AI-generated transcript of Medford City Council Committee Of The Whole 04-12-22

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Collins. Present. Yes. Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng.

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: President Morell. Yes. Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: yes seven in the affirmative none of the negative motion passes and the meeting is called to order all right hi everybody um thank you for being here we are discussing council rules updates um i do know that councillors received a couple of documents in their packets one of them is a clean version of suggested updates. One of them includes the set of track changes of the same document. And the third one is items for further discussion by the committee of the whole. I'm going to share my screen of the track changes document. Give me one moment. And I figured we could go through rule by rule. If members have questions or comments, they can raise them on each rule. And then once we complete that, we can discuss the outstanding items for discussion. Can folks see the screen or is the screen share good? So first thing is there's a table of contents added with a number of sections. which should make it easier to find specific rules. And the idea is that there is a kind of more clear order. Things are kind of tried to be put in the order in which they may come up before the council. So first section is section one and rule one is organization. In this rule, there were just some, minor edits, copy edits. Any questions or comments?

[Adam Knight]: I think that these are just non-substantive changes.

[Zac Bears]: Agreed. Moving to section two, which is meetings and rule two. Uh, we made again, some copy edits, uh, but any substantive changes to meetings though, that is the main outstanding item from our subcommittee, which we will discuss later. Rule three is executive session. And we just added the sentence that the council recognizes its responsibilities pursuant to the open meeting law. Rule four is special meetings. And again, just a few copy edits. Rule five is quorum, no changes. Rule six regarding the council chamber has some copy edits. There was also a duplicative language that has been moved to rule 25. Any questions on section two, any of the rules that were just discussed? Seeing none. Section 3 is presiding officers. Rule 7, also titled presiding officers. Some copy edits made here. Rule 8, vacancy in the office of president or vice president. No changes were made. Rule nine, duties of the presiding officer. Some copy edits were made, and then there was kind of a clearer phrasing. The ruling of the chair may be overturned by a majority vote of the city council, which replaced some less clear language that existed previously. Rule 10, proper address of the chair. No change except for a minor copy edit. Rule 11, relinquishing the chair. Similarly, just several copy edits were made. Which brings us to section four, rules of order. Rule 12, order of business. We made some significant, recommend some significant changes to the order of business. This would create a new section called announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records in which we could basically informational resolutions and announcements, congratulatory resolutions, condolence resolutions, reports of committees, and the examination and approval of records of the previous meeting would all happen at once. The idea being that these are generally items that receive a unanimous vote by the council. Next would come hearings, followed by presentations of petitions and similar papers. then motions, orders and resolutions. Uh, we included kind of a note here that, uh, resident resolutions regarding similar topics can be placed consecutively in the council agenda subject to the review of the city clerk and the council president. Basically the idea being that if Councilors submit resolutions on a similar topic, they would be grouped together so they could be considered at the same time. We, uh, Change the title here, uh, communications and reports from the mayor, city officers and employees. Um, then public participation and unfinished business of proceeding meetings. So that's pretty substantive. Uh, any comments or questions on that? Seeing a no from Councilor Tseng.

[Adam Knight]: Seeing Councilor Knight. I'm just gonna, I mean, all this really does is streamline processes to make the informational and really the consensus items come first on the agenda. The items that are really don't require debate, right? So that lets us get some of those things off the agenda and then we can move forward to the big potato stuff. I think it makes sense. Great, thank you, Councilor Knight.

[Zac Bears]: Rule 13, examination of records of previous meetings. Just a minor copy edit. Rule 14, gaining the floor, something that we did here, there were a number of different terminologies. Some rules use the word Councilor. Some rules use the word member. Some said city Councilor. We've gone through and changed everything to member. But other than that, we also changed arise and respectfully address to signal the chair since we use a signaling system now. Rule 15, rules of debate. Similarly, just a copy edit. Rule 16, public participation. So this is a new rule that takes some of the old rule and also adds a few other items. I'm going to try to summarize it. If Councilor Knight and Councilor Collins have Sure. Sure. So we'll, we'll come back to rule 16. Rule 17 orders of motions. Uh, no changes made here. This is basically just Robert's rules being written into the council rules. Rule 18 parliamentary practice. Uh, no changes. except for it looks like we added a period. Rule 19, every order or resolution must be endorsed. The main changes that we made here were that we have created a new procedure for matters requiring a public hearing. This came from a proposal from Councilor Knight and essentially matters requiring a public hearing before the city council shall be conducted as follows. One, the petition is read into the record. the petitioner provides an explanation of the matter requiring a public hearing. Three, the public hearing is conducted. Four, following a public hearing, a six calendar day public comment period shall commence. Public comments shall be submitted in writing to the city clerk. And then five, the council shall neither approve nor deny any matter requiring a public hearing until the conclusion of the public comment period, unless waived by a majority vote of the city council. The intent here is to avoid what we have, the current practices we say, and all in favor, all opposed before any presentations are made. So the idea is that the presentation would be made and then you could have the public hearing of asking people in favor of being opposed and also give the public a period of time to comment on the set item. I can pause there if there's any questions or if councilor Knight, if you want to add to that. In addition to this rule, we also added two more sentences. The Medford City Council shall not approve of any bond or expenditure that does not have a written explanation of such expenditure at least seven days prior to said vote. And that reports and presentations or reports, presentations, or other updates provided by the mayor, city officials, employees, or other representatives of the city administration shall always be provided in writing, which is something that we have requested. I'll pause there. Any questions or comments on this rule?

[Adam Knight]: I just think that those items right there are really transparency issues, right? I mean, they allow people an opportunity to digest the information before the council acts, right? So I think that they're good measures and I think that they'd be a good practice for us to adopt. I would agree.

