2026-09-14 - Public Services Committee

06:48Now, uh, Ian, are we okay to stream out? Yes, we are. So, let me turn on the recording.

07:01All right. Uh it is now 505 and this is the Cape Cod Regional Government Assembly of Delegates

07:10Standing Committee on Public Services. Uh pursuant to chapter 2 of the act 2025, this virtual meeting

07:15of the Barsville County Assembly of Delegate Standing Committee on Public Services will be

07:19conducted via remote means only in accordance with applicable law. Members of the public

07:22who watch the meeting through live real-time broadcast at www.youtube.com/user/marstable

07:28county. A public participation guide and meeting documents are available in advance

07:32at www.capecott.gov. The county of Barnesville does not discriminate in the administration of

07:37its programs or activities on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, age,

07:41sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other category protected by state and federal

07:44anti-discrimination laws and regulations. Reasonable accom accommodations people

07:48with disabilities are available upon request. For more information or to file a complaint,

07:52please contact your CN March Barsible County ADA non-discrimination coordinator at jmar

07:57ca czak at capecod.gov. Call 5083756646 or visit www.capecod.gov. Members of the public

08:05may also attend the meeting remotely and that information is available um on the website.

08:10Please note the standing committee on public services may take official action on any item

08:14on the agenda including votes on recommendations for action by the full assembly of delegates.

08:18Members of the public may participate at the discretion of the chair. Would you like a roll

08:23call, Mr. Chair? Yes, please. Uh, delegate Fuller here. Uh, delegate King. Actually,

08:34I think I skipped one. Well, Chair Chair Gasson here. Vice Chair Harter here. Delegate Samson

08:44here. I believe that's all for now, but that is a quorum. Mr. Chair and I will work on getting

08:53uh Oh, no. Delegate Frederick. Oh, delegate Frederickson is there as well. So, he can take

08:58the place of delegate King until Delegate King comes if that's your your pleasure. Mr. Chair,

09:03are you there, Delegate Frederickson? He's muted. Sure. Are you there? All right. Well, you've got a

09:09you've got a full compleiment of five, Mr. Chair. Perfect. And then uh Cler Fletcher, if you don't

09:14mind crunching the the numbers on percentages too because I think uh Delegate Frederickson's gonna

09:21have a valuable perspective on this regardless. So it whether or not King comes, I'd love to have

09:25him participate. Well, I we're fine on percentages because you do need you need you need eight and a

09:31and a majority for a quorum. So we look to be we look to be below eight even if King shows up. So

09:37perfect. All right. But I will but I will take a look at the percentages as well just in case.

09:42Um, okay. So, what I will try to do, um, is catch us a little bit of up to speed so we're

09:51all on the same page about the procedural steps that have happened with ordinance 26-11. Um,

09:58and then happy to take input from from folks there, but I know it's been a somewhat long

10:03process. Uh, so that everyone's on the same page of where we're at. Uh my understanding is assembly

10:09leadership is looking to have this on the agenda um for at least discussion and possible vote this

10:17coming Wednesday. Um that's the extent of what I know there. So uh given that we are having

10:22this committee meeting um I think it would be appropriate but not necessarily necessary

10:27depending on how the discussion goes to walk out of here with recommend a recommendation or at le

10:36um amongst the five or six of us thoughts on substantive changes um recommended amendments

10:42if we think it's appropriate. Uh but before we get into the the substantive discussion of the policy

10:48um overarching uh we introduced I'm going to be looking at my screen here to remind myself

10:55of a couple things. Um, a number of delegates including myself, delegate harder, delegate Tai,

11:02delegate Gallagher, um, and delegate Omali, I think that covers everyone, introduced a proposal,

11:10um, to go to create an ordinance and create a specific procedure and specific regulation around

11:18um, immigration enforcement on county property, specifically with county courous in mind, but it

11:23would affect all county property. Uh the gist of the proposal did five specific things. One,

11:29it required ICE to provide a judicial warrant to access non-public areas of county property. Two,

11:34it prohibits the use of county property for staging of immigration enforcement raids

11:39like that would be like parking lots uh and other more open space county property. Three,

11:44it establishes protections not already existing for personal information gathered in the

