[Milva McDonald]: We do have a quorum, so we will go ahead and start the meeting. Our first order of business is to review and accept the minutes from the December meeting. Has everyone had a chance to look at them? Motion to accept.
[Maury Carroll]: I'll second that.
[Milva McDonald]: All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. OK. Okay, hang on. Oh, did you just let in Phyllis? Okay, great. So our next item is to look at the preamble, which I will put up on the screen right now. I mean, I'm assuming everybody had a chance to look at it, but I will share it just in case. That is not, no, that is not what I wanted to share. Hang on for a minute. Wrong screen. OK, here we go. Okay, so we talked about this at the last meeting and I sent it to you all so that you'd have a chance to look at it. So I guess I'll just open up the floor and see if there are any comments, if there are any suggestions for changes, if it's good to go, et cetera.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So I had one question.
[Milva McDonald]: OK.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And that question is, in the sentence, our city's rich history is complex and important, and we hope to continue to build. And in complex, I certainly understand. Important, part of me wants to say, well, important to who? Or important, I'm just not used to the word being used. I'm not disagreeing that it's not, I'm not saying it's not important, but it's, I just don't quite understand the usage of that word like that there. And so, and every time I read it, I kind of tripped up on that one. So I was sort of curious about that.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Any other thoughts?
[Jean Zotter]: Go ahead, Eunice.
[Eunice Browne]: Oh, sorry. One other one. in terms of the first paragraph, do adhere to and adopt. I think adhere and adopt should be swapped because you can't adhere to something that you haven't yet adopted.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Let's see. Hang on. Why can't I find that? It should be right in front of me.
[Eunice Browne]: Basically the last four or five words.
[Milva McDonald]: Oh, thank you. Thank you. Okay. So here we have a potential suggestion to switch to adopt, to adopt and adhere to. That's, I mean, I will just make the change and if anybody objects to it, they can say so.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I think that makes sense. We do have to adopt it before we commit to it. Eunice is right on that.
[Milva McDonald]: Great. The word important in the last paragraph has been raised as maybe an unusual word for the context.
[Jean Zotter]: So I guess our city's rich history from even before the creation. I was on the committee, I think. Yeah. You were on the committee, right? Yeah. I think what we were trying to, we didn't want to have a long review of the history, but we did want to recognize, I think, Paulette, you said you recognize that it's complex. Just trying to think of what, I mean, I don't think we'd be opposed to changing that. We were just trying to, that it had some weight, that there was weighty or.
[Andreottola]: How about, I'm sorry, how about changing it to valuable?
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so that's a possibility.
[Phyllis Morrison]: How about significant?
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so here, so let's say we've got valuable and significant rather than important. Anybody have a preference or both?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Another option is you can move the rich from in front of history to the later in the sentence.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. That's another option. Yeah, I think that.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So the question is with important, but you're trying to say is it's important for us to remember it. It's a guiding principle, right? I mean, that's really what we want out of that. And so should we say something and stands to guide us or, I don't know.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, it does then later say, hope to continue to build the city that learns from that past.
[Maury Carroll]: I think if I recall, Jean, you might be able to help me here, is that we were going with the importance of the rich history prior to even it was called Medford in the history of what went on in here. I mean, all these terms that you're using are certainly relevant to what we're trying to do here at CREATE.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, again, it's not something that I am so opposed to that I can't vote for it with it in. I just wanted to bring it up and say, is there another word? And I like significant. I like consequential also.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Oh, that's a good one. Consequential, complex and consequential.
[Unidentified]: OK.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I like significant too, but I like consequential also.
[Milva McDonald]: I think if somebody wants to make a motion to change that word, we can do that.
[Maria D'Orsi]: I have an option that just rephrases. I put it in the chat, but I can say it out loud. It just rephrases the sentences and gets rid of that part. It says, we hope to continue to build a city that learns from its rich history from even before the creation of the fort by the meadow from which Medford draws its name to meet the promises and challenges of the future.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, so I'm going to have to get that out of the chat and paste it in so we can look at it.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Well, the chat doesn't say exactly what you said. The chat says a little bit more.
[Milva McDonald]: I've got it. I've got it right here.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, so this would basically be We hope to continue to build. Okay, so you're talking about replacing the last sentence, Aubrey?
[Maria D'Orsi]: It's just taking that the last sentence and bringing it to the front, including that from dot, dot, dot. So this would be.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so then this would go in the middle. That's right, yep.
[Jean Zotter]: Okay. I think you stop at name. Thank you. You get into draws is where you cut.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you.
[Jean Zotter]: Go back a little.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, did I not get it all?
[Jean Zotter]: No, that's good. We can edit it.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Jean Zotter]: More than less. Yeah. Take the one from out. and then from which Medford draws its name and then get rid of the second, its name, and then you have it.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. Okay. That's considerably short. Well, a little shorter.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah. I don't think this is as strong as what was previous.
[Maury Carroll]: Yeah. I got to tell you, I don't like the word hope. It's like we're hoping. I mean, we should be like. I agree with Mari on that.
[Ron Giovino]: Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Resolve.
[Ron Giovino]: Ordain.
[Milva McDonald]: Ordain. I don't know. Resolve. So we can put resolve in both of these.
[Jean Zotter]: And I moved to change important to significant. OK. Just because I know we could spend a lot of time on the wording, but I know we're trying to just.
[Milva McDonald]: Yep.
[Jean Zotter]: We have a long agenda.
[Milva McDonald]: Do people like the first option or the shortened option?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: The first option, I think.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Does anybody have any other comments?
[Phyllis Morrison]: Are we continuing? I mean, this is just a personal thing here. So you can just tell me to be quiet and we'll move on. But it says, can you move the, I can only see half the page, Milva. Oh. I can only see, yeah. You moved it over, so okay, let me see if I can pull it back this way.
[Milva McDonald]: Can people see the whole thing now? No, I cannot.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I can.
[Milva McDonald]: Interesting.
[Eunice Browne]: I can't. The new one you seem to, vaporized, it's not there anymore.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Anyhow, here's my question, wherever it is, one part it says, and we resolve to continue to build it, to build the city, continue to build. I don't know if we're going to develop to, I don't know, that word build seems a little bit redundant to me. I know, the city's built.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Do you have another word you think would work? We resolve to further develop, I don't know. I mean, operate comes to mind, but that's a little weird. Yeah.
[Jean Zotter]: Well, we're still building parts of this.
[Milva McDonald]: How about we just say we resolve to continue to learn from that past. Cultivate, says Francis.
[Maury Carroll]: Cultivate? How about we resolve to continue to... Do people not like cultivate?
[Phyllis Morrison]: Oh, I love that word. I think that's a perfect word, cultivate.
[Maury Carroll]: Great. Thank you, Francis. What do you have in mind, Maury? No, that's all right. No, that's a good word. I like that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. I really like that word. Very nice.
[Andreottola]: Maybe we could use a word like strive instead of bill, you know, kind of to, you know, to strive and to thrive, to kind of get, you know.
[Milva McDonald]: Where would you put that answer?
[Andreottola]: Instead of resolve and continue to build, strive.
[Milva McDonald]: We strive to continue to cultivate or do we want to get rid of it?
[Andreottola]: We will strive. Not hope.
[Milva McDonald]: We will strive as opposed to resolve.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I think resolve is a stronger word there.
[Andreottola]: I think strive is, actually, because to resolve is more to kind of to accept.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So we'll look at that, but I think, Frances, were you about to say something?
[Frances Nwajei]: Yeah, I was going to say it would just be you're resolving to cultivate a city. You're making a statement sentence, right?
[Milva McDonald]: Yes.
[Frances Nwajei]: Yeah, so you wouldn't need continue. In this case, strive gives the impression that you're still climbing uphill. So you're either striving to get it done or you're resolving, meaning you've decided that this is what you're going to get done.
[Milva McDonald]: Right. I agree. So I think resolve makes more sense in this context.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I agree. Resolve.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. I feel like we've wordsmithed it and obviously, you can do that forever, but I think it's pretty strong. If anybody wants to make a motion.
[Jean Zotter]: Melva, I think we picked the top. Okay. We don't need two of those.
[Milva McDonald]: No, we don't. We don't. So if somebody wants to make a motion, they can make a motion to accept it with the top or the bottom last paragraph.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I make a motion that we accept the text, which includes the top paragraph and delete the bottom one as is listed on the page there.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I second.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. All in favor? Aye. Should we do a roll call?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Eunice? Aye. Maury?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Paulette? Yes. Phyllis? Yes. Aubrey? Yes.
