[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, so once again, I'm Paulette Van der Kloot. I'm the facilitator of this subcommittee meeting. This subcommittee is a subcommittee of the Medford Charter Review Committee. And the purpose of our particular subcommittee is to consider the organization of the Medford School Committee as it relates to reviewing the charter of the city of Medford. And so I think this is our third subcommittee meeting and tonight we're going to go over some more interview feedback and we're going to make a list of various pros and cons of the different areas and continue our discussion. I think we'll begin with the fact that Phyllis Morrison and I went and had a very nice discussion with the mayor. Did I put that one first? I did. With Mayor Brianna Kern, Mungo Kern. on February 7th. And I'm going to, I sent out the notes today to the committee members, but since everybody doesn't have them, I'm going to read them into the record. And Phyllis, then maybe at the end, if you have any other things you wanted to add, Phyllis and I did collaborate this afternoon, so hopefully I've been inclusive. Just a little background. Can I ask you a question? Yeah.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Would it be, more advantageous to share your screen with the notes and then read them also?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I don't know how to do that, Phyllis.
[Eunice Browne]: Actually, Paulette, I put them all in our shared drive, so I could probably, if I can do it right, pull it up from the shared drive.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, so why don't you see if you can do that? And in the meantime, I'll start. Is that okay?
[Phyllis Morrison]: Have you made Eunice a co-host? I have. Good, then she's okay. She can share the screen once she gets there.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I can figure out how to do it. I'll make you a co-host too. I've got it. Okay, so Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn is at the beginning of her third two-year term. Previously, Brianna served as a member of the Medford City Council. She was first elected in 2001 and served for 18 years, i.e. nine terms, before being elected to mayor in 2001. Mayor Lungo-Koehn greeted us warmly and extended her thanks and appreciation to the whole Charter Review Committee for undertaking this important initiative.
[Maria D'Orsi]: I'm sorry, Paula. Can you make me co-host as well?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Is that Aubrey?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yes.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: OK. I did, and then you went out. So we'll do it again. There you go. OK? And she greeted us warmly. There we go. Now, the funny enough thing is I can't read that at all, so I will continue to read off my paper.
[Eunice Browne]: Aubrey, you have it up? Yes, she does. Okay, never mind. That's better.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: We began our conversation with the question of term limits. Brianna told us she had reviewed the tape of the previous Charter Committee meeting and was happy to see that the committee had voted to recommend term limits for the mayor. She said she would have been happy with either a 12 or 16-year mandate. Her preference for term limits for the mayor's position comes from her frustration in earlier years with the then long-serving mayor. We went on to discuss the term length, and the mayor expressed a favorable opinion regarding the suggestion of a four-year length of term for the mayor's position. It's hard to get a lot done in two years, and the election cycle takes a lot of time and energy. Brianna is a little uncertain how a four-year term would feel, but believes a longer term would be beneficial. As we discussed the various pros and cons, the mayor strongly expressed support for the idea of three-year terms for all office holders. Could three-year terms be possible in Medford? While she did not know the answer, the mayor hoped our committee would further explore this to see if it would be a possibility. If the mayor's term was three years, she suggested that the term limit might be 15 years. Brianna was undecided about term limits for both city council and school committee members. We discussed ward versus at-large representation for the school committee. Some combination might be preferable in ward if wards could be combined and then additional at-large members elected as well. The size of the committee is a consideration. Could meetings become less effective with too many members vying to speak? The mayor reminded us that sometimes it has been challenging to get people to run for school committee due to the large commitment of time. She wouldn't want to discourage people who are interested. On the flip side, she understands the drive for possibly being more inclusive by incorporating ward representation. Would combining wards be a solution? At first, the mayor admitted it was challenging to work all day and then go on to the school committee meetings. However, once she got used to it, she enjoys her role and would definitely want to be on the school committee because she is well-versed in the scope of the needs of our students. Her preference is for the mayor to chair the committee. balance of power. And this was really outside of the school committee issue, but she discussed this, so I wanted to include it. The mayor and several city councilors have been working together to come up with a budget ordinance, which would provide to the city council quarterly budget documentation. The mayor sees this joint agreement as a positive step in trying to set a more positive tone between the council and the mayor's office. Okay, so that's really kind of the summation of our meeting with the mayor. Phyllis, did you want to add anything else?