11:49provision of government services. So your personal information that you provide to the county won't

11:53be shared with immigration authorities. Uh four, it prohibits the discretionary coordination or

11:59commonandeering of county employees for federal immigration enforcement purposes. And five,

12:04it establishes a reporting requirement for county the county administrator in case of immigration

12:08enforcement on county property. Um, in essence, the the idea here is really not to try to preempt

12:17federal or state law, but to lay out a coherent policy by the county in ordinance rather than

12:25just an executive order um to do. And if you go through the proposal um in a number of places,

12:31it really does emphasize that cooperation shall only be to the extent required by law,

12:37etc., etc., in a numerous different locations, right? So federal law or state law requires us

12:42to cooperate this ordinance isn't saying disregard that. Instead, the ordinance is

12:47saying to the extent not required by law, these are our rules that we're operating under. Um this

12:54ordinance was introduced in April um actually in in late March of 2026. Um, and there were uh the

13:05assembly leadership requested a legal opinion on April 6th, 2026. I'll share my screen right now.

13:15A legal opinion uh that asked two questions. One, do we have the authority to implement

13:21this ordinance? The short answer, and this was in everyone's packet, but the short answer was yes,

13:26we do have the authority under the home rule chapter, um to uh regulate county business

13:35and county affairs by ordinance. Uh and two, um essentially, would this be redundant if the state

13:43passed the Protect Act? And the lawyers answered, "In essence, the Protect Act hasn't passed yet,

13:49so we can't tell you for sure. If this if there's a discrepancy between the Protect Act and the

13:58county stat County ordinance, then the state law would supersede uh our county ordinance. And

14:05lastly, if we're filling in some gaps, there is a possibility that our ordinance would fill in gaps

14:11um that the Protect Act doesn't address. Uh there was a second legal opinion before we had

14:16a hearing on it um on May 7th, 2026 asking how does our ordinance play with the um executive

14:30order passed by the commissioners. The short of this legal opinion again in everyone's packet

14:35was our ordinance cottifies most of what was in that executive order including no arrests without

14:44judicial warrants uh and prohibiting the use of county property for staging area. And then it does

14:50three other things uh which was what we talked about protecting personal information protect

14:55preventing the commonering of county employees and establishing reporting requirement. Um then

15:02we had an assembly meeting after we got this legal opinion. At that assembly meeting after extensive

15:08discussion we voted um eight delegates opposed seven in favor but the seven that voted in favor

15:15of it had a greater weighted vote to postpone the proposal until two things occurred. one um we got

15:24additional information from administrator Dutton on how feasible what the consequences and what the

15:30implications of implementing the ordinance would be and two um that we got that we would wait until

15:38the protect act actually passed so we would know what the implications of the state law will be on

15:44our county ordinance. Um and then we can talk a little bit about what we heard from administrator

15:49Dutton at length. I don't want to characterize it yet until we have a chance for everyone to

15:54speak. Um, the Protect Act passed at the very end of session at the end of July at which point

16:02uh assembly leadership requested two additional legal opinions um expanding on what the Protect

16:12Act covers and essentially asking does the ordinance do anything else that the Protect

16:16Act doesn't already cover. The the short of these legal opinions is essentially that on using county

16:23property and warrantless arrests. For the most part, the Protect Act governs though there we

16:28might be filling in some gaps when it comes to just county property. Um but when it comes to

16:35those other provisions that we discussed, a lot of them the Protect Act doesn't actually

16:40lay out firm guidance. Instead, it defers to a commission that the legislation created. Uh

16:45so we in essence would be creating additional protections that are county specific uh if we

16:52adopted this ordinance. Again happy to dive into more detail on e any one of these legal opinions

16:57if folks have questions but that's the general gist of it. Um and now that we have had the

17:03protect act passed. We've heard from administrator Dutton that means the motion to postpone that

17:09passed in May has expired. So it's coming back on the agenda for the assembly meeting. So this

17:14meeting was con convened ahead of it in order to discuss u the ordinance prior to the full assembly

17:22hearing it. Um with that before we dive into the substance of it any questions on that somewhat

17:28long procedural history? Anybody disagree with my characterization of that procedural history?

