Learn, and I think we do have to determine, and I think a staff recommendation back to you, and maybe we can even kind of put a framework around it a little bit. If you're, I don't want to tell you how to do it, but based upon all your input, I think I see a framework where we can put something together. And I mean, I'm even going to kind of tell you that one of the ones is that, you know, what's a personal, and this is me, and I kind of kept on, what's a personal friend kind of did some, creates a conflict of interest, appearance of favoritism, compares impartial judgment, or would cause a reasonable person to question your objectivity. And I think if we put something in some ways where a person can find that, I think we've kept it. I think it makes it simpler to tell them what a personal friend is, because to me that was one of my things, what's personal friend. I mean, I, yeah, I like all you as my counselors, but I'm not going to call you personal friends because I know better. You're with the counselors I've worked for you, and although I'll see you out socially, you're not, you know, it's not a personal friend relationship. And I, but I mean, does that mean it'll never exist? I have no idea. I mean, I'm making friends in Orno every day, and someday one of them might decide to run for council, and maybe we should talk about that when that happens, but until that happens, we're [36:40] Speaker D (unidentified): good. We don't have to cross that, but just with all of these rules, I mean, it is about reasonable expectation of the public. Do people who doesn't create a situation where we think a reasonable person would lose trust or faith again, the system, the process, the people, and that is always going to be somewhat subjective. [37:01] Sarah Marks: And I think that's great. I think adding such a definition would be great. [37:04] Rob: Just a little alert somewhere, I think. And I mean, so give me a little bit of discretion. I'll kick this to Amanda and I'm all on this. I'll keep you posted because I think, I want you to know what we ended up, where we ended up. I'm good. [37:18] Sarah Marks: I did it because the lawyer flagged it during the policy and procedure review that we really should have something ideally around all our quasi-judicial boards. So I think we're on to something pretty good. Okay. So yeah, what's the next agenda item? Not too many tabs. It is updating. Oh, you already did it. The tracker. So I guess I'll just take a look at the tracker. Do you all know how to find it, is the thing again, I won't be here, and this tracker is not for me. It's for this committee [37:53] Jacob Baker: So, do you know I actually don't know where to find it. Where is it? [37:55] Sarah Marks: Okay. Well, so I'm going to be curious if it shows up for you in the same place it shows up for me. So you know how to get into your OneDrive or whatever it's called now? Oh, yeah. Files are? So for me, it shows up as recently shared from Amanda because I had to recently reshare the link. I believe for you guys, if you go down to the one that just says council, where all the council files are, and then you open town council shared drive, and you go to the NECAP folder, where all kneecap things should be that I think you should be able to get to it that way also but I have to find the kneecap folder committees you got to go to committees everybody there okay y'all should know where to find it so keep going when you get to nominations and evaluations and whatever folder I believe Amanda said it should be there so and there it is way at the bottom. Cool. So. Again, I've just been putting things in here that we are details. Like, we talked in a council meeting. Probably a good idea. When we got our comp plan updates twice a year that we got the. Penobscot town of or no interpretive plan update at the same time, but that's not actually in the policy procedures manual yet. So I just jotted it down because it got talked about at council. Council. Conflict of interest statements, if we make them, it ought to be referred that we have them. This gets to the third one, which is the other thing that MMA recommends to all towns that we haven't done as a town yet is to develop an ethics policy overall, which would include stuff like these conflict of interest statements. So, by the way, these conflict of interest statements are just being written for our quasi-judicial boards. We when we take enough but we don't actually have any ethics policy for our own council right so and mma strongly recommends that at every training i've been to new clinton is this still true that the ones you've been to i went a few years back they strongly recommend they recommended in their written material that every town should have an ethics policy yes we don't so for me if i were to be on council still a goal that i would set for kneecap would be to come back with a draft ethics policy for our town because mma strongly recommends it and we don't [40:24] Rob: have any don't but yes most of dreams that i've been end up adopting one at some point or had one [40:29] Sarah Marks: Before, and it would cover this same kind of stuff for counselors. It would say like, here are conflicts, you know, that you shouldn't, you, we have the only thing we have is what's in state law, which is [40:39] Rob: Right, that you can't, you have the nuances of it here and there, like you do bring some ethics-related values to the community in some of your statements, like with your voice matters. You know, that could be, and maybe that gets wrapped into the ethics policy about how your voice matters. I don't, that may minimize it, so