[Zac Bears]: Rule 20, withdrawing a motion, no changes made. Rule 21, disposition of all items appearing on the council agenda. Just a couple of minor copy edits. Rule 22, absence of interested parties. Looks like just a couple of copy edits. Rule 23, previous questions. So this is a proposal that I had made to kind of make this language more clear to the There was a rule previously about the previous question, but it was kind of written in an arcane manner. This, I believe, makes it more clear that, you know, you can say, I call the question or I move the previous question that members must gain the floor prior to making such a motion and that such a motion must receive a second. And then it goes clearly through the process that on the previous question, 15 minutes will be allowed for debate, which will be confined to the reasons as to why the main question should not be put to an immediate vote. No member shall speak for more than two minutes. Those were all in the rules previously. And then just adds the clarifying sentence that after such debate, a majority vote shall be sufficient to end debate on the main question and require an immediate vote. Any questions or discussion on that rule? Moving to rule 24, sufficiency of the vote. No changes were made other than a An appendix was added to the end of the rules, referencing Massachusetts general law when it comes to sufficiency of the vote. Rule 25, every member shall vote except as provided in this rule. Again, a number of copy edits. Rule 26, we swapped out yeas and nays for the phrase roll call, as that's commonly what we call that. Rule 27, number of copy edits. Rule 28, in terms of reconsideration, we made some copy edits and then we clarified an existing phrase that previously read that the prevailing side shall be considered to be the one motion for reconsideration of any vote, shall be entertained. Then we changed that to, it shall be in order for any member who voted in favor of the motion to move for reconsideration, which we felt was the clearer language. Rule 29, no changes. Rule 30, copy edits. Rule 31, no changes. Rule 32, amendment or suspension of the rules, just several copy edits. Rule 33, copy edits. And then rule 34, we change to reflect current practice of the council. which is that reports of committees and subcommittees shall be received by the city council in regular session and agreed to by a majority vote of the city council, and that all papers reported out of subcommittee shall be referred to committee of the whole. Section six, duties of the city clerk. Rule 35, duties. We kind of streamlined this rule. to say the papers must be filed with the city clerk by the close of business at city hall on the business day that is at least 48 hours prior to the next regular council meeting. And we created an appendix B, which more clearly outlines the different potential circumstances as to which date that may fall. Rule 36, the clerk shall prepare a list of all matters. We made some copy edits and we added the sentence that the clerk shall confer with the council president prior to the posting of the agenda. which for a number of reasons, such as grouping papers together by a similar subject, reviewing public participation papers, which we will get back to when we discuss rule 16. Basically just that the council president can take a look at the agenda prior to its posting to make sure that it is accurate. Rule 37, clerk authorized to order hearings. We made some copy edits. Rule 38, Attendance within the rail, we added the phrase, no person other than members of the staff of the City Council shall be allowed behind the rail except by decision of the Council President following a majority vote of the City Council. And then here is Appendix A, which refers to several Massachusetts general laws about the sufficiency of the vote. Chapter 43, Chapter 44, and Zoning Chapter 48, Section 5. an appendix B, which is further guidance on deadlines for placement of items on the council agenda. This basically just takes some, some of the more, I don't want to say convoluted, but specific language about when deadline is for the council agenda and places it in an appendix. And that is it. So we left rule 16 for further discussion. So here's public participation. Previously it read any resident citizen or petitioner shall be limited to 10 minutes. That was the entire rule. And it wasn't even its own rule. It was within another rule. This is a recommendation of the subcommittee that any resident petitioner interested parties shall be able to speak on any item included on the agenda once for no more than five minutes. All petitions filed by members of the public shall either be sponsored by a member or reviewed by the city clerk and council president prior to placement on the agenda. That phrase essentially means that we currently have the public participation papers process where people submit papers to the clerk. That process would continue to exist and it would just, you know, the city clerk and the council president would review those items. I think it does add the council president to that process, which I think is, you know, a fair addition. Any resident, this is regarding name and address for the record we had several public comments during our several subcommittee meetings regarding people who, for several reasons felt uncomfortable, providing their name and address for the record in public so we think we've created an alternative way that we can get that information. I'll read it now. Any resident participating in person may provide their residential address to the city messenger so they can go up to the city messenger and provide that information. And any resident participating virtually may provide their residential address to the city clerk via email prior to speaking. And the address shall not be included in the council records. That way people can go up and we can verify that they are, their name and their address, but it does not have to be included in the records.

[Adam Knight]: Council and I, this language doesn't require the person to disclose though and I think that that was something that we talked about I think that's something that's necessary. If we go back to the budget debates back I think it was in oh what 2020. You know we had some discussion relative to the police department. number of people that were on the call leaving addresses and people looked up the addresses they were Howard Johnson's, they were supermarkets, they were not residential addresses in the city of Edmonton, right. So I think it's important that a residential address is given, either to the city messenger, the city clerk, prior to speaking, or if they're comfortable, they can read it into the record right here. It doesn't have to be included into the record, but I think that they shall be required to do that in order to speak as required. You know, we need to know that the people that are speaking before us are residents of the city of Medford as outlined in the rules. So I think it's important that they do disclose that, because if not, what we can turn into is a bully pulpit for individuals that are trying to push a certain agenda. And we're really not going to have any recourse or action in order to say, hey, listen, enough's enough. So I think it's important that people do disclose where they live to either the city messenger or the city clerk, but it did not be included in the council records. But if it be included in the records of the city clerk, they're not published as part of the document.

[Zac Bears]: I'll call on you a second, President Morell. I think that this does say that. If you have suggested language, that would be helpful.

[Adam Knight]: Any resident participating in person shall. Oh, shall, okay. Provide their residential address and city messenger. Right. And shall provide their address and city foot.

[Zac Bears]: How about, what if we added the phrase before, all residents participating in person shall provide. their residential address. And then they may provide it to the messenger or may provide it to the clerk, if that makes sense.

[Adam Knight]: Right. Well, then anybody participating virtually should provide this to the clerk, right? Because the library is not going to be there.

[Zac Bears]: Right. Same language as they go to me, if they could show. Got it. Councilor Morell, President Morell, then Councilor Scarpelli.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. So to that, to Councilor Knight's point, I mean, the first line says any resident, petitioner, or interested party. I'm curious if we're, you know, trying to limit, not limit, but you know, we want to make sure that the people speaking are actual residents of Medford, that these are issues that impact them. So I'm just, if we're getting finite in the following part about residents providing residential addresses, I'm curious what the interested party maybe, or how that, you know, we tow that line.

[Adam Knight]: I would be comfortable if folks could see the screen, perhaps all residents.

[Zac Bears]: petitioners and interested.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah. I think that would make sense because yeah, it seemed without that, it seems like it's two different rules.

[Zac Bears]: And then we can, uh, thank you. I mean, the main concern was around residential addresses for residents, um, around the opportunity to go to the messenger or to the clerk. Um, so Okay, I think we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then we'll read it again and see if it makes sense.

[Nicole Morell]: For sure, and I think that's something that, you know, the Chair, we sometimes just remind folks when they're, you know, they're with National Grid or something, it's, you know, what's your business address? You don't have to provide us your home address.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, exactly. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Vice President. First, thank you for the subcommittee. I think, We've put together a very thorough process. It's fitting that we're reviewing this after so many questions came about last night at the school committee meeting. Whether you like it or not, it's the process of the school committee. And there were people to speak on a certain personnel matter. And it was clear and understood that the school district on a personnel matter would not speak. So the phone calls I received and the information that people are curious about the city council, the process of the city council is a lot different. And I want to make it clear and just reiterate to the council, hopefully, that we all share the same vision that this is the people's forum as council, former council max would say. And if you talk to a lot of people last night, it wasn't that they wanted a debate, it wasn't that they wanted to kink and stomp and disrespect anybody. I think the majority was just the idea of just to present the statement and why 150 people were here last night to show their displeasure about a personal matter. Now, it wasn't the conversation I've had with people saying that we've always been very open here at the council during community participation. People can come up, speak on an issue we cannot debate it but it's a place where to be honest with you left a lot of people with a sense of relief that there's at least still a forum public forum that a constituent that has a concern to come up share share an issue that maybe if a late Councilor later finds that there's merit to follow up with it. Now, a personnel matter with the school district, absolutely not. But the fact that people didn't have an opportunity just to say something, it really started a negative, you know, that negative divide in our community. So, and we're, again, I'm not knocking our fellow political party in the school committee. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. What I'm saying is that the way this reads, this will still give our residents an opportunity to at least share what they feel or share a concern that they have in the community. And then, like I said, without debate, I've mentioned that a thousand times, and then to move forward. So, and I think if they had that last night, even if one person was allowed to speak last night, just to share, not to debate it, just to share their concerns and how they feel about the direction of the school department, I think it would have ended the debate and people would have left not happy, but at least knowing that somebody would at least allow them to speak and they have a forum here in the community. So correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Vice President, but I think this spells out a pretty good opportunity that we still have that. if I'm not wrong. So, again, I appreciate the hard work the subcommittee did. It's fitting that it's happened. I know a lot of people were tuning in tonight, and they were asking questions about where our rules are going. And I'm glad that everything was presented the way that you presented it, because it eliminates a lot of disrespectful rumors. and guidelines that we're still here for the constituents, and they have a venue where they can share their concerns. So thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the time. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. President Morell.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. So to Councilor Scarpelli's point, I wonder if it's worth adding in here that language around the fact to say, except otherwise outlined in these rules, public participation shall adhere to the Robert's Rules of Order, So no crosstalk, everything should come through the chair so that people, you know, public participation is common. It's, as Councilor Scarpelli said, it's not, it's not debate, it's not, you know, personal attacks. It's not any of this. It's, we're still following rules. It's open to the public, but there is still a base level of rules that could be referenced.

[Zac Bears]: I think I got that. We'll come back to the specific language. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Mr. Vice President, and I would appreciate Councilor Scarpelli's remarks as well as President Morales. I think that that inclusion is a good one. I think to me, part of the major asset of this update is that it does a good job at setting expectations for what public participation is for, how residents and other interested parties can reasonably expect the council to react. and just overall streamline the process and clarify expectations. And I think that that also has usefulness in preventing some of the dissatisfaction, the ill will that can result when people, when it's not clear what the process to be heard is, when it's not clear what the forum to be heard is. And I think hopefully that we and residents will get a lot out of that process just being more clear and people understanding what the different avenues are for putting a petition, putting something on the agenda, if they just want to speak and be heard, how that can go about. Overall, I think that the utility of doing the rules updates that we've been doing is just clarifying the process, making everything more transparent and more knowable. And hopefully that'll be an asset for everybody behind the rail and also everybody who tunes into these meetings.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins.

[Adam Knight]: Mister president thank you very much and I do think that we did some good work on this. This is something that I think it's going to make a difference looking at public participation, you know. I of course whenever we get the opportunity to come up to get something off the chest and I think that it's kind of a shame that over the past process has been abused to the extent that it has that's requiring us to make these changes right. Ultimately, you know, more times than not, that podium has been used as a bully pulpit for potential candidates that want to run for office, that are trying to engage our meetings and turn them into political theater than they are actual people that are up here that are pushing neighborhood issues and neighborhood concerns. So a lot of the time, I know what we see here in public participation isn't exactly reflective of what's going on in our community, number one. And number two, it's not necessarily being done in the interest of the public process of the public good. I think it's political theater. A lot of the times we've seen that in the past and we've spoken about it in the past and we've called people out on it in the past. So I think that these reforms are necessary based upon the past history that we've seen here in these chambers, number one. Number two, I think they'll also help us manage the meetings in a fashion that will prevent us from getting into the back and forth dialogue and that political theater nonsense that's plagued the body in the past. So I'm really looking forward to seeing if this is something that we can move on. I appreciate the work that the committee has put into it, as well as the information my colleagues have put forward. Thank you, Councilor Ike.

[Justin Tseng]: Um, I wanted to thank my fellow Councilors for working on these, um, on these rules changes. I find them to be in the spirit of modernization and the spirit of transparency in the spirit of organization. And I think, you know, these are, these are rules that will make us work more efficiently as, as, as a body of government officials. Um, I, I think it's, um, you know, I think all, all of my fellow Councilors have made great points about how this both I think this is a great kind of way to both maintain that openness of government, that open spirit of government that we, that a lot of our residents want from us, but also to have, to steer our conversations in a more productive direction and to make sure we're not, you know, we're not abusing the rules in favor of personal interests. I also appreciate Councilor, President Morell's suggestion. I would say that there might be people who join our meetings who might not really know what the Robert's rules of order are. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't use them as a basis of our conversations in the public participation sections. I just think perhaps it might be helpful for us to post something on the city website or have a small kind of handout as people walk into the city council chambers about some basics of Robert's rules of orders, just in the spirit of transparency.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. From the chair to Councilor Scarpelli, I think that's the intent here is to say that the previous rules basically had no structure at all. This is to provide some structure and organization, but not to take on the model of other bodies in the city that may have different approach. And I think it's really a balance between what you said and what Councilor Knight said, and I think we've struck a good one here. So, you know, of course, pursuant to the chair, people can come up to the podium and speak, but it also avoids that, you know, the same person talks for 10 minutes, three times on an issue and some of that And I think it also creates some options here I think the idea that a public participation paper could be sponsored by any member, instead of just kind of going to the clerk and happening that way. And I do think we didn't quite actually I didn't quite get a chance to read it, but a six calendar day public comment period shall commence upon consideration of any petition as defined in rule 19. a public comment shall be submitted in writing to the city clerk. The city, the council can waive this by majority vote. So there's even a public comment period that we can initiate on certain items, petitions from, you know, national grid, whomever, and even adding that additional layer of public participation to the process.

[George Scarpelli]: I can share too, I think that if I can. Sure, yes. That it also allows people that that want to come to the podium, but are intimidated to have that negative debate, but allow them to give what they feel. Yeah, I think that's important that we have that option. So thank you. Yep. President.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, vice president bears and yet to cast a scrabble and Councilor Knights point about public participation. I think this also just allows for You know, there are reasons for this, you know, passive uses and it just allows the people to see that participation item on the agenda, because we want to hear from the public. Right. And sometimes if it's not on the agenda, we may have a bunch of people that are saying one thing about an issue and there's all these other people that feel differently about the issue, but they didn't know that we were going to discuss it tonight or that it was going to come up tonight. So I think having that advance notice is just important so that we can, you know, get the full picture whenever possible.

[George Scarpelli]: Right. So defined. So that is a good point. I think that, but that was a question that if something happened like yesterday, last evening, that members of the community want to come out tonight, although it's not on our agenda, are we still, that's the definition that was asked.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I mean, that's the, there'd be a public participation section and as we currently allow it, you can either have a petition that was pre-filed or you can walk up to the podium. And there's no chance to that.