17:37Cool. Um to that extent um I will say in brief my opinion on it is

17:45um the protect act and and this ordinance work well together. Nothing that we've

17:50received from the legal opinions tells us otherwise. Um as a sponsor of this proposal,

17:55I still support it and would like to see it pass. Um that's my two cents on

18:00it and I want to open the floor to other delegates who might have other thoughts.

18:08I'm happy to start off if you'd like me to. Please go ahead, Doug Samson. Um, so several things after

18:18the initial proposal when it was presented to the to the assembly. Um, I did my own research

18:25on the governor's executive order. Um there were a couple of things that stood out is to make sure

18:33that they made sure that the executive order was in compliance with the Massachusetts Supreme Court

18:40decision relative to uh local authorities in um cooperating with ICE in what they can do and what

18:50they cannot do. And um the governor's executive order was explicit that um she directed all state

19:02agencies and subdivisions to provide their own policies and train their employees uh within the

19:10executive order. Um so I'm comfortable with all of those safeguards and I fully support it. Thank

19:19you, Delegate Thson. And quick question, uh, by the SJC, um, the Supreme Judicial Court decision

19:27you're talking about, that's the the Lun decision, right? The L the Lun decision. Yes. And the, um,

19:32just so that everybody else knows, the the Supreme Court Lund decision is also the basis

19:38that is used in all the policies and procedures by our local police departments. So that's the

19:45current standard in Massachusetts, and we are bound by that standard. this policy as

19:52written. I do not see anything that conflicts with that decision. I think it enhances it,

19:59but more importantly, it gives specific guidance to our own employees that they can rely on.

20:11Thank you, Delegate Samson. You didn't pay me to say that. This is true. Uh,

20:17don't get harder. Thank you. Um, no, I I I agree with I mean I agreed with everything Wayne said,

20:27but especially what I like highlighting about this is the last point he made that it supports our

20:36employees. Yes. And it lets them know that they um basically that we have their back and that,

20:46you know, they're not going to get in trouble if they try to stop ICE. We're also not going

20:53to fire them if they decide that's really scary cuz you don't we don't want our staff to feel like

21:00they need to stand up to a guy with a submachine gun, right? So, um, so I I think really the most

21:07important thing about this is that it it shows our staff that we have their backs. It shows our

21:14constituents that they don't have to be afraid to come to the county to do any necessary business,

21:23you know, like file a deed or, you know, anything like that or go to court. And so,

21:31um, I just I I think this is great now that we know all everything the Protect

21:38Act does and everything the lawyers have said. Um, I think we know that um,

21:44from the beginning it did a pretty darn good job. And uh and now we're ready to uh to send this on

21:53to everybody with the you know with hopefully making people feel better and less scared.

22:03Thank you, Delegate Harter. Um Delegate Fuller, Delegate Frederickson, any other thoughts?

22:14Well, chair, I think that uh the two other delegates pretty much covered everything I

22:20would say and I I support this. Thank you, Delegate Fuller. Um Delegate Frederickson.

22:28Yeah. Hi there. Um thanks for allowing me to uh speak on it. I looked through, you know,

22:33a bunch of it. I wish I had a little more time to uh review what actually is is still in there.

22:39I don't know if there's been any changes. What I I have not heard is what uh Mr. Dutton has done.

22:47There was certain things that could have been done or have they been done already? They should have

22:52been done already. Um and that are probably unnecessary in here, but generally speaking,

22:59it is what it is. Um the Protect Act is, you know, kind of repeating the same things we already were

23:07uh were doing. Uh this adds a little bit of um emphasis on what our employees do.

23:14I have concerns about that. I mean uh Delegate Harter talked about uh they can't be afraid to

23:21do things are afraid of being fired. Well, I'm not so sure of that if they don't follow some

23:25of these rules that we put in place. I just want to be sure that administrator Dutton has put the

23:30has weighed in on the employee relations part of this. And I don't I haven't heard that yet.