you may not want to do it, but I'm just saying just different things. And then the, and just even to reinforce, like when you have on all the agendas about you won't, nor will the public make comments about staff, and that's an ethics, that would evolve from an ethics policy in my opinion. [41:12] Sarah Marks: I think that we haven't even looked at this, so I can't even say what other towns ethics policies typically have. Clint has probably seen them, but it's not something I've delved into. But I do think that NECAP, if I were here, I would suggest that this be something that NECAP was charged to do this year because it is recommended by MMA and they rarely are so direct. It's in their printed information that they recommend towns have them. And then it could be we look at them and say, no, we don't need this. But it would have the same kind of thing that these conflict of interest statements have. Like you shouldn't have this kind of relationship with the town manager and be on the council or whatever, potentially. This is where those typically live for council. And I think what's important, if you guys do choose to do this, these kind of conflict of interest parts and ethics policies, all of this stuff can be written in such a way that it doesn't affect people who are already here because you can grandfather and you can say anyone currently serving is grandfathered. And I think that's really important if you guys do choose to do this. I looked at the school version here in town. They have one, and it very clearly says at the date it was adopted, anyone already in positions on the school board or as staff is grandfathered, if this would mean that they couldn't continue to serve or be employed. So it doesn't affect anything existing, but MMA has templates. And if you guys decide to do it, I would suggest you start flipping MMA templates from what I understand. So I think, right, that's to me the biggest one that's on here that, you know, in terms of things that could rise to the level of a goal. The others are Dan asked about how workshops get called. He said it was fine for now, but we might want to reassess it. I was curious about currently the calendar and the P says that we will review it as a committee over the summer, and any suggested changes we have, I think, would be ready to bring to council in like September. I don't know about you all, but I hate doing a lot of stuff in the summer. And, you know, I'm not sure you guys might want to think about what time of year you're going to do the review of the policy and procedures manual. Budget goes all the way till June. Maybe you don't want to do the review until the fall. And we don't do a lot as a committee in the fall. We have all these nominations that happen in the winter. Budget's crazy in the spring. The disadvantage to bringing it back to council in November or December is some people who've been working on it might have been up for election and chosen not to run again or get elected off, so there's an advantage to maybe bringing back recommendations before the election, but I just flagged it for you guys. How do you do it next year? The time you review it should be easy peasy. Remember what we did before. It should really just be, if you do this tracker well, then there shouldn't be a whole lot in there, and you should be able to read it through and go, yep, this is all the stuff we're doing already, exactly like this, and oops, yep, these one things we flagged, we should think about whether we want to update those. So I don't think your review every year should be long process, but it is important, because if you don't do it, we'll end up where we ended up, where the existing policy procedures manual before this new one was very out of, out of line with what the actual procedures were, right, so it's important every year to do the review so that you don't get out of sync. But that's all I have on here. Is there anything you guys are aware of that should be here that isn't? [44:30] Speaker D (unidentified): I think this is plenty to go on. Nothing else comes to mind. Great. [44:36] Sarah Marks: You got anything on that, Glenn? Nope. And you all have access to this document. So if you think of something, my understanding is you should try, but I think you guys can all just add something to the bottom of the list. So, if you think of things or you ever are consulting the manual and you go, oh, that's not how we've been doing it, flag it. Same for Clint and Amanda. They have access. They can flag things on there for us, too. [45:05] Speaker D (unidentified): For whatever reason, I am not given access to that document. This is the updated P&P tracker document. Yeah. For some reason, I am not allowed. [45:16] Sarah Marks: So that happened to me and I had to ask Amanda and then she picked something and fixed it. So if that's why I was asking you to check out Amanda, don't sense it, take them. Can you if you try to [45:25] Jacob Baker: get in and type something, can you? I'm actually on my word computer and I don't do any town try things off my work computer, so I'll try when I get home tonight. Yeah, good. You don't because [45:36] Rob: that's actually one of the things we teach you in your training is don't do it on computers that aren't yours. Yeah, exactly. Thank you for reinforcing. Yeah, very good, very good. Can I grab one [45:46] Sarah Marks: minute here for another? That's, yeah. Do we have anything else on our agenda? I'm not looking at the agenda right now. Okay, yes, you can grab anything you want as can anybody else, so go Clint. [45:56] Rob: so i just reached out to sarah a little bit i think since you're all here we're we're working towards getting policies online and i can tell you where to spot where there's more there and it's more easily accessible than ever before and i think and i'm going to pick on myself but when we started this i said you know careful because i think there might be more going on here than once we get into it that we'll find as we keep going and that's because i already knew the answer there is more to it than what we realized. And as we got, it's not uncommon, in fact it's extremely normal. So there's going to be, we're putting some disclosures on the website and I think I'm going to let Cody present it. I'm trying to work on a memo because I'm gone on the 19th when he was intending to present and I think I want him to. I just wanted to work with this committee because it kind of evolved from us is we're not done yet and I'm going to kind of put together a why we're not done yet memo and what I want To fight for you and maybe it ends up on the tracker you just put is where are certain lines so and again the easiest way to explain to this you haven't you have a charter that's the constitution of order from that you build ordinances they always you always have to make sure your ordinances are consistent with your charter if it's not mentioning your charter you're in a new area you make a new ordinance from there the council adopts policies and those policies are things you don't want to Put in ordinance but are a rule you won't follow throughout the organization and then there's two other things that happens council will adopt a resolve which is hey we love this and we want to tell you but it's got no legal binding effect but we love it you know and that's kind of rule too and then the staff have policies so one of the sops and I'm going to pick on myself that I don't want to share because I don't think it's of any value to have cluttering on our website but when I got here I Made a little internal rule and adopted a little sop that said if a department head or a staff member of that department is coordinating with another department in a way that could expend funds or time and resources of the town the two department heads must meet and agree and if it's going to be a significant amount of money they have to let the manager know because what are you doing is spending a ton of money on a project that I may or may not know about great for internal operations maybe Cool that the community knows but also sometimes and I think maybe I'm a little jaded but sometimes when you share things it ends up creating problems people like why are you micromanaging departments I'm not just coordinating them but you never know what somebody in the public may feel is a concern so that's where the staff site comes in the staff policies I think we're gonna we're gonna try to figure out a way to break out because everything the police does is kind of a staff policy and I Think it's very important they know them but I even looked at a few other towns Bangor is a great example they have like eight of their police policies or ten online and then it says if you want any more call us which is I don't think the service or no is looking for I want to be better than that but so as we're working through this there are still pieces like that were not addressed the bigger one that I'm trying to figure out how to explain to the council and I'm not for the 19th that I won't Be there is codification. When you codify your ordinances and your rules, you go through a process. And what we're at now is a point where we adopt policies all the time, and we're looking at some of these policies and saying, okay, they're not always consistent maybe with our ordinances, or they're creating an ambiguity with our ordinances, or no, it makes sense with the ordinance but the policy makes it confusing to the charter, but the ordinance doesn't make it confusing to charter. So we're in this a little bit of a house cleaning moment, and it's not going to happen overnight. But the one that's concerning the most is in finance. We've got an internal controls policy of staff that we use, and I think we got to look at this because it may be that this is bubbling up to being policy level council approved, because we can take all these little policies the council's doing and put them in it, and we don't have to have 15 of these, we can have one document. And that's also a little bit of my organizational burden. I tend to over analyze, but I really want things clean and organized so they're simple for people to understand, and it makes it harder for staff. So we're kind of working through that. You that's to say that's what I wanted to share. Are we okay with that's the status of where we're at, and that the council can maybe give some feedback and insight, because this may be bubbling up the sense that I think this might want to get a work plan, and maybe more along the lines of a couple year work plan item that because and there was one I'm trying to remember what the one, oh our advisor, bond advisor, he found out we still don't know where he found, right, he found some policy, and I said where'd you get this, he goes what, I go we don't have it, I'm Sarah Amanda, we got an inventory, she was claiming the date he's got of that, and the draft he has does not exist. The council never saw it. We don't know where it came from. I'm like do you think somebody grabbed it, downloaded it into word and started editing it and created this thing, is it a draft staff was working on that somehow got out to the public, but he had this coffee that just didn't exist. So we're like hey, and so we went and he goes well I go on our website, and then he pointed out both our policies, the old one and the new one, were on the website because there was two different places they existed. That's a great catch, I said well this is why we're doing it, you know. So yeah, that's where we're at that I kind of so I don't Just, I don't want us to go too long on time. You're right. [51:22] Sarah Marks: At the end of it, I'll stop there and see what you think. I have two things. One is, I agree entirely that there are two reasons why we're doing this. One is to make things transparent to the community, which I think leads to confidence. Energy brought up the police examples, a really good one. You know, during difficult times in the past, community members were wanting to know and were upset and agitated about what are our policies, and I remember meeting with a previous police chief when I wasn't yet on council and him telling me what the policies were, and I was like, could you just link those somewhere so that the community could see them? Because the panic would have died down, right? Because people could have seen we had very good policies already in place. So I think one way is about making things transparent to the public is great. The second thing is making sure we have a centralized place where everything is helps not have problems with policies aren't found, and I remember when you did the personnel policy and book, there were policies all over the place that had to be gathered together. So I think it's a way to avoid that, to have a central spot. So I like it for those two reasons. For council, it's always been very clear to me as you explained. We have a charter, highest level of things to follow, ordinance next level, policies next level, and then as a council we have resolutions and resolves and also procedures. You know, there's no policies. So for staff, I'm not sure how that order goes. We have charter again. For staff we have ordinances, there are staff policies, actual policies people have to follow, and then is what comes below policies, standard operating procedures, or what comes next? That's on my level at the [52:52] Rob: manager level. I adopt SLP, standing operating procedures, internal staff that [52:56] Sarah Marks: be used to coordinate each other. Great. So I would say that all we really charged people with was getting things that rose to the level of policies was the charge for this year online, and it seems to me that probably that standard has been met, and now we're looking at the next level, like how much of standard operating procedures also should be here, or are you saying something [53:17] Rob: different? So we've got things in our internal control that are also policies, so we get a little [53:22] Sarah Marks: bit of overlap. I feel like internal control needs to be here because it says that might be because [53:27] Rob: That keeps what we find when staff days that it's just the internal control that's really moved into this area where we just got to present it to the council. I don't think it's something that's got to be presented. I mean, it's a staff control and auditor record dominated document. Yeah, but I think having you having it approved at that level, I think the staff could just bring it in at the end of every audit and say we're good, manual's not recommended for updating, and then the next year after the audit, yeah, we're recommending these three things because you're a lot of times you see in the audit things they say that we should be doing and we need to go and do them. Well, it was in the manual. They know you do. You know what I mean? Kind of a moment. So, yeah, I think that's all I'm at. So, yeah, I agree. The transparency and two is figuring out the staff side versus not for where the next step is. [54:11] Sarah Marks: I have one other thing to say about that, which is that I think, so I think, I think it's reasonable to say, let's start by getting all policies and then let's take a look at whether there's SOPs because that need to be here. Because I know under the police department, we do right now have the SOPs because as it turns out, most things for the police are not policies. They're in their SOP and most things community members would want to know. Otherwise, all they get was one policy on socially responsive policing. Correct. So, I really appreciated that the police recognized that and they said, oh, it's really the that the community would need to understand. So, then those are already linked for the police and I think that's great. So, I do think, you know, we need to take a look at that. Maybe we're going to say all need to be here. Maybe we're going to say a subset. It sounds like what you're saying. It's going to be some. Yes. And some. No, but I think having at least a bar that all policies have to be here. And then we will take a look at that. That seems. [55:04] Rob: Seems a place to start and then what we got to do is the council policies the piece that we haven't finished that's not done yet and we got to have more time this is I want staff to go back and get a re-inventory of every policy that we can find in the minutes and then re-inventory of any of the policies and the date it was repealed by a vote and then we can put that on one sheet and we can say and we've got it we have the beginnings of it in fact I think we've got it done I want it to be Re-verified by staff that works here today and say go back and check everything we did because well this one with the finance that says you know dated September 8th of 2020 or something like that I'm like that's COVID that it was somebody playing with kind of anyways I just kind of sat back and I'm like all right let's see what's going on but let's go make sure that all the dates and times of when we did our adopted stuff is there and recorded so yeah I'm just gonna that's the update that I'm Gonna give the council on Monday and I thought it was important for this committee to hear it since I had a question coming into the Monday presentation. [55:59] Sarah Marks: Since we started late I know we're over but I do want to hear if Jacob or Rob have any thoughts about policies and standard operating procedures, and what's getting posted. I [56:12] Jacob Baker: Have no opinion about what's getting posted but maybe the finance that the finance policies review and consolidation, or what have you is could be a good charge for maybe the finance committee next year, or this year. I mean we've kind of done a couple piecemeal things I agree with you with our fund balance policy and our spending limits policy but it sounds like we're still not aligned with ordinance policy and the sub levels yeah and I found a policy we found one you know it [56:49] Rob: Was like oh we've got another one and it's on the website but I mean should be some other [56:54] Speaker D (unidentified): Places too I don't have any strong feelings other than I'm glad that work is ongoing to try to just make sure everybody's on the same page about this all operating and I don't have strong feelings about the posting I mean I think that's like makes sense on the police side the starting operating procedures are sort of given more space likely not necessary in all cases [57:18] Rob: Is maybe we would finish policies the next one is staffed policies once we know we get those clean whether they're on the site or not we'll then look at the SOPs and I don't mind sharing them with the committee I think there's no prevention of making them public yeah it's just it's a lot of work to post them right who on the street wants to know that I asked the department head that you're spending money right with another department head on a collaborative effort I want [57:42] Speaker D (unidentified): To know what the problem is a lot of those things are things you could share by request but a lot of them are necessary for you to put the work into me. [57:51] Sarah Marks: Is it a lot of work to post them? Or if they exist in written form, is it simply a click? [57:56] Rob: No, I think this is giving me, maybe this is brought over by the Council, but slowly. Orono has a small staff and we want to keep costs as low as possible. And all these little things, they're very minimal, but we do it all. We're asked to make everything perfect every time. And that's extremely expensive because they're really compounding and adding up. And this is one of those ones where I think was because I mean you know kind of semi goal let's try to not have new staff you know I can tell you there's not hardly a department where if we're going to keep striving for some of these perfections they generally mean it when they say we need more stamina I just okay so that's the hard part because it's not they're putting them there who's going to make sure they're always updated always checked always going back in every single [58:39] Sarah Marks: time that piece Clint I actually think saves work and doesn't make work because if because if there is no place where somebody says, every time we update this policy, it goes here, we end up with more of these situations like we had with the bond policy, like we had with the personnel policy procedures manual, where stuff gets scattered everywhere. So I actually think that saves work instead of making work. If there's a clear designated spot, when any policy gets updated, it better get updated here. Because then when you need to find things, all staff know where to find it, all counselors know where to find it, all community members. So my guess is that actually would have saved us hours of work if somebody had done the minutes of work to keep a central thing updated over time. I don't know. And my last thing I would say is just so I think that's I think this is a case where it's more about this would save more work than it would create. And for me, I think it's really important to me that if something is at the level of a policy that the community can always know that they have a place to find it. And if there's a debate on an SOP about whether it's important enough, I would rather have it, because you never know who in the community needs something. And not with this council in this town, but in other situations I've been in, it has been crucial for transparent government that people not in government were able to access what policies and important SOPs were, because there was very not ethical stuff going on in another community I lived in. And policies you might not have thought mattered actually mattered at that point. So I think it's important for a variety of reasons, and I really love what we're doing, and I think staff have done a terrific job, as I said. And I love that, like, the police SOPs are here, and I think it's great, and you guys will take it where it goes next. Do we have anything else before we wrap? Thank you for [1:00:28] Speaker D (unidentified): everything you've done, Sarah. Okay, thank you. 've done an incredible amount of work reorganizing and everything with this council, Tom Corbett has done in the last three years of the Developmental Council. You've done a lot. [1:00:40] Sarah Marks: Really appreciate it. It's been a joy to serve and to work with you guys, all of you. I'll get to you. Thank you so much, and we are adjourned. Thanks, Tom.