[George Scarpelli]: So that's what the question they were the questions that I had is that we were going to try to stifle. And I said, I don't that's not good at all. I think I appreciate the commentary that I think it's important that we send that message saying that we are that we are a body that.

[Adam Knight]: wants just more streamlines on that guy don't the attention of the subcommittee was not to adopt the school committee model at all. That was not the intent of the subcommittee was to adopt the school committee model. Not at all. I think we've seen that their model is their model. And that's how they like to do business. with certain issues arise it doesn't sometimes necessarily play out to be the best way. This is something that we have thought about and we actually thought it was an issue that might be something we could propose an item on that could build some consensus because I think it's something that you know required 3 people put that together and kind of narrow the issues and kind of bring us off of the common denominators. But yeah ultimately it was never an intention to to limit the speech, it was more of an issue of how to streamline public participation and make sure that the issues that come before us are germane to what we do. Right.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I think, yeah, that's that question of organization. How can we try to set up a structure and a system where people do have advanced notice without limiting situations where we don't? You got it. I did see a hand from Eunice. Since we have not adopted these rules, Eunice, I'm going to Unmute you and ask for your name and address for the record, please.

[Eunice Browne]: Hi, thank you very much. I'm unmuted, right? I'm all set?

[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you.

[Eunice Browne]: Okay, thank you. Eunice Brown, 48 Greenleaf Ave, Medford. I'm encouraged by the discussion that just transpired. I emailed all of you earlier today, some questions that I had. And I thank Councilor Collins for replying to me. I appreciate that. But I just want to make sure that I am hearing correctly and I'll skip to my third point, which pretty much piggybacks on as what Councilor Scarpelli said happened last night, regarding public participation. I know that you have, you know, as currently the rules that we will function under in 45 minutes or so. There's two ways of public participation, there is the ability to put something on the agenda, or, as you said, Vice President Bears, to just walk up to the podium. If, you know, potholes aren't on the agenda tonight and I want to talk about potholes, I should be able to virtually walk up to the podium and talk about potholes and be able to continue to do that after these new rules are adopted or whatever, you know, a resident might be concerned about, as Councilor Scarpaoli said last night, that I think if people had just been allowed to speak, it would have been very helpful. And I'm sure that there'll be plenty of issues that come up that will be equally as, you know, concerning on the city side as well, that will attract a crowd. So, you know, to be able to ensure that something comes up during the week and it doesn't get on the agenda for whatever reason, somebody doesn't put it on or whatever, that we will still be able to arrive at that podium and be heard. is of utmost importance. So I hope that that continues. My second question is regarding putting petitions on the agenda. I recognize that some things like personnel matters or something inflammatory or so forth will be ruled out of order and will not go on the agenda ever. But other than that, are there certain rules or guidelines you say that the city clerk will decide what goes on the agenda and President Morell or whoever the current president is at some point down the road. Other than, you know, not allowing the personnel or the inflammatory or something that might, you know, compromise your legal status in executive session or something like that. Are there any other rules that would, you know, make you look at a petition from a resident and say, nope, can't put that on? So that's my question. Sorry.

[Zac Bears]: To your first point, the intent of the council is that you can still come up to the podium and speak on matters. And yeah. And to the second point, just if I may, to the second point, which I've just somehow completely lost, I apologize for that. Why papers being, yeah, I mean, I think you listed out basically most of the reasons why something would not be allowed to be on the agenda other than the ones that you listed, executive session and all of the items that fall under that category, inflammatory or personal nature.

[Adam Knight]: I mean, it has to be germane to city business. We're gonna be talking about the Red Sox close-up.

[Zac Bears]: Right, I think that would really be the other condition is, you know, that this council, that it's relevant to city business and this council has some sort of authority to in any way.

[Adam Knight]: I mean, let's be honest, nine times out of 10 public participation is about what this council is doing. It's about what the mayor's doing, right? And this is just a sounding board for people to come up here and talk about it because no one will listen to them out in other places, right? I mean, ultimately nine times out of 10, what we talk about in public participation is stuff that is germane to city business, but falls far outside the scope of city council action, right? It's stuff that has to do with administrative action. It's not taking place. really people bubbling up to a level of frustration where they get no place to go. So they come here. Right. So, you know, when you think about what, what, what can be discussed and what can't be discussed as the items that are germane to city business and the operation of government, right. I mean, cause that's what we had to do, right. We had to run government. So it should be items that are germane to the operation of city government.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I think that would generally be the other category or condition.

[Eunice Browne]: And the reason I ask is, um, That I think your counterparts that meet on Monday night have a totally different way of doing things. I think, as I understand their rules, a resident cannot put something on the agenda at all. They can do a public presentation to get up and speak about something, but it's not an opportunity for the members of that body to engage.

[Zac Bears]: I hear you. You know, that's their their separate body of government and we're doing what we're doing.

[Eunice Browne]: So I just want to make sure that you're operating differently.

[Zac Bears]: So this is certainly a different, different set of rules.

[Eunice Browne]: Thank you very much.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. President Morales.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. Yeah, so I do believe, to Eunice's point, that I think it could be more explicit about, so there's public participation on an agenda item, and then there's the public participation section of the agenda. So being just more explicit about that, and any time-bound ideas around the public participation section of the agenda. And also, I do have a question. public participation rules applied to a committee of the whole, too, or subcommittee meetings, or those are, because those are, you know, more, yeah, they're more conversational, honestly.

[Adam Knight]: The derivative, because these rules establish the subcommittees. These are the rules of the Medford City Council, right? They establish the subcommittees, which appoint a chair, and the chair has the authority to chair the meeting and run the meeting, right?

[Zac Bears]: It's definitely not written with that in mind. At the end of the day, general law says that all of this is at the discretion of the chair. Anyway, so we're setting a set of rules and guidelines, but.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I'm fine with it. I mean, what Councilor Knight said makes sense, so that's fine. All right, give me a moment here.

[Zac Bears]: I think I've captured all of the changes. Yeah.

[Adam Knight]: The other thing we could discuss in 16 is, um, you know, any resident petitioner interested party shall be able to speak on any item included on the agenda once for no more than five minutes beside them on the agenda. Right. I mean, they could be, they could be like public area, either speak in favor or against it. Right. And then when it comes down to petitions for public participation, I think that that's where we're getting confused, right? Public participation on agenda items is constantly morale setting the public participation. as the section on the agenda. Yep. Right. So when we're discussing tonight, for example, um, is there anything on there about the city?

[Zac Bears]: Let's see. The North street bike connect, for example.

[Adam Knight]: Um, you know, people come up and say, Yes, I'm in favor of this. No, I'm against it. Because a lot of times when it's a proposal like that, especially all we hear is people say the same thing over and over again. I agree with everybody. I agree with what everybody else said and I'm going to say it again. Right. So it could just be like, yes, I'm speaking in favor of the item. I'm in favor of it. I'm against it. Right. Like just like a public hearing on agenda items. Um, I don't know. I don't know how people feel about it. I mean, one way or the other, I mean, it's just, I'm not opposed to it.

[Zac Bears]: I don't, you know, I feel like that could be guidance. You know, at the chair, if you have 10 people on an item, say, you know, someone's spoken and the chair can say, if you're just going to be repeating what the person said, just say whether you're in favor or opposed to this project, something like that. I'm just a little languished out. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Understandable. I was just gonna say I feel like that is how we tend to operate in practice, you know, I feel like there's often public participation that occurs when the resolution is being discussed and not necessarily all at the end of the meeting during the public participation section I think that it makes sense for that to be at the discretion of the chair. I don't know if we need to be overly prescriptive about that. Regarding Rule 16, I agree, I think it might be helpful just in the interest of clarity to maybe even just, I'm not sure if this is the best solution, but just to break that section up into two pieces. One, the public participation section of the meeting. And secondly, discussing the petitions that the public may put onto the agenda, just to make it clear. what the options are and that they're different and what the process is for each.

[Zac Bears]: I did write some stuff down if we want to maybe take a look at that.

[Adam Knight]: We could even change the sector, we could call it petitions of the public. I think that would be helpful. Ultimately, the petitions are items that require council action, right? I think we defined that earlier. Petition is defined as a paper that's required council action by law, right? Or it's a state law.

[Zac Bears]: Right. I think I may have done this without getting too overly splitting. I think, let's just, if folks want to take a look at this language that I've written up and we can see if it fulfills the proposed purpose. Yeah. So we had on here, we had any resident petitioner interested party shall be able to speak on any item included on the agenda once for no more than five minutes. I just added the sentence, any resident shall be able to speak once for no more than five minutes during the public participation section of the agenda. And then I added to the next sentence, all positions filed by members of the public shall either be sponsored by a member or be by the city clerk and council president prior to the placement on the public participation section of the agenda. So those two clearly refer to that portion of the agenda. And then regarding Let's stop there. Does that clarify the questions? The difference between speaking on an item placed on the agenda?

[Nicole Morell]: I think it does. I'd also be open to Councilor Knight's suggestion of just, you know, separating this section out to say public petitions and public participation, but maybe we're

[Adam Knight]: Or we could even just change the term for public, the public gaining public access on the floor, you know, or something like that. You know what I mean? Change, change that term. So it wouldn't be public participation necessarily. Rules of engagement. Yeah, actually that's, maybe it should be called public input, right? public input should be on the agenda. Any resident should be able to give public input on any item included on the agenda once for more than 15 minutes.

[Zac Bears]: I think to be honest, I think we're getting into the weeds.

[Adam Knight]: Absolutely.

[Zac Bears]: I just, I'm a fan of calling it public participation because that's what people call it. And if we change it to something else, then it gets confusing.

[Adam Knight]: It's up to the chair to enforce it anyway, Nicole.

[Zac Bears]: Right. So, but I think, I do think the addition of this sentence makes it clear. You can speak for up to five minutes on any item that's on the agenda and you can speak for up to five minutes on anything you want from the podium. If you want to put a petition on the paper or on the, if you want to put a petition for the public participation section, you can ask a Councilor to sponsor it, or the, you can send it to the clerk and the clerk and the president can review it for making sure that it's in order. Um, and then here, I think, uh, I may have had some like, uh, this language may address the question around the shop provide all residents, petitioners and interested parties participating shall provide their address for the record, except Any resident participating in person may provide their residential address to the city messenger, and any resident participating virtually may provide their residential address to the city clerk prior to speaking, and their address shall not be included in the record. So everybody must provide it, except that residents can provide it through these alternate means. So, cool. And then I added here, except as otherwise outlined in these rules, public participation shall adhere to Robert's Rules of Order.

[Adam Knight]: But I think when you read rule 19 with rule 16, I think it makes sense a little bit more. So it makes things a little bit cleaner. You know what I mean?

[Zac Bears]: Right.

[Unidentified]: OK.

[Adam Knight]: We still have the catch all language in here that says anything that we do. that's against these rules is taken up as if we did it under suspension anyway, right? Right.

[Zac Bears]: And again, these are guidelines. They're important rules, but they are not designed to address every single possible circumstance. Or hamstring us. Right. OK, so that leaves everything except for discussion of our meetings. I was wondering if folks would be comfortable reporting out this document as amended. So move. Motion by Councilor Knight to report out the proposed rule changes as amended, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, I will get you those amendments.

[Adam Hurtubise]: and I'm ready for the roll call on that whenever you are.

[Zac Bears]: Great, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: And this is to report the document out as amended, and you're gonna supply the amended document back to me? Correct. Terrific. Here comes the roll call. Councilor Caraviello?

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?

[Nicole Morell]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Paris.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. We're at 640, so I don't know if we're gonna, we may have to come back and talk about this one again, but as councilors have in front of them, the committee of the whole reported out an item for further discussion regarding rule two meetings. The items for discussion are resolutions 22-005, which would move regular meetings to Wednesdays, 22-010, which would move regular meetings to bi-weekly. And then there were three other items, one being virtual participation rules to continue the allowance of virtual participation to the extent allowed by Massachusetts General Law, the summer meeting schedule, and the provision of meeting materials to the public by posting them online. And I'm sure if there are other items related to our meetings, we'd be happy to visit time to discuss that as well.

[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I certainly have no problem with the virtual participation section. However, I think that we might want to put some language in there. A lot of feedback that I've gotten, and I think you'll be of it, you know, not coming to a meeting and participating virtually when I'm here in the city because of whatever reason. You know, my kids don't have coverage. You know, my wife's not available at the time to watch the kids outside of the house. But I think we should put some language in there that says that, you know, councillors shall make all reasonable attempts to attend the meetings in person, but shall not be know, limited from virtual participation, but that they shall make every reasonable attempt, just so that we're all on the same page. You know, we know that when we do our best work, we do it in this room. And if we're all on the same page, I think that that'll smooth things out.

[Nicole Morell]: I'd support that language. All right.

[Zac Bears]: So there's one down. So we'll get some language around that, including that phrase. I think the real big one and I'm happy for anyone to kind of start where they want to start. We had several discussions around changing the day of the meeting to Wednesday as well as potentially and or moving to bi weekly meetings, President Morell.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. So I'd actually be curious what Councilor Knight I know you had referenced the three regular meeting. idea you had had years back.

[Adam Knight]: I don't know if that's something that was actually that predated my tenure on the council. I believe that was a Councilor who shows resolution that he put forward. I believe what we think it 1000. Well for 13. What it was was that they'd say that the council would be the first 2nd and 3rd Tuesday of each month and then the 4th would be reserved for committees, the whole but at that time the culture of the council was different. And they didn't necessarily utilize the subcommittee structure as effectively as we have. So a lot of times, I think that that was something that was an effort that changed the way that they did business that fell by the wayside. And that's why it laid on the table for so long. In my first term, Councilor Camuso served as president. And he adopted a much more committed method to the use of subcommittees. And since that time, I think the council's really done a great job using the subcommittees. And we've been very productive in that. So when I look at the biweekly proposal that's been put forward, with the idea that there'd be subcommittees every other week, that's something that I certainly have no problem supporting. This evening, I wouldn't have a problem supporting three meetings, and one committee of the whole, I wouldn't have a problem supporting continuing the weekly meetings. But I will say this, if you look at the work product that this body puts out, when we put out a work product, It's usually the basis of a long and drawn out legislative process that starts in the subcommittee room, goes through the committee of the whole like we're doing right now and then it's the council floor. And if we're using the majority of our time. to be conducted at the council meetings as versus the subcommittee meetings where we're getting the work done. You know the work products up so some of the set up but again you know I talked about the lawyer to and we're going to be contingent upon what support staff we have available to us to put out a good product as well. But I think that you know there's been proposals that have been on the table I think there's been recognition in the past that the subcommittee process is a productive process. if that's the longest way to get to your very short question, Councilor Morell, I'll stop talking now. But ultimately, yeah, that's the gist of it. That's where it came from.

[Nicole Morell]: Much appreciated.

[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I'd like to echo much of what Councilor Knight just said. You know, and something I've been reflecting on during my, albeit short time on the Council, is I think, well, My perspective is, you know, we do so much work. We have the ability to do so much work in our subcommittees. And, you know, I perceive there's almost this queue of things that are waiting to have their day in subcommittee, in committee as a whole. And to me, that, you know, that sort of overall like awareness that we probably all share to some extent of how scarce like a given subcommittee meeting could be just due to the council schedule, the fact that we can only really meet two times a week. I think that affects how ambitious we're able to be as a council, and that's why I feel very strongly about the proposal to move to bi-weekly meetings, because that accumulates to so many more opportunities for subcommittee and committee as a whole over the course of a term. And I think we could really see a really substantial change in how much we're able to do, how much we're able to take on over the course of a term if we shift how we allocate our time. in the chambers. And kind of going off of that, I feel more strongly about shifting to biweekly than I do to any other schedule change, but I'll also say I was initially nervous about the prospect of shifting from Tuesday to Wednesday meetings, just because, you know, council being in the chambers on the Tuesday is something that I think many constituents and city staff are very used to and orient their schedules around. But I think that's something that I personally would find a lot more palatable if we're only doing two regular meetings per month if we're holding them on Wednesdays. I don't think that's a drastic change.

[Zac Bears]: Yes. And just if I may quickly from the chair add that two of the items around biweekly, one of the things that we discussed in subcommittee was that the chair would always have the discretion to call a meeting in an off week if needed. that it would also potentially then set us up to have two meetings per month during the summer, and then just be consistent throughout the year. And then, you know, third, just making sure, you know, avoiding the 45 minute regular meeting when it may, maybe we could just do everything the following week. So those were just items that came up during our discussions. I'm gonna go, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Caraviello, President Morell.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate subcommittee looking at all these different views of our very important time. But I think the most important piece that I'll bring forward is what we just talked about previously. Having a time every week that members of our community have a chance to speak on a weekly basis I think trumps everything. I know that we've had some meetings where we've broken records that they've been done in 45 minutes and that's okay because I also think that this council has done an amazing job and especially council president Morales putting out a very thorough schedule for everybody in the community to follow that we're using our time as city councils for subcommittees to really get to some really important issues and then follow up with the committee that holds. So I don't see how changing it to biweekly meetings really would benefit this council. We still have the opportunity for Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, even Saturday mornings to hold subcommittee and committee of the whole meetings. But I think that Tuesday night meeting on a weekly basis is the opportunity that gives our community the opportunity to speak on any issue that happens week to week. And again, one thing we hear and this council I think is working very closely, I think we've done a very good job of being very civil, understanding that we respect to agree to disagree at times, I don't see the negative banter that we've seen in the past. I think it's very respectful. And I think that that leads into the community saying that we need to have an understanding, whether you believe one side or the other, that we should all get along to improve our community. Now, if we went to just thinking out loud and having a meeting where last night was a very contentious meeting and left hundreds, if not thousands of residents being very concerned about not being heard. And now waiting two weeks to be heard in open forum to share their concerns. It leaves two weeks of the Facebook negative champions going out and destroying and picking our city apart. And then it leads to more contentious banter back and forth with emails or other mechanisms. And I think that having that weekly meeting is probably the most important piece that our residents have, especially today, especially after the conversation we just had a minute ago about our new rules. and understanding. I think we're all on the same page and understanding that having that forum on a weekly basis is important. Now, I don't see where the other piece of that, like I said, I don't see where having biweekly gives us more of an opportunity to have subcommittees, meetings, a committee of the wholes. I don't see that we've had a problem. Like again, I said, I think Council President Morell has put out a very thorough and transparent schedule what we do. And it's understanding that if I had a subcommittee meeting, I'd contact the council president. She would give me some dates and then we would pick those dates and the constituents that were involved with those subcommittees have been notified. And there really hasn't been, I haven't seen a negative impact on that since I've been on the council. So my recommendation would be to stay with Tuesday meetings and continue the great work that this council is doing. So, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarlatti. Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with Councilor Scarpelli. I think over the last four, five, six years, this council has done tremendous work with subcommittees. I mean, when I first got on this council 11 years ago, subcommittee is where things went to die. Our subcommittee is where things are going to live and move on. And I'm proud of that. We've been doing that probably the last five, six years. And again, Councilor Morell has been very good putting out a schedule for that. I don't think the culture of the community is ready to accept an every other week, especially if there's going to be something where the president is going to say, oh, we're going to be tonight. I think all that's going to do is cause confusion. Listen, do we have some meetings that get over quick? Yes, we do. But to go to two meetings at once, we're going to be sitting here till midnight, every night of some nights. You've been here, I mean, we've all been here, but we sat here till one o'clock in the morning on stuff. And again, I think that would be, and that's for a weekly basis. Now, if I do it bi-weekly, I think it would just send the wrong message, and I think it would cause more confusion amongst the residents. Again, we do great work at subcommittee. We meet almost every weekend at some kind of subcommittee, a committee of the whole, which is, again, like I said, when I first joined this council, subcommittee is where things went to die. Now this is where they go to live. And again, I will support the meeting every week.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. President Morales.

[Nicole Morell]: I'm just going to make the same point I made two years ago regarding the Wednesday meetings. I do understand the intention, but I think one issue that just crops up is just parking. You know, would it be that we could all take public transportation, ride our bikes, walk here, but that's not the case. And when you have items that have a lot of public participation and you have the entire city hall staff here, it's really hard to kind of, it might deter people from attending the meeting. If they go to come to the parking lot, they can't find a spot. So I just wouldn't want to see that happen.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you.

[Justin Tseng]: Having sat here listening to both sides of the argument, I guess, I think, for me, one of the most important, I guess, realizations, lessons that I've had in my first hundred days here is how much work does get done in subcommittees. Um, and, you know, I, I do think there's, you know, there are a lot of residents who want us to keep pushing forward and pushing forward, but it's, it does get to a point where it's hard to. Hard to move forward without meeting more in subcommittees. And I do think that we, you know, most, I think we would work more efficiently if we met more in subcommittees than in, you know, general meetings. Um, so, so that's kind of like my main thought. I did find Councilor Scarpelli's points about meeting every week in terms of giving people a place to speak. I found that point compelling as well. I do wonder if there's some sort of compromise where we open alternative channels for something like that in off weeks. Maybe we have a public comment box. I'm not really sure, but perhaps there's a solution out there. Um, but I, I, I do think this is an idea that's worth the shot. Perhaps we come back to review it after a few months and see how we, how, how we feel about this change, but I would be comfortable. I think it's worth experimenting with, and I think I would, I would think that I would regret not having had the chance to experiment with it. So that's where I'm coming from. in terms of this issue.

[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Mr. President, thank you very much. Um, I think that councilor can be able to hit the nail on the head because we do great work and subcommittee great work. And so it used to be the place where papers went to die. And now it's the place where papers go to thrive. You've shown me can do great work in subcommittee. We're shortchanging ourselves. Miranda utilizes our ability to make change in this community. Where we get the good work done is in subcommittees, and we should have more of them, not less of them, in my opinion. Now, quite frankly, let's look at the agenda this evening, for example. The majority of these items are state rep items. They're not city of Medford items. In subcommittee, we're not gonna talk about state rep items. In subcommittee, we're gonna talk about issues that are germane to this community, issues that affect our everyday life, issues that are related to service delivery, issues that are related to making people's lives in this community better. Right. So when I look at where I feel my time is best utilized as someone who's been on the council for a period of time, I feel as though my time is far better utilized in subcommittee when we're going through the weeds, as you said, and getting through all the nitty gritty and all the stuff that we can argue or disagree about and coming up with something that's compromised, common denominator, mutual. something that we can all work on and live with, right? Because if we don't take the votes on the papers, the ordinances, the money papers that are all within our purview, what are we doing? I mean, we've been underutilized for a long time. We've underutilized our power and our authority for a long time. All right. Since I've been on the council, I've seen us do great work. And I'm not saying it's because of me. I'm saying since my time on the council, my experience has shown that we've done a great work. We've really changed the culture of this body, but we've also changed more ordinances in a short period of time than the previous councils that have ever even considered. I mean, I think we've changed more ordinances in five years than the previous 20, you know? So when we look at how we're doing work and where we're getting the work done, the work getting done and stuff, You know, so I personally think that the bi-weekly meeting would make sense for us. If the only issue is for us to have weekly meetings so that people can come down and talk about crises that happen in this community that the mayor is ignoring, that can wait a week too, because it's outside of our scope and purview anyway. Government's been designed to act slowly. The legislative process, the legislative side of government is designed to move slow. The administration is designed to move fast. Right? If you're a student of government, you'll look and you'll see the way government's structured. Three readings of a piece of legislation. Government's designed to work slow in the legislative branch. So I don't think that there's anything that we do here in seven days that we can't do in 14. And I don't think that Rome's going to burn in 14 days if it doesn't get addressed immediately, especially because the way that the public participation process is outlined under the new rules would be a little different anyway. The council can't take up the item, can't take up the issue, can't put it on the agenda. What individual Councilors can do is respond to constituents, can put that item on the agenda themselves, can do the upfront work so that it doesn't rise to the level of a community crisis. So it's just a philosophy of government, an application to government issue. I love Georgie as one of my dearest and closest friends. But I just feel like if we're going to be looking at the work that we're doing, the work that we do gets done in supplement.

[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli, and then since we're up against seven o'clock, I'm going to try to suggest a path forward. Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: So let me start first by saying I love Councilor Knight. He's one of my dearest friends. And I totally agree with him. I think this council, and to reiterate what Councilor Caraviello and Councilor Collins said, and Councilor Tseng, I think we've all said it, subcommittees are very important, and we realize that's where we're getting our business done. but when did we ever say, or when did it stop that we could not have subcommittees on a Monday or a Thursday or a Friday or a Saturday? To say that eliminating Tuesdays would give us an opportunity to do more subcommittees, I think that's not right at all. I think that we could still have as many subcommittees as we want, but having that Tuesday meeting, like Councilor Knight, I understand what he's saying. They can go to the council, we can put it on the agenda. But a situation like last evening, I will guarantee you there'll be people here tonight that will have a calming effect to this community because they have a voice that they can speak, even if it is for two minutes, and just give, just to hear their concerns that hopefully somebody's listening. and that will pay huge dividends. Again, to eliminate that or only cut that down to twice a month, I think it's a huge disservice to our community and this office. I think that we were elected by the residents of the city of Medford to at least have us sitting in these seats once a week that they can come out and see us in action and ask questions. We'll speak on an event. But I will tell you, again, I hear what everybody's saying, that subcommittees are important. I agree with you 1,000%. But that's still, no one still has yet to tell me, hey guys, look, we can still have a weekly meeting on a Tuesday. We can now have subcommittees on a Monday and a Wednesday. And then maybe a Thursday and a Friday. So all this very important work that this committee is doing on subcommittee work, we could do it for other days a week. So to say that we can't do it those other days, so that's why we have to eliminate two of the most important days of the month for our body, in my opinion, I think it's, personally, I look at it as a disrespectful move. I don't think that it's taking away for what this body is meant to be. And then again, you'll have some Councilors that'll work their tails off. and try to find three or four subcommittees a week. Then you have some councils that will do as minimal as possible, and then they have to look the constituents in the eye and say, as you're going to hear it, $30,000 a year you make, and now you're only working two days a month that we can come out and speak to you. Be careful what you're asking for, because I think this is This will be a huge distraction to this council. We're doing a lot of great things. We're moving in the right direction. We're keeping things positive. Subcommittees are working, Committee of the Wholes are working. Our president is putting things out on an agenda that everybody can see and follow on the calendar. I think that this is the path that we've taken in the first hundred days, and I think it's paid dividends. So why change that? to open up another negative recourse in this community, I think it's a mistake. So thank you. And I still love council member.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. All right, I'll go to Councilor Morell and Councilor Caraviello, and then I'm really gonna try to- I'll just be quick.

[Nicole Morell]: I absolutely understand what Councilor Scarpelli is saying, but I think at the end of the day, scheduling these meetings is challenging because there's other city meetings. We do, you know, there are family commitments and other life and work commitments. This is a part-time position for everyone. So it can be tricky to arrange those other meetings. And also there are members of the public that do like to come to every single subcommittee meeting, every single committee of the whole, which is their right. So just will they have the bandwidth to attend four meetings a week as opposed to two to three meetings a week as the biweekly would allow. So that's just my point on that.

[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Scott is 100% right. I've been hearing that comment from everybody. You're working two days a week now. You want to work two days a week. If we're going to do bi-weekly meetings, you start getting into 10, 30, 11 o'clock with meetings, now you start making bad decisions. Because everybody wants to go home and get out of here. And they say, you know, that's what's going to happen. We're going to be at the 10, 30, 11, 12 o'clock some nights with meetings. Granted, you know, do we get some weeks that they're short meetings? Yes, they are. But we got budget time coming up, which is right around the corner. We're going to be meeting six days a week. at budget time. I don't have a problem with meeting twice a week, twice a month during the summer. That really doesn't bother me either. But again, I think to get rid of the weekly council meeting would be an injustice to the community, and that's all I have to say.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. I will go to Councilor Collins, and then we'll go.

[Kit Collins]: I'm so sorry. Just briefly, I just wanted to share one more step behind my perspective on my Advocacy for moving to bi weekly and I totally understand this may be a simply different perspective, I try to be as loud and open with any constituent who crosses my path that I can be that you know they can contact me. 24 seven you know by email by phone by text you know to me that's a way that I see it as like an important avenues for which I can. I can hear our constituents, they can hear me. And I totally respect that might be different perspective, difference in perspective for the use of the chambers for hearing the public versus being our constituents representatives 365 days a year. And that I just wanted to share that as context for why I'm comfortable with shifting to two regular meetings per month and continuing to try to let people know as often as possible, all the other ways that they can be heard by their representatives. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. All right. Thank you, everyone. First and foremost, for I think what we've been able to achieve constantly, which is a respectful dialogue among differing opinions. And I think if anything, that is an important hallmark of the work that we do. I heard pretty clearly, I think there's a strong majority against moving to Wednesday.

[Adam Knight]: So that's what I mean you can't do both you can't go by weekly and do Wednesdays right so all right, so even even the proponent of Wednesdays.

[Unidentified]: Right um so you know, I think.

[Zac Bears]: To issue my opinion, I think anyone who says right now that you'll work four days a month is making a bad faith argument. We all know that in many ways, this is a seven day a week job. And maybe one day it's a little light and one day it's heavy, but it's a job that takes time from everyone. So that's just when I hear the arguments against, that's kind of where I come from is whether it's two or four, it's really 28. Um, and that's just something that that's my personal opinion. Um, I think, uh, from here, uh, you know, we're obviously not going to make this decision tonight. Um, uh, well, and that's, and that's where I was gonna, gonna kind of go to next. Um, I'm happy to take on the, the idea of, um, perhaps, uh, drafting language, and I'd have to look at the calendar and discuss with President Morell when the next possible date for committee of the whole would be on this. But if someone were to make the motion that I could draft a language with the input of what we discussed tonight regarding virtual participation, I would also be happy to draft language around the provision of meeting materials. And I do think I heard PB, Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His): A majority of the Council, at least generally in favor of moving to bi weekly meetings, so I would also be happy if emotion were to be made to draft. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : language that would move us there i'm i'm not saying that's the final decision, I think that what Councilors are playing Councilor carviel said tonight has. I'm going to have to think on that. And I want to take the time to think on that personally. But if someone were to make those motions, I would be happy to draft language, send it out to my fellow Councilors as soon as possible. And then we could reconvene on the topic in a couple of weeks when there may be an opportunity on the schedule. Motion to adopt paper 22010. So we have a motion from Councilor Naito to adopt paper 22010. Is there a second? That would move us to bi-weekly meetings. Second from Councilor Morell. Okay.

[Adam Knight]: For Zach to draft the language, I mean- Oh, okay. All right. We're gonna put a roof proposal forward, right? So we're voting right now to say, is this gonna be included in the final proposal or not?

[Zac Bears]: Well, so, and here's where my thinking was on tonight's meeting. We reported out the changes that we all agree to, That's a package. Let's take that as it is. And let's have this meeting discussion be a separate.

[Adam Knight]: At least that's my preference here. We could ultimately change the rules twice in the same.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we may end up changing the rules twice in quick succession, but it would be changing all of the rules and then just changing rule two for meetings separately. I just think that this specific topic requires additional discussion. That's my personal opinion. So, as I said, my preference, I can't make motions from the floor. If I were to make motions, it would be to draft language relative to moving to biweekly meetings, virtual participation, and the provision of meeting materials to the public. That would be my preferred motion.

[Adam Knight]: Motion would be motion to adopt paper 22010 for inclusion in the draft.

[Zac Bears]: No, it would be a motion that to draft additional, to draft new language regarding moving to bi-weekly meetings. If we're gonna do the rules, let's just do them once. The other two are gonna pass or fail. That's either gonna be in there or not. I hear ya. I mean, if the motion on the floor is to adopt the language of

[Adam Knight]: I think the fear is that there hasn't been enough debate, or the debate's been limited because there hasn't been enough time to further discuss it. That's my fear. That's one thing. You know, it's another thing if it's just... I think we've all said the same thing three times, right? I don't think Iraqis are going to change.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I mean, if that's the motion on the floor, maybe we should just motion to keep this... I withdraw my motion to shut up and let somebody else do it. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: I would move on your suggested motion to draft language for virtual participation, online provision of meeting materials, and a potential shift to bi-weekly meetings.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Councilor Collins. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm sorry, can you repeat that motion just a little bit more slowly, please?

[Zac Bears]: The motion is that Vice President Bears will draft language regarding virtual participation, online posting of meeting materials, and moving to biweekly regular meetings. OK. and the second is from President Morell.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, I'm ready for the roll call whenever you want me to.

[Zac Bears]: You can make all the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello. No. Okay. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. No. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, five to the affirmative to the negative emotion passes. Is there a motion on the floor.

[Adam Knight]: Motion to well to be what about that virtual participation like we should be talking about that.

[Zac Bears]: I'm going to incorporate that into the draft. Okay. Yeah. We did, and that's why I'm trying to draw a distinction, or I think functionally, we voted out all of the changes except for changes to rule two in the summer meeting schedule, because that's really- They kind of contended upon each other, right? Correct, yeah. So the only things that we haven't reported out are changes to the meetings. I personally, if the meetings stay the same, I'd like the summer schedule to stay the same as well. Yeah, and that's why I want to kind of take these as holistically Let's come back and have another discussion on meetings as we just ran out of time. On the motion of councilor Knight to adjourn. We do Monday nights. Yeah. Motion to adjourn seconded by second by councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.