23:37Uh, I would be concerned of that. And quite honestly, there were there were a lot of other

23:41things I sent a memo out that uh we could do to actually help those who may be in fear through our

23:50um some of our county agencies um to help them if they uh have lapsed in their their courts uh

23:59situations. give them the avenues to go and get things corrected before they get um might get

24:07picked up. I think that's lacking. It's more of a statement than anything else. Um and some of it,

24:15although uh we're fortunate that pretty much what we're putting in here doesn't really happen. I've

24:22uh spoken with judges since uh the last time this was brought up. Um, I've spoken with police

24:28departments uh about the handling of certain things. We're fortunate that the scenarios that

24:34that have played out here really don't happen that often, but the perception which is which

24:40is very real that uh particularly I have a heart for kids and families um that they they live okay

24:49but we should be doing more in respect to guiding them to make sure that their their

24:56um designations whether the their legal process are they meeting their court deadlines clients

25:02are there is there paperwork in order where they can go and get that done. I think that's more

25:07proactive than this. Uh and there's a few things, but I really want to before I can really vote on

25:14it, I want to hear what uh Mr. Dutton has done on some of these because some of the wording may be

25:19unnecessary in here, but always not uh it is what it is. Protect Act does a lot of what's already

25:26in here. No, for sure. And then Doug Harter, I'll touch on some of those points and then if

25:31there's anything else you want to add. Um, no, I think Doug Frederickson that you raised some good

25:36points. I know you brought them up previously when it comes to personnel concerns. Um, specifically

25:41in this ordinance. Um, I know you have obviously experience working with municipal personnel uh the

25:50details of that those relationships uh from your experience and I think those are valid concerns.

25:56uh when administrator Dutton came in front of us to raise his concerns, that wasn't something

26:01he brought up. However, I'm more than happy as chair of the committee uh pending whatever

26:07recommendation we come up with to reach out prior to Wednesday's meeting to administrator

26:11Dutton and and raise those concerns and if he wants to see any language amended, ask him to

26:16come to that meeting and and present it as such. Um and explain that. Um I think totally valid and

26:23and we should consider it. Um yeah and beyond that I think even if the executive order and

26:29this ordinance have overlap um we've we've seen nationally we've seen here that you know codified

26:37ordinance or legislation be it carries a different weight than an executive order. So even if some of

26:43these policies already getting in place I think it does everyone a service to put these in ordinance

26:48in in in the county books um and lock them in there. But that's my take on it. Don't get harder.

26:59Um, I just wanted to add that I think it's important to have this um in place just because

27:09the rules keep changing and as long as we have this in place, if the rules change again, we still

27:18have a framework of how to act. Um because when we first started doing this um we have over 40,000

27:29Massachusetts healthcare workers are Haitian and they were fine and then one day they decided nope

27:38no more protected status and now we have 40,000 healthcare workers in Massachusetts that can't go

27:44to work because they're terrified. So I think that because of the everchanging landscape of

27:55um who is here legally and um how things can change. I think it's better to have this in

28:05place so that whatever changes come we at least have this framework and um and these rules set

28:12for the employees and for everyone concerned. Thank you. Thank you, Delegate Harter. No,

28:19and and I think at its core, the goal of myself and the sponsors with introducing it is to make

28:24sure folks aren't scared to use county services and to go to county courouses because it makes

28:31everyone in our communities less safe if people are scared, especially as victims or witnesses,

28:36to go to court. So, even if all this does is is really just send a message to folks that this

28:41is not something the countyy's tolerating, uh I think that already makes us all safer here on the

28:47Cape. Uh but with that, I'll entertain a motion to create a favorable recommendation from this. Yeah.

28:55Um I'd like to add a little something. I'm sorry I can't find the hand. No, no, no worries. Um,

29:02you know, it should be recognized that there are, you know, for victims and witnesses in court,

29:08there are federal regulations for that. There are, um, the UVs are in the TVs are those covered

29:13under the law. Um, those are things to protect those that that just what we're talking about,

29:19the need to go to court and one as a victim or a witness. Uh, those are available and have been for

29:25quite some time. And also um just so that there seems to be an assumption that um that the the

29:33uh federal authority regarding uh arrest is only on a warrant. Uh that is not necessarily that is

29:40um that's not accurate. They can arrest on civil violations. Um, and so just to make sure that we

29:49know that and you know I I don't know how to say it um gently, but um are we in effect uh creating

30:03a trespass warning to ICE agents for county properties for certain things? Not necessarily.

30:12To my understanding, Delegate Frederickson, we're telling ICE agents that they have to follow the

30:20same rules anyone else does, which is you don't have access to uh non-public areas of courouses

30:28or non-public areas of county facilities. That's the case for anyone um with or without a trespass

30:34warning. It I don't I don't think that's an equivalent of it. I think that's just the

30:37rule. And we're just clarifying that unless you have a judicial warrant, you are not exempt from

30:44that requirement, right? But that holds true for anybody uh even us for that matter. We cannot go

30:50into public. So we're we're isolating ICE for this particular thing which is one of the things that

30:56that stands for everybody and that's where all of our property should be posted already. You don't

31:01have access to it. We can't just walk in or the general public, police department, anybody else to

31:06walk in and do business unless there's a warrant. Um, but when it comes to staging areas and stuff

31:13like that's a that's a little bit different because it's not posted unless we're going to post

31:18signs. I don't think that was the intention. Um, so it's it's a little quirky in in some regards,

31:27but the overall um message is we want people to be treated with respect and we don't want you doing

31:33certain things. And I totally agree and um we should be something in there expecting that there

31:43be uh transparency. there should be um the people they are uh arresting that they are treated with

31:52respect that their families are taken care of to the best of their abilities. I firmly believe that

31:58that's how I operated as a police chief and that's what I expect. I would rather see some language

32:03towards that that we are expecting that uh all all people be treated with dignity and respect.

32:13I'm sorry, a call's coming in on my uh phone here. So, um so those are a couple of things, but I

32:22would feel more comfortable if I see what uh Mr. Dutton has done um to make sure that, you know,

32:29we don't have things in there that are that should be applicable to everybody and not just isolating

32:35one segment of uh law enforcement. No, absolutely, Don. And again, I a lot of this ordinance leaves

32:44it up to the administrator to set policy, and I'm comfortable leaving it to him to do it. For

32:49instance, I doubt the signs that are going to be demarking non-public areas are going to have

32:54a picture of an ICE agent with a line through it. I think it's going to be this is a private,

32:58you know, non-public area of the courthouse, period. I don't think it's going to I that

33:02that's my expectation of it. Uh but of course, as I said, I will reach out to administrator Dutton

33:07um and and raise your concerns. feel free to also send me anything ahead of time uh just so

33:13he knows what issues you would like addressed before Wednesday's meeting. Yeah. Okay. Um

33:22that's it. I just wanted to make sure that we're we want a commitment of fairness and

33:28accountability for ICE when they do their job because they have a job to do. Uh it's not

33:33always pretty and for those that are being wrong, we want to make sure that they're

33:38being treated right uh and moving forward into whatever process they might go into.

33:48Thank you, Delegate Frederickson. Um, Delegate Harter. Um, I agree with Delegate Frederickson

33:56that it would be very nice if we could have a paragraph in there about um everybody being

34:01treated with dignity and respect. And I don't know if if Delegate Frederickson would like to write

34:08that um or send you some ideas about it or just bring, you know, write something ahead of time and

34:14bring it up on Wednesday. But I think that's um I think that's a really good addition. Thank you.

34:23Thank you, Delegate Harter. Um, with that, unless there's any other comments or thoughts,

34:28I would entertain a motion for a favorable recommendation on the

34:32ordinance language here specifically. So moved.

34:37Second. Uh, Mr. Clerk, would you mind taking a roll call vote? All right. Uh, delegate Fuller.

34:48Yes. Uh, Chair Gesson, yes. Delegate harder. Yes. Delegate Frederickson for Delegate King.

35:01Are you there? I vote to move it. I vote to move it forward, but uh I guess that's all I need

35:08to say right now. We can discuss it further when we get more information Wednesday. So,

35:13Delegate Samson. Yes. And and for the sake of the clerk, Doug Frederickson,

35:19on on the vote for favorable recommendation, should we put you down as present? Um,

35:28well, I'm favorable to move it to the the full assembly.

35:35I'm not. Is that what we're voting on? Isn't that what we vote on? You're you're voting to give a

35:41favorable recommendation to the ordinance at the full assembly. But rest assured when I write this

35:46up your your thoughts and your um your concerns will be there with it. So but it's generally just

35:55you know yes no or present and it's for favorable recommendation for action by the full assembly.

36:02Okay. Uh with that one other uh piece of business to do with this ordinance uh that I'm hoping to

36:09discuss with delegates here uh because I've had some conversations with assembly leadership about

36:13it today um is I received a concern um from members of the public that wanted information

36:22on this ordinance and the deliberative process that went with it. Um there was a a request for

36:28public information uh or public documents, public records. a public records request was made for um

36:36discussion related to this ordinance. Um with that um a decision was made uh by the clerk of records,

36:46sorry if I get the titles wrong, but the custodian of records at the county um to

36:52redact correspondence uh between attorneys and the assembly on this issue. Um, I can see why there

37:02might be circumstances where that's an appropriate decision. For instance, if there's attorney

37:08client privilege uh in an ongoing legal matter with the county or attorney client privilege

37:15um with a contract negotiation of some sort and you don't want that pulled for public record, I do

37:22firmly believe that that is not an appropriate way to go about treating these legal opinions because

37:28the four legal opinions that we got in connection with um this proposal We're substantively policy

37:37opinions, right? And we're basing deliberations and policy based on those. So, I do think it's

37:44misguided and and poor form to keep to prevent the public from having full access to them, especially

37:50since I mean I shared my screen with them, right? Like these are clearly public and should be given

37:56to the public. Um so with that I've had some conversations with uh assembly leadership on

38:04it and rather than you know trying to like put it in the record here now or or do like do anything

38:09unilaterally as a committee um I would like to move that this committee recommend for these

38:16legal opinions and policy legal opinions to be made available to the public in general practice.

38:25So moved. We don't need to hide anything. It was I mean it's all on video.

38:34Before we make a motion, let's let's I want to answer questions if folks have them. I I

38:38moved it just for discussion. Discussion. Um, so being an attorney, um, I I can see the point that

38:54the attorney client privilege will apply and that um, any written communication for the purpose of

39:06developing policy uh, may be restricted like that. Um, so I would I would certainly like to know

39:18uh be before I can support making it public, I'd want to know the reason behind the withholding of

39:24it. Um, because I I mean I don't have them in front of me and I don't want to second

39:29guess them on what they're doing. Um, but I'm I'm I'm bound to protect the attorneys here.

39:38That's fair. I mean, my my my take on it like honestly is sometimes attorneys are cautious. Uh

39:45it might not come as a surprise to you, uh Delson, but attorneys like to be careful and and I and I

39:51get the feeling that there wasn't necessarily a substantive reason to not make this public.

39:56And sometimes um sometimes there's an approach in the legal world to just like if you can slap

40:03attorney client privilege on it, you do it and then you figure it out later. Right. No, I don't

40:08think especially with these four opinions which are substantively policy opinions, right? They

40:14didn't give us legal advice. They told us this is you this is legal. Um I think in the interest of

40:20transparency, we should not get into the habit of restricting these kind of opinions because

40:26we based our deliberations on it, right? And and the public under the spirit of open meeting law

40:31deserves to know how we got to a decision. I I would feel much better if if somebody from the

40:38um the county called the attorney and say, "Should this be withheld or should it be made

40:43public?" Okay. I would I feel much better about that because they they they will know whether

40:52or not they want their opinion protected or they're com or they're comfortable with it.