[Jean Zotter]: Jean? Yes, am I yessing to the whole preamble or just to that one change? For the whole preamble with the top there. Okay, yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Ron?
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony?
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so we're nine of us. And Paulette made that motion and Phyllis seconded, did I remember that right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, wait, Phyllis made it and I seconded it.
[Milva McDonald]: Other way around, okay, thank you. Okay, congratulations. We have a preamble. Yay, well done team. One thing done. Okay, so let me just make sure I get this in so I have the actual hobby that we voted on. Okay, so next is a continuation of our discussion on City Council confirmation of certain appointments and there was some language sent out so we can we can discuss the issue in general or before we start on the actual look at the actual language or we can look at the language. I have a couple of comments before we start. I believe that the subcommittee that worked on this was actually talking about confirmation powers for multi-member boards and not department heads. So I think I think that that is a separate issue and that probably should be taken out if everyone agrees. The other thing I just wanted to point out was the Collins Center couldn't join us tonight, but I shared the language with them and they had some thoughts as well. Well, they only had one thought about the certain language. that made it sound like, I can say that the subcommittee's intent when the subcommittee said, appointments made by the mayor shall become effective on the 30th day after the date on which the notice of the proposed appointment was filed with the city clerk, unless approved or rejected. The intent was that appointments would become valid within 30 days unless the city council rejected the appointment. And the addition of the approval intent was so that the city council could choose to approve before that and therefore make the appointment active sooner if they chose. However, the call-in center felt that the language made it sound like the city council was required to approve or reject. And so they suggested either removing the approved language or or lowering the threshold of a two-thirds vote because it was too high for all of those functions. So I just wanted to put that out there. And now we can talk about it.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Phyllis, did you want to say something? I was just telling someone that I was on a Zoom.
[Milva McDonald]: OK.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Sorry, I thought I did it discreetly.
[Milva McDonald]: No, you did. I just didn't know if you were raising your hand.
[Jean Zotter]: Can you remind me, Milva, did the previous language This is different than the previous language presented.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, we didn't actually have language at last meeting. We were mostly just talking about the issue. Although we did, there was, there was a lot, there was discussion about giving the city council some powers to reject. So we did have some, and this is, this is different. This is new. The subcommittee met again and reworked it.
[Jean Zotter]: Was there, I don't know if I remember this correctly. Was there an option for the city council to initiate any removal? Was that? Yes. You took that out?
[Milva McDonald]: The subcommittee voted to take it out, which doesn't mean that if someone wanted to raise it again, they could and we could vote on it.
[Jean Zotter]: What else is different from what was presented to us?
[Milva McDonald]: Not much, except for the part about the department heads, because we didn't talk about department heads. But essentially, the rest of it is pretty much the same.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So if the mayor, like, are we, like, is our Medford charter, is that a board? Are we a board?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, that was another question. So as we as the, we are actually an ad hoc committee. So I don't believe that this would apply. But I can't say 100% for sure. But I don't think so. There was a question of the Collins Center explained to us that there's boards that are created by ordinance or committees and commissions that are created by ordinance, which are governed by the ordinance and then there's some that are governed by state law and we don't actually have a list of which is which. Ron?
[Ron Giovino]: Yes, so that the piece with the accepting and rejecting I think you need to eliminate the approval because technically based on what that reads is that two thirds of somebody could be rejecting, but not necessarily approving if they only go with a simple majority. So I think that the purpose of this is to give the city council the power to remove somebody that they don't think is valuable for whatever reason. So to me, eliminating all the approval stuff, approval is assumed unless they pick out by two-thirds of above.
[Milva McDonald]: I can tell you that was the intent and this idea of this subcommittee was to give them a chance to do it sooner if they want. But clearly, it's problematic because people are reading it differently. people are reading it as though this means that the City Council has to do one or the other before 30 days, and that wasn't the intent. Ron, you are reading it correctly. I think if somebody wants to make a motion to remove those two words, then we can do that.
[Ron Giovino]: I'll make a motion to remove the approved portion of the- Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Ron? A motion to approve the language, quote, approved or. I second. Okay. Okay, we're gonna do a roll call.
[Andreottola]: Before we have this vote, can I ask you a question, please? Yes. Have we decided that we are going to grant this city council? Have we ever voted on whether we want the city council to have the authority to- No. Because kind of we're making the language before we've even, you know, we're voting on the language before we've even decided if this is something, you know, that is necessary.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, so we'll vote on this language and then we'll see if there's any other changes that should be made and then we can vote on the actual, the whole thing. Does that make sense?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: The one other concern I have about this whole thing is that city government doesn't necessarily work very quickly to begin with. And now we're putting in a 30 day, which means that if I expressed interest to be on such and such board, I now have to sit around for 30 days to figure out whether some city councilor who doesn't like me is gonna raise an issue. Now, it does does seem to I understand that the intent intent of this is to give the city council more power, but in giving them more power to what level are we going to slow down the processes of. of government? I mean, do we have to do it since they meet on a weekly basis? Could it be 21 days?
[Milva McDonald]: I want to address that. But I want to just, so I just want to do vote on the motion first, and then we'll talk about that. So I'm just going to do a roll call. And this is a motion to remove the language approved or. Ron?
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, just to Paulette's point, where does, it doesn't say what happens. If it's rejected, does the process start all over again?
[Milva McDonald]: I would assume that the mayor would have to nominate to another 30 day process and then another 30 day process. I would imagine, yeah. So let's go, let's do the motion first.
[Eunice Browne]: I'm going to last on what we're voting on.
[Milva McDonald]: We're voting on The motion is to remove the language approved or from the proposed text. And where is that? What paragraph is that in? I will share it so people can see it. It's in the first paragraph so it would say unless rejected by rather than approved.
[Jean Zotter]: Melva?
[Milva McDonald]: Yes. Did that also happen for the Let's see, yes, and it would be, it would be removed in both of those sections. Yeah, we would just so there's two places.
[Jean Zotter]: Do you want to highlight it so people can see? Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: So this is what we would be removing. And then we will talk about the other issues once we finish this vote. Okay, so Eunice.
[Eunice Browne]: Can you come back to me so that I can?
[Milva McDonald]: Okay.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Phyllis. Yeah, I can see it now. Yes. Okay. Remove.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Aubrey.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yes, but I'm rereading because there may be another instance in the next paragraph.
[Milva McDonald]: Another removed or, I mean approved or.
[Maria D'Orsi]: A question on approval or rejection is that.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, we would take out approval. Yeah.
[Ron Giovino]: Well, that approval is a little bit different. I don't believe it is, but... Because it's talking about a removal of suspension.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, this particular part applies to if the mayor decides to remove a member of a multiple member board. So... I think that the city council wouldn't necessarily, I mean, this is something we can talk about, but the idea would be that the city council would be able to overturn a removal, but they wouldn't have to approve of it. Does that make sense? So we're taking out all the approval. I mean, that's what we're voting on. So, so we have Phyllis said yes. Aubrey, did you? Yes. Okay. Paulette? We'll come back. Ron?
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Sorry, I said yes. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Yeah, I think I was muted, sorry. That's okay. Anthony?
[Andreottola]: I am not going to vote. I don't understand. Okay. I don't understand this whole thing, so I'm completely clueless.
[Jean Zotter]: Yes, so I seconded it, so yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Maury?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice? Yes. And I vote yes. So the motion carries with eight yes and one abstain. Okay, so those yellow parts are now taken out. So now we can go back to Paulette's question. One thing I can say is that Um, you know, the initially the subcommittee put two weeks or and what we heard from the call and center was that just, I mean, it's just not enough time because the city council doesn't. necessarily meet, you know, they would have to, it would just, it just, it's very quick. So, and many charters that do grant city council this power say 45 days, so 30 days was actually a middle ground. And I, you know, and I know that it is a concern, but If this committee decides to grant this authority to the city council, there does have to be a timeframe. And two weeks is too short. We could try 21 days if somebody feels like that's... But anyway, that's just the background on that.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, well, you know, this is, I feel certain that at some point this is gonna be read and rewritten and rewritten. So I think putting in 30 days is fine for now.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, great. So Anthony also raised a question earlier about whether we wanted to give this power to the city council and that is part of the discussion we're having. And this particular, subcommittee felt that that giving this power to the city council would be something that that would be reasonable so that's why it's written this way but there's certainly this is this would be the time to raise any concerns about that well can i start just just not knowing what committees or what
[Andreottola]: Boards that this would apply to is something that needs to really be fleshed out before we could even begin to decide to vote. Are we talking about volunteer committees like the disabled persons committee? Would they be required to stand before the city council before they could be seated on a committee? I would really need to have the specifics of all the committees and what their roles are and what their purpose is, whether or not this is something that rises to the level of having someone go before the city council. If somebody is just volunteering to provide support to the city, is this something that we want to put on our residents? A lot of these boards and committees go with unfilled seats. Uh, for for long periods of time, people have to stay on the committees because there's no one to replace them. You know, these are all things that need to be kind of considered. You know, I want to know what committees we're talking about before we even go into the language of how we're going to give power to the city council. Why are we on this road?