[Phyllis Morrison]: No, I think as you and I talked, you know, after the meeting and other times, I think that that really encapsulates everything she said. I would like to say that she was very almost excited as we were at one of our last meetings about the possibility of a three-year term. I think that's a pretty clear point of view for a lot of us because the two-year terms are too short because you have to run every, I don't know, can it be possible? Even the mayor's not sure about that, but she did. One of the things I do want to share is that when we talked about three limits, you know, one of the questions that keeps coming up, will that be a presidential year, will it be a NAFTA year, be it this year? But the other point is that she, you know, you know, we can vote whenever we need to vote. We have to look at what's best for the city. And it's nice to know that all of these things are being talked about and discussed so we can get this charter to be most effective for our citizens.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right. I think my my takeaway was along the same lines is that in some ways, you know, I've heard this three year I've thought about the three year I've said to myself, oh, if only we could have three year terms and then sort of feeling like, oh, but it's probably impossible. And there's an inequity between the election cycles. But one of the things that Brianna says is it would be everybody would be having the same inequity. Right. So so she certainly encouraged us to look deeper and further. And, you know, I don't really personally care if Medford is the only city in the Commonwealth who might say, hey, three years is the right length of term. You know, and there are some others, they tend to be towns, they tend to have spring elections. So we certainly, you know, it's really an area of discovery. But anyway, I thought it was a very nice conversation. And it was very exciting to talk to her and have her reflect on both the past and the future. So that's that.
[Phyllis Morrison]: On a personal note for me, it cleared up a lot of things. As someone who doesn't know that much about the school committee in Medford, it was nice to talk to Maren, get her understanding and her information that she shared about the school committee with me also. It was a very, very valuable interview for lots of reasons.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I think that she definitely felt like being on the school committee afforded her the opportunity to know more in depth about the school issues and that that was very, very important for her. Very important. Very important. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Any questions about that interview or about our impressions of the interview? Aubrey or Eunice?
[Eunice Browne]: One question, one thing that stood out to me, a couple of things. First of all, I'm really glad that you were able to do that because I know she was interviewed with regards to the entire charter and her role as mayor. You know, the, the, the entire scope, but I think honing in right on the school committee, I think was I'm really glad that we were able to get that done with her. So, thanks to both of you for for that. I think it was an important perspective. 1 thing that struck me. you know, is, she said, you know, getting people to run for school committee is hard because of the time commitment. And I do remember a year, oh, I don't know, was it five or six elections ago? Paula, you'll, you know, you're nodding, where nobody ran except for the six incumbents. Right. So my question would be is, is the time commitment for the school committee that much different than city council?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: The time commitment for school committee is intense. And you see people perceive that the school committee meets less because they have just two public meetings a month. Just the two formal, while city council meets every Tuesday and school committee meets every Tuesday. every other, twice a month. So it seems like, oh, well, they have two less, but the amount of subcommittee meetings we have. And I mean, so this past weekend, I saw a bunch of the new school committee members at the Medford Family Network Valentine's Day event. And as is the tradition, the elected officials are asked to come and scoop ice cream. And I looked at the new school committee members, and I said, well, how are you doing? It was almost like there were deers in the headlights with their eyes circling around like a cartoon character. And I know that Erica had put out saying, well, I've just spent, this is the end of my 40th hour working on school committee things this month. Now, of course, she's new, and there's an awful lot. Each one of them, in some way or another, expressed to me of saying that it was a lot to start out with. It was very, very time consuming. I see that Nicole Branley, another one of our new school committee members, has just arrived on scene, and she can probably attest to this, but it's a lot. I had, yes. Nicole, is that you? It is, honey. So am I portraying you accurately? No, I think that was quite a good interpretation. Thank you. So anyway, so a lot of what the school committee does is not really understood. There were times many, many, many weeks when four out of five nights I was out doing school committee work. And that might be going to a student production, going to a subcommittee meeting. Nicole and I talked the other day, and she was saying, whoa, there are six subcommittees, and I have to head one of them, and I'm on two other ones. And how do I do? So it is a lot. And when I've tried to encourage other people to run for school committee, sometimes they've looked at me basically and said, do you think I'm crazy? So I just don't want anybody to underestimate the time commitment of school committee members. To our guests, Nia, I was on the school committee, as you can probably tell. So anyway, okay, as we move on. Eunice, you had asked that question about the time commitment. In my 32 years, there was only one. So that was 16 elections. Only one out of 16 had nobody running. On the other hand, I do know that there were times, including where we really sort of had to drum up interest in running for school committee. And that's not been unusual that there are times when, you know, in the end, people end up committing, but sometimes seems a few months ahead of time that there isn't. Depends. Eunice, any other thing? Or Aubrey?