41:00Right. Sorry. that the thing that um the thing that I could see behind their reasoning which

41:09I would agree with is if you take the fifth then you take the fifth and you can't say tell them oh

41:18but it's yes it's raining right you just have to always take the fifth and I think maybe they're

41:24worried about precedent that if we release um these legal opinions saying well it doesn't matter

41:32to us cuz it's just policy when it's not just policy. Um, and people say they want it and

41:41we say no, you can't have it. Um, that we we've set a precedent saying sure, you can have it and

41:49it it would open up Pandora's box. So, I could see that that would be the way. The reason that

41:56they wouldn't do it is because, you know, you don't want to start a slippery slope of here,

42:01have access to all of our lawyers opinions. Do you know what I mean? So, so I think I think um that

42:09Delegate Samson's right that we should probably just find out exactly what they're objecting to

42:14and why. And um you know because the other thing we can do is if they really say no we don't want

42:24these out um there's probably a way that we could you know put I mean it's probably in the in our

42:34discussions on on I don't know what it is anymore film that um you know well the lawyer said this

42:42is okay so you know so that shows was that we did get the opinion and and you know without actually

42:51releasing something that sets a bad precedent. I would say um and I and I'll open up the floor. I

43:00know other dogs probably want to speak. I I I want to say that we we I already put these opinions on

43:07my screen, right? We all just sobbed, right? We we all discussed them. Um, anybody in the public can

43:15watch this recording and see the legal opinions. I think all else being equal, it's a bad look for

43:22us to refuse to do this because I think in the interest of transparency, the public deserves to

43:28know how we got to this decision. In my opinion, lawyers are going to be cautious and I get it. Um,

43:34but at this point, the opinions are for all intents and purposes out in public.

43:38So for for us to hang on to that technicality and refuse to send it to someone as a PDF document,

43:45I think is it's the same way the legislative audit is going, right? Like why put up a fight?

43:52Just just share the documents and let's move on. But that's my take on it. Doug Frederickson. Yeah.

43:59Um so was the request to the attorneys or was it to the county or both? To the county. Okay. So,

44:09it's public documents that we have. Yes. And then the attorneys, to my understanding, recommended

44:17that we redact their correspondence with us, which the county custodian did before releasing

44:25the documents to the public. Yeah, I I think you you're spot on. you know, the only ones in

44:33uh Massachusetts other than exemptions with it with certain documents all over are the state

44:39legislature, ironically. Um, not us. Um, so it is peculiar in my observation having been through so

44:50many public records requests. Um, so I just don't understand the reason. And for full transparency,

44:58we should be putting this out there. But unless they come up with some solid uh reason,

45:05legal grounds, I I don't understand it. It's not a good look for us. I can tell you that.

45:13Before we come back to you, did you Oh, sorry. Harder. I just quick question. Um,

45:20because I'm confused. I've heard I've heard two different things. The request um for

45:28the information was redacted the the lawyers information was redacted by our lawyers or the

45:37lawyer for the county. To my understanding, both lawyers were consulted, but the final decision,

45:49I think, came down to the county attorney, KP Law. Okay. Thanks. Not that either set

45:57of lawyers wanted to share it, right? But I I just didn't know who was, you know, cuz I don't

46:04want to lose our lawyers over this. So that's all I'm saying. Delegate Fuller, any other thoughts?

46:17No, you've covered it pretty much. Okay, I still I I respect your concerns, Delegate Samson,

46:26and maybe the lawyers will come and tell us better. I don't think so. Um, so I'm going

46:32to move that we recommend for all four of these legal opinions to be made available to the public.

46:42I'll make that motion. I don't want to second it because I think I want to hear I want to hear from

46:53the lawyers as to why they did it because um you're a lawyer or almost but I and Wayne is

47:01a lawyer but I'm not a lawyer so there could be a whole host of reasons that I'm missing as to why

47:11they want them redacted and I think that we're all sitting here saying it's stupid. They should be

47:19public. They've been on the videos, you know. So, it's I think it's very clear that we're not trying

47:25to hide them, you know. So, I don't think it's a bad look for us. Um, so I think maybe we just

47:32wait and discuss it Wednesday with everybody in the hopes that we will have answers from

47:40lawyers to tell us why they think we can't release them. That That's my opinion. Thank you, Delegate

47:49Fuller. Yeah, I agree with Delegate Harter and Delegate Samson. It's It's not the appropriate

47:56place to make this decision. Let's wait and see what information we get and let the whole assembly

48:02decide. Okay. Well, in that case, can I make a motion for the assembly to consider the question

48:08of transparency in our legal opinions? Second. And like have a set policy. No. Um, excuse me. Um,

48:20could we possibly amend that uh motion to say something in order of um we support we we agree

48:30that uh information should be uh made as public uh that kind of it sounds like you already did uh

48:40um in one form uh that we are awaiting further opinion from our and we'll follow the guidance

48:47of our attorney. Right. Okay. Let me draft a quick motion real quick and then I will say it

48:53out loud and we can see if we can get a second for it and vote on it. Yeah. It just has to say

49:00we're all in favor of transparency and would and would like to reveal everything. However,

49:06you know, due due to lawyers sometimes we don't have that option. No offense taken. No.

49:19You know, we love you. You're just a It's a,

49:22you know, it's just historically a good punchline. Absolutely.

49:32Um, you know, cuz we really don't I don't want to like make something saying I don't

49:37care about this letter. put it out there and find out that we've now screwed up,

49:42you know, 50 years of future future. Uh, you know, whatever.

50:34All right. This doesn't sound beautiful, but I move that in the interest of transparency,

50:40this committee recommends for the full assembly to consider its policy on releasing policy

50:45based legal opinions to the public. Cool. Wayne's thinking. Um well, are we are we um

51:02yeah, the first thing that rapidly comes to my mind is subject subject to approval of council or

51:11um after review with council. After review with council upon review of its release with council.

51:23Uh, wait. Put it up. Can you put it up on the screen? Yes. And what I will Oh,

51:30my hesitation with subject review because I'm down to have the lawyers weigh in. I don't think

51:37the lawyers should decide. Um, right. So, how about I'm like in the interest of transparency,

51:44this committee recommends the full assembly work with council to consider a policy on

51:48releasing policy based legal opinions to the public. I don't want to I don't

51:53think it needs to I don't want to make a full policy right now. I think I think that in the

51:59interest of transparency after cult after consultation the full assembly should work

52:11I move that in the interest of transparency the committee recommends the full assembly

52:16work with council to um determine the viability of releasing certain I legal opinions certain legal

52:28opinions to the public. How's that? Because I don't want to say a lot of nothing and to

52:35be honest right my take on it is very firmly I'm happy to ask the lawyers and the lawyers

52:40can weigh in. Lawyers are not going to give us a good reason to keep this from the public by the

52:44very simple reason that we literally just showed it to the public. There is no more attorney client

52:49privilege. The legal opinions are public. I'm happy to weigh in and get their thoughts on it,

52:54but the public deserves to see it. Um, so I don't think we even need a motion.

53:00I'm happy to many think about it from the full assembly and work work with council um

53:14to work

53:18in can yeah I guess with council I sort of wish that was just more you know the full

53:27assembly work consultation with Yeah. Like in consultation with right you know um because

53:38um true yeah because because work with is sort of like you mean what does that mean

53:47um in but in consultation means the assembly can really it's not just you know Owen or one

53:56person getting the information that, you know, delegates will have a chance to either ask the

54:03lawyers in person or send questions to the lawyer through leadership or Owen

54:09um you know to find out what because um you know so they need to be consulted but if we

54:20work with they would have a say whereas if we're consulting them they don't have a say. Does that

54:25make sense? I also added to the maximum extent practicable. So our goal is right, we're working

54:29towards something. We're not just working with council. We want to make it as public as possible.

54:33So one more try. Works for me. I move that in the interest of transparency, this committee

54:39recommends the full assembly work in consultation of council to release policy based legal opinions

54:44to the public to the maximum extent practical. Second. Mr. Clerk, could we get a roll call?

54:57Uh, sure. Um,

55:02delegate Fuller, yes. Uh, Cher Gesson, yes. Vice Harter, yes. Delegate Frederickson for Delegate

55:14King. Yes. Delegate Samson. Yes. That's unanimous. Mr. Chair, thank you. I will send this to you um

55:25after the fact. And any other questions, comments, concerns on everything on the agenda today?

55:33No, I'm I'm glad we're finally got it's under an hour. Um get getting

55:39one thing off our checklist so we can move on. Beautiful. So, with that, uh,

55:46I'm pretty sure under the new rules, I don't need to vote to adjurnn and we can all just dissipate.

55:52Can everyone have a wonderful rest evening? Thank you everybody. Take care. Thank you.

```*