[Milva McDonald]: So one thing I can tell you is that most of the multi-member boards are volunteer. There are probably some stipends for some of them, but the way this proposal or this suggested language is written, nobody would go before the city council. It's written so that the person is automatically approved unless the city council votes against their confirmation. So it wouldn't be an issue where somebody would know before and then the city council would vote on their candidacy. So just wanted to clarify that.
[Andreottola]: Okay. How would the process work?
[Milva McDonald]: They would be automatically on the committee or commission unless the city council voted to reject that appointment.
[Andreottola]: Does the city council get notified about it? Is there a process or are we just kind of putting something in the chatter that doesn't have any process?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, what do you mean by process? I mean, it says the mayor has to refer to the city council and file with the city clerk the names of all the appointments. And then they become effective 30 days after that, unless city council rejects the appointment with a two-thirds vote.
[Jean Zotter]: So the process-wise, the city council would receive it from the clerk, and then if they wanted to reject it, they'd have to put it on their agenda. Right, which is why they need the 30 days. And so then they would have to have that on their city council agenda and have a vote to remove a particular person. Yes, and if that happened, does that person have to show up? I guess it's really doesn't say, but they could or could not show up. I'm guessing yeah. But I could also do nothing with it and then it just automatically happens exactly.
[Eunice Browne]: OK, Eunice. Yeah, like Anthony, I have a concern about this too. I think that we either need to know. The specific boards and commissions that this applies to. Or at bare minimum, if that can't be done because. maybe some boards would become obsolete. Ours will become obsolete when we're done. Others might as well for various reasons, and others will be created to fit a need in the city. If it can't be by specific name of boards, At least by the various categories where it's state required. Versus those by ordinance here in the city versus the ad hoc. So, I would want that information before I determined what power to give and what also concerns me is that. somebody could be automatically approved, um, for a particular, um, board, um, and then the city council gets notification that, you know, so-and-so is on a board, um, could there ever be a situation where the council could reject Members because they perhaps offer a different perspective to what perhaps the dominant group on a city council would want at any given time. Members that are going against the agenda or narrative of a You know, dominant group on either our city council or a school committee or city council, at least, but maybe school committee to, if they're not, you know. Reject basically stacking the deck for people that are. Further in a narrative or an agenda. of a particular dominant group in power versus having a diversity of experiences and perspectives, which is what every board should have. That would concern me considerably. Okay.
[Jean Zotter]: Jean. My memory from our last meeting is this only applies to boards created by local ordinance. So if the city council passes an ordinance and it's not required to do so by state statute or something else, then it applies to this.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. And this is standard language that appears in charters all over the state. So there's nothing unusual about it.
[Jean Zotter]: I wonder if Nina, the chief of staff could, because we looked at the website and it was, the website was wrong.
[Milva McDonald]: What happened was the Collins Center thought that there were some of those groups that were listed there were actually governed by state law.
[Jean Zotter]: Right. So, yeah. I don't know if it would help. this committee make its decision if, you know, if we asked the chief of staff to give us an updated list so we knew what current committees it would cover. But in general, anything created by ordinance that the city council passes.
[Milva McDonald]: So I guess where I'm coming from is I feel like, like I said, this is standard language that appears in charters all over the state. There's gonna be certain, if state law exempts something from it, then that's just the way it is. I don't feel like I need to know the specific committees and commissions in order to vote on this. but if other people do, then we can talk about that.
[Eunice Browne]: Eunice. I'm looking at a list of boards and commissions here that taken from the city website and whether or not it's accurate or not, who knows. This happens to say, commissions established by ordinance, how up-to-date it is, who knows. But there are some hugely impactful You know, boards on here, the zoning board of appeals, for example. The historical commission, the community development board. You know, particularly these that, you know, those 3 that deal with. Building here in the city and what's allowable or not. In terms of variances and so forth. Things that. If past buildings go up that are towering, they're there in perpetuity versus something else that might be less impactful. If there's a group that wants to forward a narrative, forward an agenda, then they, and rejecting people that goes against that, then, you know, we've got things sprouting up that, you know, people may not want. And that's, you know, once something is built, it's there, you know, for the next hundred years. I think that that's a dangerous precedent.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I hear what Eunice is saying. However, right now, the current process is there's one person making that decision. All this is doing is giving a powerful voice. If there's two-thirds support in the city council to make a change, they're not making the replacement. All they're doing is rejecting what the mayor had done. To me, the existing process is already to, could be set up the way you described, Eunice. I think this is just another way of giving some kind of balance to the selection process. So I'm in favor of the way it's written.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Thank you, Ron. Maury?
[Ron Giovino]: I just, one other point.
[Andreottola]: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Anthony. Okay. okay so i i just maybe uh francis you might be able to help with this i if i remember correctly um on the board just like the persons with disability uh commission that they also they had a process where members of that commission nominated people and voted on people to be sent to the mayor as nominees to be on the committee. Is that still the way it's done?
[Milva McDonald]: Francis, do you know, you're speaking just about that one group, that one body?
[Andreottola]: That's the only one that I have personal experience with not being on that particular commission but having participated in some of their meetings and my daughter's actually on that commission and the way she was nominated was by the actual members of the committee and her name was forwarded to the mayor she was voted on by the members of that commission and the name was submitted to the mayor. That's why I say, like, I don't know what these processes are, how these committees do their work now, how are they formed? You know, if we even ask, do we know? Like, we just say the mayor nominates people, but I don't know if that's the fact.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, that is how our charter is currently written, that the mayor appoints the, makes the appointments without confirmation. So that is currently how our charter is written.
[Jean Zotter]: But it could still be the case that a committee could make nominations to the mayor. And even under the proposed ordinance, that process would still continue. It's just that once the mayor decides who she's appointing, or he, then it goes to city council and they have 30 days to reject anyone on the list.
[Milva McDonald]: Milford, did you ask me a question? Well, Anthony had asked a question about, but I think maybe we, I think we answered it. If you want to ask Francis something specific, Anthony.
[Andreottola]: No, I just that I remember that there being a process for the committee to actually, you know, forward names to the mayor to be for members to be appointed by the mayor or reappointed. And I didn't know if that happened in all the committees, you know, are we taking something away from the members of the commissions, if they decide to forward someone to the mayor, now they're not just forwarding a name to the mayor, they're forwarding it to the mayor and to the city council.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, they're still forwarding it to the mayor because the mayor would still be making the appointments. the city council would have the power to reject if they chose. So the mayor would still be making the appointments.
[Frances Nwajei]: So I just wanted to clarify as the mayor is the appointing authority for the city of Medford, no matter what role. So that includes boards and commissions, hiring, things of that nature. I can only speak for the two commissions that I am on. And when we have vacancies, the people apply to be on the commissions using the smart sheets. I request that updated names are sent to me. I reach out to people, have a brief conversation with them, make sure I drop them the link to the ordinance, make sure I drop them to link to the public meeting laws and things of that nature and invite them to attend one or two meetings so that they can see if it's really for them or if it's what they you know, thought that it would be. Remember, some members have been on for two years, so you'll have people coming on with people that have been on for a longer period of time. So there's no like good stop and start place. Based on the meetings, I get feedback from the commissioners and feedback from the person and forward the names to the mayor. So I make the nomination on behalf of the commission. Mayor makes the final decision. You know, if somebody's on three different commissions, the chances are the mayor's gonna reject and I probably wouldn't nominate that person anyway. So I don't know if that answers your question, Anthony.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, thank you.
[Frances Nwajei]: It does, it does, thank you.
[Milva McDonald]: And none of that would change with this language also. Okay, Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: All right, I'm a little confused now. Are we trying to establish that the city council has a little bit more authority in these appointments and so forth? Is that what our goal is here? Is that what we're trying to do?
[Milva McDonald]: I think it's basically what Ron just said earlier, that it's a balance of power issue.
[Maury Carroll]: Would it be better if you came up with, if you're looking to have the city council have some say in these appointments on these boards and commissions that we come up with the formula, you know, if it's a five-man board, city council gets two appointments, mayor gets three or seven or whatever the formula might be instead of, my biggest fear is you've been around the city long enough time that it becomes a tug of war between the mayor and the city council and nothing ever moves forward here. And so I think this is an opportunity, if we're going to create a new charter and a new way the government is to run, is maybe to eliminate some of these things. So.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, thanks, Maury. I mean, that is an interesting idea, but it's not, my guess is we're gonna come up against some issues with that, it's not done that way in general in most cities, and there may be other factors in play that make it so that we can't just sort of give the city council, like, say, you know, 20% of the appointments and the mayor 80%. That's what you're suggesting. Is that right, Maureen?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes, yeah. Some formula like that, not necessarily whatever, I'm just like, you're concerned. I'm concerned that it goes back and forth and mayor, you know, appoint someone in the city council. Now, because it's mayor, we don't like the mayor. We're not going to go along. We've seen that. Well, isn't that the case now? It certainly is Anthony. We've seen it for a hundred years. You know that.
[Andreottola]: Yeah. But isn't there like, uh, isn't they do have some commissions and some committees that they, people do have to go before the City Council.
[Milva McDonald]: Am I correct? I think there's one or two and I believe that there are ordinances about those. I think the Liquor Commission is one of them.
[Andreottola]: And isn't the Election Commission one of them as well? Yes.
[Maury Carroll]: And just recently, I think the whole committee, you know, the council has a vote and the mayor has a vote, and then there's a recommendation for someone else. And so there's a few of them that are like that.
[Milva McDonald]: So and that can be done by ordinance. Because obviously, because our current charter says that the mayor makes all appointments without city council confirmation, so. OK, Aubrey. you've had your hand up.
[Maria D'Orsi]: I have a different question. So it's about the removals and suspensions piece. So right now, the way it works is that the mayor can remove or suspend without a 30 day, it will be affected immediately. Yes, or near immediately. My possible concern is that I imagine this will happen very often. But if it does happen, there's probably a A reason for that removal or suspension. And so what would it look like for somebody to be removed or suspended and then continue continuing to act on the committee for 30 days?
[Milva McDonald]: I'm glad you raised that because that is definitely an issue. And I think. I think we can talk about whether. I mean, the subcommittee decided not to give the city council the power to initiate a removal, which is something that the Collins Center talked to us about last meeting. But this does give them some authority in the removal process. So we should talk about whether we want to keep that. Jean?
[Jean Zotter]: Oh, well, I read it. It says after 30 days, the removal suspension is effective. It's not immediate.
[Milva McDonald]: Right. And Aubrey's point is that if someone's being removed, they're being removed or suspended for a reason. Oh, I see. Okay, I thought. Then they would have to wait 30, you know, it would give the city council 30 days to disagree with the mayor basically on that. So my feeling is that you know, that we could take that out, but I don't know how other people feel.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Another option, just to put it on the table, is for renewables and suspensions to be effective immediately, with a possible reinstatement happening by vote after 30 days.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I think that's a better way of putting it.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, I like that.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: So we would say be effective immediately.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Effective immediately, yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: And then the city council would have up to 30 days to reinstate. So I guess, Do we, I mean, this is all standard language and these are powers that other city councils have, but the removal power is less common or the power to have a say over the removal?
[Phyllis Morrison]: You know, sometimes a removal is just a removal. There's no option for reinstatement.
[Milva McDonald]: Right, there would be for this, though. I mean, in this case, the City Council could do it if they wanted to.
[Phyllis Morrison]: But why is everything 30 days? Like, why is this 30 days? It's a long period of time for me.
[Milva McDonald]: Right, because the City Council, because there needs to be time for the City Council to act on things.
[Phyllis Morrison]: How often do they meet again?
[Milva McDonald]: Every other week.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah, I mean, you know, I mean, that's a long time for someone to be waiting.
[Milva McDonald]: Like I said, it's 45 days is actually pretty common in a lot of charters. We could, somebody could suggest lowering it to three weeks, 21 days.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, this is what we just talked about before. Right.
[Milva McDonald]: As you pointed out, Paula, this language isn't fine.
[Eunice Browne]: Why don't we put something in instead of putting a number on it, putting at the, Something, you know, an action to be taken by the city council at their very next meeting.
[Milva McDonald]: So, um, which, and if there's some reason that they're not meeting right away, or, I mean, I think, I think it would, I think the chart, I think it's pretty standard for the charter to give a time timeframe.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. I mean, the only, the only time where they don't meet generally within two or three weeks, Is the summer.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, Ron, do you want to say something?
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I just feel like we're overthinking this process because it's a two thirds of a vote. It's a, you know, any commission that we're talking about, nothing can, you know, you don't look at us and it's taken us 13 months to get to where we are at. So I don't think 30 days is that long to wait for something to happen. I just think that we've, kind of buried this one, and I'm gonna, I'm just, you know, my New Year's resolution is to start putting these things on paper and moving them. So I'm gonna, after Jean says what you want, I'm gonna move the question.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you, Ron. Jean?
[Jean Zotter]: I was looking at last month's materials and Somerville's draft language, and Somerville had just to address Eunice's concern that it could be, for lack of a better word, partisan, that Somerville had with approval not to be unreasonably withheld in their charter. I don't know if you discuss that as a committee, adding that, or if that would address your concern, Eunice.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, that could be added.
[Eunice Browne]: I mean, define unreasonable. Right, exactly.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I mean, yeah. I think we're really overthinking things now. Now that he brought that to my attention, I agree. I think we're overthinking. I think we're trying to be so committed to this and diligent about it. But I do think that there's a little bit.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So Ron, you expressed an intention. But before we do that, I just want to go back to the removal language and we also need to address if we're going to remove the department heads. Because mostly we haven't really been talking about department heads. We're talking about multiple member boards. So, just back to the removal question, are people comfortable with giving the city council the ability to overturn a suspension or a removal?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Overturn a suspension, so the mayor makes a suspension.
[Milva McDonald]: Or removal, which obviously would not happen, it would be probably extraordinary circumstances anyway.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right, but, oh my God, so, So the mayor removes somebody for reasons that may or may not be public. Right. And now we're saying, oh, but that's okay. The city council can overturn it.
[Milva McDonald]: That's what this would say, unless we decide we don't think that should happen.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, but there's no talk about What if the person was removed because the person did something inappropriate? Right. As viewed by some. Right. Not necessarily everybody.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, and that was what I think that's part of what Aubrey raised, which is why we changed the language to say that it would be effective immediately, but that then the city council would have up to 30 days to overturn them.
[Phyllis Morrison]: So that would be these two paragraphs. Could it not be, Milva? I know I read these a couple of days ago and I made some notes on that, If the mayor removes a person for any reason, then why would we grant the city council the authority to reinstate?
[Milva McDonald]: That is the question we're discussing. And if somebody thinks that that should be removed, they can make a motion and we'll take those two paragraphs out.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right.
[Andreottola]: Well, wouldn't the person have to remove the two paragraphs?
[Phyllis Morrison]: Would they have an appeal process? Would there be an appeal process?
[Milva McDonald]: I think removal then an appeal process, but... I'm pretty sure that the person would have a right to an appeal no matter what. But I mean, that was one of the things that the Collins Center talked about last month with the option of giving the city council the power to initiate a removal was that there could be legal legalities involved. And the fact that even if the city council is approving or rejecting the appointments, the mayor is the appointing authority. So if we gave the city council any power to remove, we would basically be letting someone remove that didn't make the appointment.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah, I'm gonna say that I'm not for this.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so I heard a motion.
[Andreottola]: Yeah, I make a motion to remove that power out of.
[Maury Carroll]: I'm going to second that.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, yeah. OK, let's do a roll call. So this is a motion to remove the sections that give the City Council authority to overturn mayoral removals or suspensions. Yep. Maury seconded. OK, Eunice.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, go ahead and remove. Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Maury. Yes. Paulette. Yes. Phyllis. Yes. Aubrey.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Jean.
[Jean Zotter]: I'm not sure. If there's a case where things are, people are removed for non That it's political and not because something happened. It happened and has happened in other cities. This gives the city council no opportunity to counter that. I don't know. I guess I'm abstaining because I'm not sure I'm for or against it right now. Okay. But I do have that concern.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, my box is moved, so I don't know, Ron?
[Unidentified]: Did I get?
[Milva McDonald]: You said no, you vote not to remove it?
[Unidentified]: Correct.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. I missed one person, who did I miss?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yourself? Me.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony. Anthony.
[Andreottola]: Yes. And you vote yes. I vote to remove it.
[Milva McDonald]: And I vote yes. Okay, so the motion carries seven yes, one abstain and one no. So just the removal power, the power over removals we're taking out. The only other question is that we have been, like I said, we've been talking about multi-member boards, but we have department heads in the current language.
[Andreottola]: Can I say something? I think the department is a completely different animal and that deserves a whole different discussion because in conversations that I've had with the mayor and other people in the city government, you know, the whole recruiting department heads and getting the right people for the job and people becoming willing to work for the city when there's a long approval process, you know, somebody who may be leaving a job at another city to come to work for Medford when they have to kind of go through a process that, you know, the mayor's going to offer me a job, but, you know, I have to make a decision before you know, it goes before the city council for a vote. And maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's a bad thing, but I think it really kind of needs to be discussed and worked out and maybe to even talk to some department heads or city council members to see what they're really looking at and how it could be done in a streamlined way where it wouldn't interfere with the city's ability to hire and retain, you know, good people.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay. Eunice? Totally agree that that needs to be handled separately. You've got people on multi-member boards who are giving a few hours a month maybe of their time and maybe or maybe not getting a $1,000 or $500 stipend versus people who, this is their livelihoods, this is how they're feeding their families, this is their professionalism here. Perhaps we can deal with it, but it would need to be an entirely separate section with different rules and so forth.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm in agreement with you. I think that department heads are part of the mayor's administration. But if we want to take that out, somebody needs to make a motion. I make a motion. Okay. Are we going to consider it, but just not now?
[Jean Zotter]: What are we voting on?
[Milva McDonald]: We're voting to take department heads out, which doesn't mean that we've made a decision on it. It just means we're taking it out right now.
[Ron Giovino]: Okay. That was my, the amendment is to send that back to committee to see what they decide on the department heads.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So the motion, Eunice made a motion to remove language on department heads, and Ron amended it to say, Send that back, send back to subcommittee. Do we have a second?
[Andreottola]: I'll second it. I second it.
[Milva McDonald]: Maury and Anthony. Okay, so that's the motion. Eunice? Yes. Yes. Maury?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Phyllis?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Aubrey? Yes. Jean? Yes. Paulette? Yes. Ron? Yes, Anthony.
[Andreottola]: Yes, and just just not just to add on 1 thing the department heads union members to is this something that also that needs to be the subcommittee shouldn't know. Aren't they find out about management because if they are, you know, then, you know, you get into collective bargaining and all that other stuff that, you know, really probably expert kind of.
[Milva McDonald]: That's a good point, and I'm not sure. They might be management. Okay, so I'm just going to share what it is. Frances has her hand up. Frances, Frances, go ahead.
[Frances Nwajei]: I just wanted to add my two cents. When you're talking about department heads, please know that you're now stepping into employment laws, recruitment, talent acquisition, and hiring. And you want to make sure that it's very clear that if somebody has been hired and they're going before city council, they're not to be interviewed by city council. Otherwise you could find yourself in some federal situations. So however you decide to craft that, keep that in the back of your mind, as well as knowing that some department head positions could decide to unionize if they're not already unionized.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you, Francis. So that will, you know, that will definitely be something to put in the discussion pod for when we address that. But right now, this is how the language stands. We took out department heads, we took out the language approval or, and we took out powers over to reject overturned removals or suspensions by the mayor. So this is what we got. And I think, do people want to look it over quickly? Because I think, Ron, you said you might want to do something, right?
[Ron Giovino]: I'd like to move the question, to move for approval.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. So the motion is to approve this revised language. Do we have a 2nd?
[Eunice Browne]: Can I just ask a quick question? This is obviously all about appointments and so forth, but. Is there anywhere here where we should or anywhere somewhere at some point where we would. And is this the purview of what we're doing? Getting involved in putting anything in the charter that. talks about any sort of qualifications for the boards, at minimum being a residency requirement, and any other qualifications to serve on a board in Medford overall, and then specific to the purposes of various boards.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, I think that's addressed in a different section. This is just about the appointments.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay. I'll hold my thoughts until we get there. Okay.
[Jean Zotter]: Can I ask a question? Go ahead, Jean. The second paragraph now is just having the mayor provide notice? Yes. Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, we can take that out. What we had talked about was, We took out the language giving the city council power to overturn, but this just says that the mayor has to notify them. I personally think that's reasonable. Can you keep sharing your screen, Melva, please? Yes. Right now, it does say that the mayor has to notify the city council. If people, so right now, Ron made a motion and I didn't hear a second.
[Jean Zotter]: I second.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay.
[Andreottola]: Can I just ask one question? So just to make sure, because I want to, if I'm going to vote yes, I just want to make sure. So the mayor will go through, somebody can be on a board, the mayor nominates somebody. And if the city council Decides like we hate this person. We don't want them on the board. It has to be two thirds majority for them to Not allow that person on the board. Is that correct?
[Milva McDonald]: Yes Okay I think I can live with that Yeah, so and and as far as the you know Nitty-gritty of the language. I mean, this is all Even if we vote on this, it's provisional. The Collins Center is going to help us with the final draft. And they're very familiar with charter language. And if there's something in here that is an issue, they'll tell us. OK. So Ron made the motion. Jean seconded. And so Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: You want my vote?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Ron Giovino]: I'm going to say yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. Anthony?
[Andreottola]: Oh, yes. I'll vote yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Eunice?
[Eunice Browne]: I'm still uncomfortable with this two thirds because you've got a dominant party that is now, you know, a large part of the city council. I'm going to vote no.
[Jean Zotter]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Maury? Yes. Okay. Sorry. Aubrey? Yes. Okay. I can't see on my boxes, so I'm doing this by memory. Phyllis? Yes. Okay. And I'm missing one person. Paulette. Paulette, thank you. Paulette? Yes. Great. So the motion carries.
[Andreottola]: Can I add one thing, though? Can I add one thing, though? Can we adopt that Somerville language in it? I don't know if there has to be a separate motion about it. It will not be unreasonably withheld, you know, that it's... That remove... Okay. that the mayor's nomination would not be, you know... Okay, I think... Jean read that.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, I would have to... I can read it to you.
[Jean Zotter]: Or something like that.
[Milva McDonald]: Can you put it in the chat, Jean?
[Jean Zotter]: Sure, I'll try to copy it if I can.
[Milva McDonald]: So basically this... Anthony is making a motion to add language
[Ron Giovino]: I think you got to be careful on the rules first. We have to dispose of that vote we just took. No, this would just be added. Well, you've already voted on it.
[Milva McDonald]: Right, but we just vote to add this language?
[Eunice Browne]: No, I don't think so. I think it would have to be committee.
[Maury Carroll]: Isn't it going back to committee?
[Milva McDonald]: No, that's the department heads.
[Maury Carroll]: That's right. Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: I think you'd have to vote for reconsideration of the vote.
[Milva McDonald]: We are not going to be able to vote on every single section of the charter. We'll be here forever. A lot of the sections of the charter are going to be standard language. This is pretty standard language. It's just a little extra piece.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'd like to make a comment.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm sorry, Paula.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, I just, so the piece that we're adding is with approval to not be unreasonably withheld.
[Andreottola]: Yeah. Yes. Well, can I put that in a motion form? I'd like to make a motion that we add that to what we just voted on.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I'll second that.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Not to be unreasonably, I'm just, I just added it, so. show you this here. So this is what it looks like now. It looks exactly the same except at the end of the first paragraph it says, the question on rejection of any appointment made by the mayor should not be said, no, that's not where it goes, sorry. That's just about, okay. Unless rejected, so with no one here. With approval, I mean, I feel like we took the word approval out and the city council is not approving. They're just, so we, I don't think we can use this language. We would have to be.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Well, seeing it there on the page, it makes a difference. I'm sorry? When you see it there on the page, it makes sense that it shouldn't be there. But when I keep talking and I can't see it in print, it's hard for me to gauge what's, you know, yeah.
[Jean Zotter]: Um, yeah. With the, with rejection, not to be unreasonably decided. Um, that's not the best wording, but that's what you mean, right? With rejection.
[Andreottola]: Something like that. I just wanted to make it sound something that, that, that says that, you know, if the mayor put someone forward, unless you have a pretty damn good reason, you know, leave them alone. If they have a good reason, fine. But it shouldn't be unreasonably, people shouldn't be unreasonably.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Isn't it a word like scurrious? Scurrious, I love that word.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't know. I mean, these are all very subjective.
[Jean Zotter]: Reasonable is often a legal standard. I don't know. OK.
[Milva McDonald]: Anyway, this is the language in question right here. We changed it because we didn't have approval. So Anthony made this motion. And did somebody second it? I did. Was that Paulette? Was that you?
[Phyllis Morrison]: No, that's Phyllis.
[Milva McDonald]: Oh, sorry. Okay, so Anthony, sorry, I just gotta write this down. Okay, let's vote. Anthony.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Phyllis.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Paulette.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Aubrey. Yes. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: I'm going to support it with a yes, but I just caution everybody that this is not the procedural way to get this done. So in the future, when we're doing, you know, finalizing votes, we got to really make sure we're going backwards is not really the way to do it. But I support this. I understand what everybody's trying to do.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Maury?
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice? Yes. Gene? Yes. And I'll vote yes, sure. Okay, so we have provisional language and we have made a decision. And great, thank you everyone.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, congratulations makes sense.
[Milva McDonald]: Right. Okay, so I hope that we could, I don't think we have, I don't know, I don't know if we have time to. Is there was there was the other piece that we were maybe going to look at was. Where did it go? We have 35 minutes left, Melville.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I know.
[Milva McDonald]: That's why I'm not sure we should start in on the... Well, let's just take 10 or 15 minutes to... It's not 10 or 15 minutes. I know. So, but we're going to take... I'm not saying we'll finish this discussion, but we can start it. So, we voted. We did provisional vote on... hybrid ward representation, but what we didn't decide was the number. So the subcommittee talked about it and thought 11, eight, and three basically was a good number. And the other piece that we didn't talk about was term lengths. So we can start by talking about the number of city councilors.
[Jean Zotter]: I don't know that the committee voted on the number. We didn't. That's what I'm saying. We, I was, the subcommittee talked about it. Oh, I mean the subcommittee. I don't, I was on that subcommittee.
[Milva McDonald]: Oh, no, not the board representation, but the articles two and three, sorry. Oh, okay. Because, because the composite, because it's all in article two. Okay. I just thought that we could maybe finalize the number that we wanted to include in our draft charter. Any thoughts? Eunice.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. I mean, we have eight wards, so that would be eight councilors right off the bat with board representation. Then adding three at large gives us 11. which I'm fine with. My concern comes with when we start adding wards, which I think we're really close to doing. Our population's only growing. We're at 60,000. We're only getting bigger. So if we add another ward, which is kind of what the former election commissioner wanted to do, but another city council may vote for it, then we have nine city councilors and only two at large. I don't feel like two at large for a city of 60,000 plus. If we get to nine wards, we're going to be well over 60,000 people. I don't feel like two at large is enough.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. The wards question is, I feel like we need to maybe talk to the Collins Center about this again. When I raised this with them, I believe that the city could add another ward or the state draws the wards and the state can just change the boundary. I mean, we don't know and we don't really have control over that. I don't, you know, I don't think we can base our decision on it because we just don't have control over that. I mean, the subcommittee put in extra language about that there would be either two or three Councilors at large, even if the wards changed. But we can talk about that too. I don't even know if that language, I don't know. I mean, again, the call-in center, when they look at that language might, they will often say things that we didn't think of. So, but thinking, but deciding on the number, right, is something that we do need to do. So, Dean.
[Jean Zotter]: I, well, I was in the ward subcommittee and was, thinking of more at large, which I realized has a financial consideration that made people nervous. It just balances out the more local-focused, neighborhood-focused part of the city council with some city councilors who are more focused on at large. But I don't know how we deal with the financial. implications of our decision and whether we should. The other point I just want to say to what Eunice was raising is hopefully we'll be reviewing our charter every 10 years, which I think is standard. And every 10 years is when the census happens and the rewriting of the ward. So the charter review committee could look at that and rewrite that. make up. But yeah, that's my one concern is just what are the unintended consequences of going from an all at large to a predominantly ward city council and do we want to add a few more at large just to weigh it out more. So I see a lot of heads shaking, but that's a concern I have is that it will become more focused on neighborhood issues and won't be thinking of the city as a whole always.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. Ron and I think Paulette also.
[Ron Giovino]: Go ahead, Ron. I hear what Jean and Eunice are saying. I agree with Jean that this is a living document that will have provisions in it to change as we change as a city, but we have to react to what is here now in terms of adding more at large and watering down what the ward representation is. We might as well stick with seven at large as opposed to ward representation. We can go back to that, but I think that I think 11 is the right number for this right time. And as Gina's mentioned, the document is certainly amendable and changeable. So I think, again, my New Year's resolution is gonna come up all year, but I'd like to move the question of 11 city councilors, eight ward representatives, three at large.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so that's a motion. Paulette, did you have your hand up just before we?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: As it is, we'd be growing from seven to 11. To me, that certainly is, you know, I've got concerns about it being so big, but so I'm comfortable with saying the 11, but I'm not comfortable with voting for more than that.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So Ron made a motion. Does anybody like this?
[Andreottola]: I'd like to know if I can add to discussion. I I'm I'm worried about the number 11. You know, in my head, I have the number nine. And I know it doesn't work for folks, but that's what I feel going from seven to nine would be easy for the city and for the city council and how to make that work. I know the comments that I said, it's a little bit tricky, but a lot of cities have, Instead of having ward representation, they have district representation where wards are combined. And I know it's more work, but we've never really looked.
[Milva McDonald]: I think there might be one city that does that. I don't think a lot of cities do it.
[Andreottola]: Well, Boston does. Folks always want to be like Boston. So I'm just saying that, you know, it could, there is, there is, that is an option of having, you know, five at large and four district Councilors. And we've never talked about it. And, and I know it's more difficult, but it's something that, you know, I think people should at least, you know, kick around in their head a little bit.
[Milva McDonald]: Um, we did, we did talk about it a little bit and what we, um, you know, there were, there's potential legal issues with combining wards. There were, there were some reasons why we didn't pursue it. Um, so, but, um, I just want to go back because I know Ron made a motion.
[Maury Carroll]: I'm going to second that motion.
[Milva McDonald]: All right. All right, so the motion is to have 11 city councilors, eight ward representatives, three at large. Eunice? Yes. Maury?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Phyllis? Phyllis? Oh, sorry, you're on mute. I see your yes, though. Aubrey? I muted myself. That's okay. Aubrey? I'm yes. Yes, okay.
[Jean Zotter]: Jean? I'm yes, despite my concerns. Okay. Paulette? Yes. Ron?
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony?
[Andreottola]: I'll vote yes for solidarity, but I'm more in favor of nine.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. So the motion carries. Wow, that's great. That's another piece of business that we took care of. We do have some other things on the agenda. The only other piece of that section was the term links. I don't know, we can spend five minutes maybe talking about term links. I don't know if we'll vote on that tonight, but.
[Jean Zotter]: Yeah, I wasn't comfortable with that. With the two years? No, just with voting on it today without discussion. And I wanted to have like more discussion on it.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. Yeah. So we can start and have a brief discussion on the term lengths just to sort of see where people are at or if there's some ideas that people want to throw out for other committee members to think about. And then we can save that for another meeting. Does anybody have any thoughts?
[Eunice Browne]: I thought we just pass on it and carry on with the rest of the agenda and circle back. I think that one's, you know, deserves it. We start next time.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Paulette, were you going to say something?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: No, well, actually, I'll carry on. I'll discuss it under the school committee.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, all right, so we'll save that one, and now we'll, oh, next is the school committee subcommittee check. There you go.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So I looked at the meeting notes in the agenda tonight and saw somewhere or another that I had suggested the possibility of having a subcommittee meeting on January 11th. That offer suggests, I just don't know if there's something else on January 18th. Is there something on January 18th? Is there a listening session on January 18th?
[Jean Zotter]: Yes, there is with NPS parents and staff. Yeah.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Paulette, is there a possibility that we could change that January 11th date? I have a school thing that came up and it'll be a conflict for me.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right. So I'm suggesting that we change January 11th.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Okay, good.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Um, wait. So, um, I'm trying to think of which.
[Ron Giovino]: Day, though, what time is the listening session on the 18th?
[Jean Zotter]: 7 PM.
[Ron Giovino]: Okay.
[Jean Zotter]: And Phyllis, uh, Aubrey, myself and Maury are. Participating, um.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So I can't do the, how about Monday? Wait, it's a holiday. The 15th is a holiday, right? And the 25th, we have something. How about Tuesday, January 23rd?
[Phyllis Morrison]: That seems okay with me. Yeah, that works, I think.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I know Eunice, you usually like to keep Tuesdays free,
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I'm starting to tune out of that a little bit.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, so Tuesday, January 23rd. Oh, good. Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: So that's the next state for the subcommittee? Great, okay.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: The thing that, so I'm a little uncertain about where to go with some things with the subcommittee because we didn't get a great response. We had talked about having another session with school committee members. I just didn't see, right now the new ones are all focused on being new ones. And I did get a couple of emails and I'll share them with the subcommittee from a few, Members, but just a few but part of the problem is one person says this and the next person says this the next person says this and you know there's not a. I don't see any consensus building. That's the thing that's concerning me. And there's not enough to really to feel that yet. I will tell you that Melvin and I did go to speak to the superintendent of schools, Dr. Marice Edouard-Vincent. I think we had a wonderful discussion that went for more than an hour. And there was something that was just so clear and dominant in her discussion. And as a member, I totally get it. And that is, she said, how difficult it is for her as the leader of the school system to have to, every two years, have a new, potentially new set of school committee members. And she says that, she said that, you know, you come to an agreement with one set, you've hashed it out, maybe it's taken you a year to get there. And then all of a sudden, they're leaving again. And I do know as a member of the school committee, one of the things that we always sort of felt like, okay, the first year after you got elected, You got stuff done. And then the second year, everybody was running. And you could you could tell on the floor when people started campaigning, you know, it just you couldn't help. You know, it's just sort of like it was so clear. So she said if there was only one. thing that she could say to our committee is if we could change the two-year terms to four-year terms, that she thought it would be such a more efficient and effective way for her as the leader of the school department to accomplish anything. So as we talk about the city council, I mean, so that's a really, it was a very strong viewpoint, right, Melva?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, that was, she was pretty flexible on everything, but that was her one thing that she express a strong opinion on.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. And, and, and, and substantiated very articulately, I think. So, so part of that then is, and that's why I said, well, you know, we're now we're talking about city council. And when you think about it, it's the same problem. And it's really the same problem for the mayor is that Um, you know, when you've got two years, I can tell you two years. I mean, I would obviously love three, but three years gets you into this problem of holding the election unless you change the election cycle altogether and put it in the spring the way many communities have it. But I'm not sure in Medford where we are very used to having the November election cycle. Three years, you know, would really get you a better, I think, plan. But then who would come and vote in the spring? You know, you can't do it on, you can't have elections every, you know, if we changed it to every four years, it is a longer time and it certainly would be a change for us. But I think it's really worth thinking about. So that again was, again, it's her, it's one person's thought, but I think that it was a very valuable discussion to have with her.
[Milva McDonald]: So when we address term lengths, You know, we can, I mean, we can address term lengths for all the different branches of government. And I think that makes sense because it will affect, they're interrelated because of the way elections run. So we'll definitely look at that soon.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So other than that, I don't have much to say. We'll do the next one. I mean, the committee members had talked about having a listening session or bringing together, really having a gathering of both current and former school committee members. I can send out, you know, I can send something out again. It's not, you know, now we're after the holidays to see what level of interest there is. in people coming together, and I'm just not sure. So, I'll let you know.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So, anyway, that's it.
[Milva McDonald]: Great. Thank you. Okay, listening sessions. Do we have a quick listening session update?
[Jean Zotter]: Sure. Do you want me to share my calendar? I can just show people quickly what we're... Sure.
[Milva McDonald]: I think you'll be able to. Can you? I think so. Yeah, because you're a co-host. I think you can.
[Jean Zotter]: Everybody see that? Yep. Okay, so we have, next one is on the 10th, which is virtual, co-hosted with the Medford Family Network and Medford REC. And then we have on the 16th, one with Medford Senior Center, and that's Maury and Ron. On the 18th, we have a virtual one with parents of NPS and staff. Phyllis, Maury, Aubrey, and myself are going to be doing that one. And then the last two that are scheduled, although Eunice is working on one other one, is we're doing listening sessions with high school students with the AP Gov class and the civics class on the 29th. I'm just going to stop sharing. How do I stop sharing? Oh, there we go. We had two since we last talked, and then I think we're done. Eunice is working one on with first responders.
[Eunice Browne]: Trying to. As I said when you and I corresponded earlier today, Jean, and I'll bring the group up together. Sergeant, or is he a lieutenant now? I don't know. Harold McGilvery was the person I'm trying to get in contact with. And he and I did have a back and forth on Facebook Messenger. The long and short of that was that getting the community room at the police station should be easy to do. So finding a place, I think that's the easiest part of this. He gave me his phone number. I called it before Christmas, left him a message, waited a couple of days, didn't hear back, and then Christmas came and, you know, everybody gets busy. And then I called him again earlier this week. and have not yet got a reply. I messaged him earlier today, sort of looking for maybe instead of me just calling him and hoping I get him, asking for an appointment time to talk. Um, so that we know that we would connect, um, haven't heard anything back. He suggested I also talk to, um. Bobby Jones, 1 of the firefighters and loop him in. Um, but I don't know him and I don't know how to get in contact with him, which is what I was hoping that. Harold would help me with. And Maury's graciously offered to partner with me if the date works. So... Did you have a date, Eunice? No, that's what... Okay, okay. I'm not there yet. Okay. I know there we can have it.
[Maury Carroll]: Eunice, call me tomorrow. I'll call Jonesy and I'll call Harry and we'll get something going. I'll call them.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, will do. I mean, even if you stretch this into the first couple of days of February, I know we're striving to get it done by January 31st. If we go a day or two later, I don't think we're going to turn into pumpkins, but we don't want to never know. This is true. You never know. But I think if we can get it done, You know, fairly, you know, soon, then, you know, so I'll, I'll keep you posted tomorrow.
[Jean Zotter]: Thank you. And Ron, you had your hand up.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I was just about the meeting on the 16th. I'm just based on the conversations we had with them. I think there's a lot of publicity going on with that. And I think it's a venue that may have a pretty good size response, at least I'm hoping. So if anybody else wants to join us, I mean, I think two people in that big room is a lot. So if anybody wants to, it's a lot, particularly when you want to take notes at the same time. So if anybody wants to come and help us, I think that would be a really good thing. I'm looking forward to that one. I think it's going to be a good.
[Jean Zotter]: Yeah, I was going to touch base and just make sure it went in their newsletter and everything, but that's what they said.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yeah, great time of that one again.
[Jean Zotter]: Let's see, that is at 1 PM. What's the date? The 16th. It's a Tuesday.
[Ron Giovino]: Aubrey, I'll bring the little bottles of water if you want.
[Jean Zotter]: Oh, I have a bunch of water left. If you want it, I can give it to you. I bought like a big 24-pack.
[Ron Giovino]: That saved us for that massive turnout we had at the fire station, the fireman's club.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Almost as big as the one at the West Medford community. I know.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah.
[Jean Zotter]: I am trying to see if I can reschedule that one.
[Milva McDonald]: All right, well, Dean, I just want to say thank you again for spearheading this and being sort of the organizer, because these have been really valuable, despite the fact that there have been a few where people didn't show up. Overall, they've been incredibly valuable. So thank you. Thanks. Okay, so we do have our last public information session at City Hall before our survey closes on January 31st, and that is on January 25th. If anybody wants to join me in planning for that event, let me know. Any takers?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Wait, wait, you said there's one January 25th?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, that's a public information session at City Hall.
[Phyllis Morrison]: January is just jam-packed with meetings.
[Ron Giovino]: What's your plan for that meeting?
[Milva McDonald]: I don't have a plan yet. So I'm saying, does somebody want to get together with me and plan it? Ron?
[Ron Giovino]: He's here, present.
[Milva McDonald]: Do you want to be a planner for that?
[Ron Giovino]: Well, I'm curious what the goal is going to be. I mean, is it going to be just a listening session with, you know, what are we presenting?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, that's what we need to hear.
[Ron Giovino]: All right.
[Milva McDonald]: Thanks, Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: As long as it's between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m., I'm in.
[Milva McDonald]: I'll get in touch with you to set up a planning meeting. Okay. Sorry. The other thing I just wanted to touch base on was our work plan. I just wanted sort of our target date for presenting our revised, our charter is September. So, you know, we, so in light of that, in light of all the decisions we have to make, I wanted to throw out a possibility.
[Ron Giovino]: September what year, Melva?
[Milva McDonald]: whether there's any availability for additional meetings starting in February? And we can keep them on Thursdays or we can, yeah.
[Phyllis Morrison]: You know, Thursdays is really a tough night a lot of times for me. It really is. Everyone seems to want to have their meetings, like I'm part of the Medvedems, they want to have their meetings on, I mean, and school has their meetings on Thursdays. Tuesdays is a better night.
[Milva McDonald]: So if I put out a doodle poll for people to see if we can add in just for maybe from February for at least a few months while we hash out some of these. I mean, we've done really well. We've got a lot of stuff done, but we have a lot to hash out. So if I do a doodle poll, are people open to meeting more often? OK. Eunice.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I mean, I'm definitely certainly open to meeting to get a lot of this done. And I know that I'm the one that likes my Tuesdays with my city council, but I can always catch the rerun. One thing that I was trying to do, and I'm wondering if it would be helpful, and I tossed it out to I think everybody at one point, was putting together a Google calendar To add to the drive and giving all of us access to it and full access editing and reading and such so that we could add these things like the listening sessions and different. You know, everybody's on a different subcommittee subcommittees.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Eunice Browne]: No, and there's going to be more of them. You know, coming down the pike shortly, so that way, then, you know, if the head of the school committee subcommittee, she can easily take a look at it and determine that. Oh, I can't do a meeting on such and such a night or such and such a night is open and I'll also add to it other. You know, certainly major holidays and things as well as, you know, maybe other, you know, Medford, high Medford things, graduation night or something like that. Other big things that you don't that we don't want to conflict with. Yeah, we don't want to step on toes with. So, if people think that's a good idea, I think it could be helpful. Are you volunteering? Yeah, I've already, I don't know a whole lot about Google stuff, but, you know, maybe once I kind of get it in there, I can tap somebody who knows more than I do to make sure that, you know, I'm getting it right.
[Jean Zotter]: I'd be willing to help Eunice once the listening sessions are over.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Okay. Instead of a Google calendar, we can do what Jean does in the spreadsheet with her calendar. Okay, yeah, great.
[Eunice Browne]: Thank you. Maybe connect with both Jean and Aubrey and see if I can, you know. To get this out and that way that'll be kind of helpful for everybody. Especially ramp stuff up. Thank you.
[Milva McDonald]: Ron, you had your hand up.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, just quickly, I just want to take the opportunity to give you some of the thoughts I've had over the holidays. Subcommittee, subcommittee, subcommittee, we can't have enough of those. And they've done an incredible job getting us all together. But as this ship sails in this big ocean, there's a lot of stuff that we have to still accomplish. And the calendar doesn't stop. So what I would suggest, my suggestion is, it's kind of a fun suggestion, is that at our next meeting, each one of us take three minutes to talk about what they've seen in this group over the year and what's important to them as we get to that September moment. Because I fear that there are some major issues that we're just going to be, it's going to be August and we just haven't even talked about. And I'm also, I'll say publicly, I'll also say publicly that I'm kind of dismayed at the reactions we're getting from the, you know, the government in terms of city council and school committee and their lack of involvement. That scares me a little bit. It kind of reminds me of Columbus renaming school, to be perfectly honest.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: But I think we need to just- I think that you really need to, I need to defend the school committee members who- react. Remember, we sent it out just before Christmas or in December. It's a very, very busy time. People going off, people coming back on who are new or, you know, whatever.
[Ron Giovino]: I get your point. I do. But all I know is that we're more successful if we are working together as opposed to presenting in September for the first time. We're supposed to be hearing. I'm getting frustrated to that point of We have an end date, but I have no way that we're going to get to how we're going to get to it with some of the things that we're all anxious to get to. That's my only point.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you, Ron, for bringing that up. And next meeting, I think identifying the major issues is a good idea. I mean, we've already addressed a lot of them, but budget procedures I think is obviously a big one in the city, term limits. And we can talk about that and form subcommittees, decide what we want to, you know, what we want to form subcommittees for. Some things are going to be sort of like administrative procedures, things like that. We'll probably be using a lot of standard language for, but identifying sort of our major issues that we want to really delve into is a good idea. So thank you. Gene.
[Jean Zotter]: For term limits, can we talk about them? Like, I know they're in separate articles, but I think it'd be good to have an overall term limit discussion as opposed to, like, by article. Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes. Yeah, I think that we will do that. And maybe we'll combine it with term lengths. Okay, so our next meeting is on February 1st, and I just want to open up the floor for public participation. Do any members of the public want to speak? I don't see any hands. Okay. In that case, I think we had a really productive meeting. So thank you all. Can I just add one thing?
[Eunice Browne]: Yes. So, we, you know, here we are the 4th of January. We've got just a few more weeks for our survey. I'd like to suggest that we all and I think we have what about 570 responses so far. That's about right. I'd like to 1 of the public is wanting to speak, but I'll just finish quickly. I'd like to suggest that we all make a major push over the next few weeks to everybody that we know that lives in Medford to respond to the survey. I've tried putting it out. you know, just in general to the various groups. I've also tried sending private messages to my friends, you know, with the link. I've also tried putting it on my Facebook feed and tagging everybody in Medford that I know. Anything that you can do that we can do collectively to get that number up there and get more valuable feedback. I think that that should be our major goal for every one of us this month. I noticed when I first made a major push, I went back and looked at the list, which is in our drive. and noticed probably a half a dozen responses within 48 hours after I'd made a major push. So I felt like it made a difference. So I think if you do social media, get it out there. Whatever you do, do it.
[Milva McDonald]: Great. Thank you, Eunice. Paul, I think you should be able to speak. There you go. Yes, for the record, please.
[Paul Garrity]: Hi, my name is Paul Gary. I live in Cedar Road, Medford. I just have one question. In terms of the number of ward representations, and it was directed towards the city council, would that hold? Also true in terms of numbers for the school committee, would that be eight plus three?
[Milva McDonald]: Not necessarily. That's a separate piece that we'll be looking at separately.
[Paul Garrity]: Okay, thank you. My second question is that, I apologize, I've not been able to follow it as closely as I'd like, but I've been to a few of your sessions, and first of all, I want to thank you all for your very hard work. Sometimes unappreciated, but thank you. It appears in listening that there is a strong leaning towards strong mayor, city council is a configuration for the governing body going forward in this proposal. Will there be any discussions that are perhaps already taking place relative to a town manager governing structure? And one of the reasons why is that we do have a professional governing situation on the school side with the superintendent, but here we seem to have more of a political management on the city side. And so I was just wondering if we had a professional with a good understanding of best practices, trends, and, you know, in HR, unionization, you know, professional management, is that in any way, shape, or form off the table?
[Milva McDonald]: has voted to keep a mayor, but all our votes right now are provisional, so I wouldn't say it's completely off the table. We do have a survey, and we have a lot of public feedback, and if we see a huge outcry for that, we could revisit it.
[Paul Garrity]: All right, thank you.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. It was nice to hear from the public.
[Unidentified]: It really is.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's really nice to hear from the public.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes. Thank you. All right. Does somebody want to make a motion to adjourn? I'll make a motion to adjourn.
[Andreottola]: I'll second it.
[Milva McDonald]: All in favor?
[Andreottola]: Aye.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you, everyone. Happy New Year. Happy New Year.
[Unidentified]: Good night, guys.
[Milva McDonald]: Good night.
|
total time: 42.31 minutes total words: 3443 |
total time: 9.64 minutes total words: 910 |
||