[Eunice Browne]: I think that's it for now until we get to, you know, the larger discussions.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Okay. So next- My only question was about Brianna's suggestion about combining words, but I can save all those kinds of questions for when we have that conversation.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right. I thought when we did the pros and cons that we document that I'm suggesting that that's exactly where we're going to put those things in. OK. That was my vision, so to speak. Next interview, which was an interview that I did with former school superintendent Roy Belson. He and I sat down and chatted for quite a while just for some background information. Roy Belson served as the superintendent of the Medford Public Schools from 1995 to 2018, one of the longest serving superintendents in Massachusetts. Prior to that, he served initially as a substitute, a teacher, a program administrator, and then worked in central administration. Roy grew up in Medford and attended the Medford Public Schools. He continues to live in Medford with his wife, Maxine, who was a teacher. Roy remains interested and involved in educational matters across the state. So the first thing we discussed was really the role of the mayor on the school committee. And Roy gave some background information, which may or may not. There's one key piece which sort of explains why he feels so strongly. So back in the days with ed reform in 1993, the role of the school committee became more established. School committee was responsible for policy. Administration was responsible for operations and personnel, with just a few exceptions. Prior to that, in 1982, Proposition 2 1⁄2 took effect, which meant that the school committee no longer had fiscal autonomy. Instead, the chief executive officer, who at that time was a city manager, would set the bottom line for the school committee, subject to the approval of the city council. The city council could cut the bottom line of the school budget, but not add to the school budget, and that continues to this day. Prior to that, the school committee set their budget number. The first year that two and a half goes into effect, the then city manager cut the school budget substantially by $3.2 million, which would be equivalent to maybe $10 million today, but cut the school department, but not the city side. This had an incredible impact on the Medford public schools for years with a huge number of teacher cuts. Fast forward to today. If the mayor doesn't have a real stake in the school system, which is developed by the mayor's participation at school committee meetings, he feels it's easier for the mayor not to appreciate all the needs of the school system. The mayor's attendance puts the mayor in a public setting twice monthly. In other words, accessible. It's really important for the person who ultimately makes budget decisions to be involved, as involved as possible. Roy thinks that the mayor has a citywide perspective. As the chair, the mayor is able to listen to all the comments from members. As just one of seven, the mayor is not as accountable in his opinion. Also, mayor has a specific role in capital funding proposals, which includes bonding. Also, some school costs and city services, such as health care, trash, et cetera, are funded on the city side. And it's vital that the mayor has a full appreciation of school system needs from the municipal side of government. The school, and now I put this as a direct quote, the school system budget is the largest single budget in the city. So it's vitally important that the mayor be directly involved. Next one, ward or at large. Key to this is how large should the committee be? More members increases the likelihood for longer meetings and possibly greater dissonance. Every member needs to be heard. If ward representation is desired, then maybe combining two wards for the purposes of electing more localized school committee members would make more sense and still allow for some at-large candidates to provide an overall experience for the city. Don't want to discourage school committee candidates who are really interested in our public schools. Overall, Mr. Belson believes that at-large representation has worked well on the school committee in the past and might provide the greatest overall perspective for the public schools. High school and middle schools, he pointed out, are centralized. Three, length of term. No particular preference for length of term. Overall, three years might be preferable if possible. And on the length of term, just as a reminder, the current superintendent, she really had a preference for the longer term. When I asked Roy about that, he said that during his tenure, he was blessed with school committee members who were on, even the shorter serving school committee members tended to be on for a fairly good number of years. So they might be on for six or eight years. and so that he wasn't as impacted. Term limits. Roy says he favors experience. Ultimately, the public has the opportunity to recognize when change is necessary. And fifth, other, and this is a direct quote, constructive compromise must be part of the political process for the overall good of the city. Effective government rests on having well-intentioned people working together and overcoming disagreement to find common ground. He went on to say, you can't legislate this. You have to encourage this through public discourse. And he said, changing the structure does not in and of itself produce a better result. The more important consideration is to ensure that those who run for office and get elected understand that constructive discourse is the best way to make progress. Okay, are there any questions about that?
[Phyllis Morrison]: No, pretty straightforward. Yeah, and it was very interesting to me when I read those notes, how much she and our current mayor seem to agree on a lot of things.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah, it was very, yeah.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, it was great to have this perspective.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, so anyway, so those were the two interviews that took place in the last couple of weeks. Now, we had feedback from two school committee members that I had followed up with. And they are new member Aaron Olapade and Paul Rousseau. And let me just see. Aubrey, which one do you want to put up first?
[Phyllis Morrison]: I have Aaron's ready. I just let him over into the meeting.
[Eunice Browne]: I just did. Hi, Milda.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Okay, so she's muted.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Hi, Melva, we're here and we're up to number three on our agenda. Aubrey is just going to put Aaron's responses up on the screen.
[Milva McDonald]: Great, thank you.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, so Aaron wrote in regards to term length, when it comes to monitoring educational policy and administration, you're going to think, by the way, that I set this all up, but I honestly didn't, because here he is, the next words being a three-year term for school committee members provides a balance between stability and accountability. This length of time gives representatives enough opportunity to become acquainted with the intricacies of education governments, participate in long-term planning, and carry out significant improvements. It also permits leadership continuity, guaranteeing that projects can be pursued over a number of years without being hampered by frequent change. In addition, a three-year term promotes accountability because it forces members to stand for re-election on a regular basis, giving the public a chance to assess their performance and hold them responsible for their choices and actions. This length of time creates a fair balance between stability and responsiveness in the management of the educational system. Lengthening to four years could also be considered an option, but I feel that may be too long. four-year term. First of all, longer terms entail less opportunities for voters to assess and hold elected people accountable for their deeds, which may reduce accountability. Furthermore, four years may deter prospective candidates from entering the race because such a long term may seem daunting or excessively demanding, especially for those with other obligations in their personal professional lives. Longer terms may also make it more difficult for elected officials to respond quickly to shifting priorities and the needs in the community. This is because they may be less willing to change direction or take on new challenges if they feel confident in their position for an extended period of time. Three, wards are at large. Ward representation elections usually help a city council because they guarantee that different geographic sections within the city are fairly represented, enabling council members to properly handle particular local issues and concerns. To guarantee that members prioritize the needs of the entire school district over those of particular neighborhoods, on the other hand, I believe the school committee may continue to implement an at-large election system. This approach promotes a more comprehensive method of educational policymaking and resource allocation that equally serves the interests of all students and families. As our schools within the district are spread across the city, the at-large system emphasizes the importance that not only the elected officials, but all educational personnel are conscious of the needs of different neighborhoods and how that presents in the academic day for all age groups. and four, mayor's chair. I do not oppose the mayor being on the committee, nor do I necessarily oppose them being a voting member, but having another chairperson may offer benefits that are not currently present with the current system. The mayor should continue to prioritize overseeing the city as a whole and resolving a wide range of municipal issues, even though they may have a stake in the city school's performance. Ensuring that the school committee has an independent chair promotes fairness, accountability, and openness in the decision-making processes of the educational system. Five, term limits. Ultimately, yes, but I think the term limit question should be addressed for each respective position in our city's government. The limit a mayor has to govern should be weighed differently than city council member, and the same is true for the school committee. I say this because the expectations and benchmarks for a successful term will differ greatly between each position. What those term limits are is hard to say at this time, but I believe that it should be explored further, okay? So that's our new member and he delved deep into many of his answers. Any thoughts or should we move on to Paul's? Okay, next one is Paul Rousseau. Now, Paul, it just gave me some short answers. Paul has previously been interviewed by the charter committee. So this was just specifically, I had just asked him a couple of quick questions and said, you know, short answers was fine. So in response to what is your ideal term for school committee term? two, three, if we could do it, which is questionable, or four years, he said four or three. Would a four-year term have lessened your willingness to run initially? Is it too daunting? His answer to that was no, that it would be great. When asked wards or at large for the school committee, Paul said all at large. And do you favor the mayor being the chair of the school committee? He says not chair and not on the committee at all. Do you favor term limits? He says, no, I've seen this in action in Newton and don't think it is a good idea. As you know, the learning curve is very steep. The knowledge required for this job could easily take a decade to acquire. Let the voters decide when someone is done serving the community or the member is done.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, 1, interesting thing that he said there in regards to the. I think it was the 4 year and the 3 year is just not all of us at once. So, was he referring there to staggered terms?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: He would be returning. Yes, that's what he would be referring to. And staggered terms is not something that we have delved into. Some communities do have staggered terms. Right now I'm having a hard enough time trying to figure out the length of term. And so the staggered terms is just one level of complexity that we would need to think about. For a long time, I was thinking that staggered terms was in fact a very important thing, but I've actually kind of moved off of that personally only because it's, as I look at it historically, there has always been a majority of members who have continued on. so in any of our elections. We've never been left with just one person, but staggered terms is definitely something we need to now throw into the consideration.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I know when we met with the, when we had the meeting for the Medford Public Schools and the assistant superintendent was there, we did talk about staggered terms at that time because someone had said that the superintendent of schools talked about staggered terms too. So that has come up before too. We just didn't do anything further with it. We just talked, it was just brought to the attention of people and we kind of moved from it.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: They countered to staggered terms from, is one of the things that the superintendent, Dr. Marice Edouard-Vincent was saying is that she didn't want to have to go through the education process every time. So now let's say you have four year terms, but you're staggering them. That still means that every two years, you have the potential for having to re-educate that member. So again, just another level of complication.
[Phyllis Morrison]: But it was also stated that there would be some continuance of people on the board that didn't have to be initiated. Right.
[Eunice Browne]: Right. I also think the issue, I'm not sure where I sit with staggered terms yet I, you know, see ups and downs to it. Yeah, I'm also thinking of sort of the big picture because that would apply to. City council discussion as well, and I think we touched on that. Maybe last week, but. Going back to the fact that. Whatever we come up with for this charter as a whole. We make our decisions and then they have to go to the city council to be blessed and then the mayor to be blessed. And then the state to be blessed and then it goes to a vote and. as it is, we're creating a whole new thing here, you know, versus making tweaks, um, which is what, you know, we voted early on that we would just create a new charter. So I'm kind of wondering, and I think, you know, Ron said this last week, um, you know, we decided with city council to go to ward representation. And then we were talking about other things like the term lengths and the term limits. if we put too much change in there, you know, there's enough change as it is. If we put too much in there from the get go, then it, you know, that's a whole lot for all of those layers to approve. I'm almost wondering if we make some of these big decisions and then it puts something in the charter and this is kind of a holistic thing, but, then let the charter live for five years, see how it goes, and have some group review it in five years or six years or something, and see how it's going, and make some tweaks to it, and then have it reviewed every 10 years. Am I making sense?
[Phyllis Morrison]: But we're just making recommendations. These would be our recommendations based on the survey, based on information from the interviews, from the listening sessions that we've all done. So ours are just recommendations. And like you said, Eunice, they have to then be passed on for further approval and all that too, so. I think one of the things that I'm becoming more and more increasingly aware of and attentive to is that what is the best for the citizens? And one of the things that someone just said, this might become too confusing. I think it was you, Eunice, that just said it. It might become too confusing. And I think one of the things we're trying not to do is make it confusing. So that's a good point to keep in mind also. It's a very good point to keep in mind.
[Eunice Browne]: We're going from zero to 1,000 in 30 seconds.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right. That's certainly one of the challenges for our subcommittee, which we're only going to be able to work out when we come back as a whole. Because as we talk about each one of these things, they have to also make sense with each other. Yeah, they do. Which is certainly challenging.
[Phyllis Morrison]: One of the things too is people might say when this is all said and done if things get approved the way. Why is city council only a two year term why is the school committee for you know there'll be lots of that going through so it's. It's a daunting task, but we'll get to it. Right.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right. But on the other hand, what if we made everybody three?
[Phyllis Morrison]: Wouldn't that be grand? I think that's a sweet number. Yes, that's right.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. So I mean, you know, again, so let's let's let's take a look and create our pros and cons working documents. Now, I know to a large extent there's going to be some, you know, we've already talked about these things, but we just want to write them down from the school committee perspective. So Aubrey, can you do that? Okay. So here's our ward or at large. Aubrey, can you make that a little bigger?
[Eunice Browne]: Possibly? For the blind among us? The old and the blind?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So, and I think, Aubrey, what we have to do is we have to divide it up. So the first one would be ward, and then the second one, and then separate it so that we have, yeah. Right. Okay. And my note there was said, one of the questions was the number of meetings. So what's the biggest pro for having a ward? Yeah, you don't need to put that separately, Aubrey, that's okay. What's the biggest pro for having a ward? Let's rattle off some pros to ward representation.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Well, each ward would have a voice. They'd have a voice for their own ward. Individual wards would have their own representative. Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I mean, it seems that, you know, if you look at the, oh, there's run run. Yeah. Awesome. If you look at the current makeup of our school committee right now. The West Medford area, which I think is, I forget which two wards those are. I should have them committed to memory by now. But basically, it's the work school area. I think it's the temple and maybe the work school are lopsided represented. versus other areas of the city. So I think going to ward representation, as you said, would ensure that we have at least one person because right now- Okay.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I think what we should say is, we don't need to say because we've discussed that. That would be for art at large, Aubrey. Each board would have a voice. I think another pro would be may encourage underrepresented areas or people, I don't know, underrepresented groups to step to run for office, to run for school committee. Okay, does that sound okay, guys?
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. Okay, we also provide consistency since that's what we decided on. For city council was to do the, well, for city council, we're doing the hybrid. So I wonder. Should we be considering hybrid for this too?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So, we can put hybrid in in for right there where. Yep. