This meeting, the citizens tree board special meeting is called to order.

We can all do a roll call and when to have a chair.

Well, that completes our roll call with someone uh landing ballot that okay, right.

We acknowledge the original inhabitants of the space, the Sudahomas people and their successors, the tribe, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these landings to respect their sovereignty, the right to self-determination and one are there, sacred territory connection.

Uh, do I have a motion to approve the draft minutes from the meeting on July 2nd?

I would like to make circuit.

Um my understanding is because of the figure of the audience video, these were constructed out of that.

Um there is a note here, it says note that hybrid access value later recording available action recommendation or consensus from the July 2nd meeting will be treated as in fact people relied upon that wording, however, there have been the consensus has been represented already.

So it is either a consensus or it's not a consensus, and there was an action actually taken, at least one at planning board meeting based on the consensus.

So in that respect, there's an inconsistency between the word consensus here and the word consensus as it was relayed to the planning.

It was a tree board gathering and such it to represent it as minutes.

So I think that might have been I mean the clerk informed us to call it limited minutes, it's for meeting notes.

Uh so they're not minutes per se, but they do reflect the action of the board of quorum that was here on July 2nd.

So do you want to amend the minutes or I would amend these to call them notes?

No, yes, I took ex jabranius notes during the meeting, and if they go inside with either you have that's time stamped by my on my iPad.

If they align, uh yes, but I don't think that I think that would have to be on my hand.

Yeah, that would that would have to that would have to uh come from you, but I'm I'm still not sure that those would qualify as minutes given the kind of status of the meeting, but also the you know the consensus that was reached on whether that is treated process-wise, whether that leaves a city open to somebody challenging decision the planning board is made if consensus was represented from this right.

Well, so we only get this meeting through the city clerk who and as explained in the agenda um report that it uh repeat meeting was required, and that uh no open public meeting act violation occurred, however, our city policy was not followed by we did not have a hybrid hybrid meeting if the link to join the meeting remotely was not published anywhere on the city uh website.

So that's so that's where we are now is having the meeting if you'd like to amend uh the the um the meeting notes to reflect their meeting notes reflecting the consensus decision, it was consensus decisions that were arrived at through motions on July 2nd.

So it says here on the in the here that no action recommendation or consensus will be treated as a fact.

Right.

So that's so that's inconsistency.

Would you like to change that?

How would you like that to be worded?

See, I believe that from a process standpoint, this is correct.

I don't think it's correct to that anything from that meeting would be would hold up as a consensus given that we are having another meeting that is pre-fashion that there was a problem procedurally in the first meeting.

So you would like to strike the July 2nd meeting notes?

I would I would feel comfortable calling these meeting notes.

So given that would be an amendment.

With the qualifiers as they exist uh within the uh the draft here.

Do I have a second for that?

I'll second that.

Okay, all those in favor.

Okay, the meeting that passes and let us are we good.

We'll move on now.

Just out of curiosity, so basically in the description, it wasn't um officially um meeting for the city guidelines.

Should we also call it like something other than meeting notes?

Clarify here, that's the guidance that we've received from uh clerk.

It said because it did constitute a meeting, okay, even if it wasn't if it wasn't in line with city policy, therefore meeting minutes have to be taken.

Um and provided now we had a second issue with with the recording.

So when it's get posted to the website, we need to have meeting minutes.

We don't have meeting notes as as something to put this under.

Um right now, how we have the current draft in front of you says draft meeting notes in the top, and that's how we've referred to them.

It's not you know gonna look exactly like all the other meeting minutes, but when you see it posted online, it's gonna be minutes because that's the only thing.

It's only saying that you can just concerned about compounding procedural problems because that's where I think that's what it's good.

I like there's uh motion to submit my my notes from time to the record style.

Yeah, yeah, and if that's the case, uh what I prefer to do is be able to put those into the packet because folks watching from home don't know exactly what is in your personal notes, so we'll have to take those and then put them into a subsequent packet before adoption next time.

So that would table the discussion on adoption of the minutes this time.

Yes, until next time, we can put in the notes that you have, then make it more comprehensive.

Look at it if that's the approach that they want to take.

So if you have a motion, I'll take that.

Okay, so the motion on the table is to include the minutes that then notes notes.

I took notes.

No, what during the meeting on the table?

Notes during the meeting will be included, and this issue will be tabled, correct?

No, can't do that.

The table came later.

So the we need to uh do we have a second to include Ben's notes?

I will second that.

Okay, all those in favor, any opposed?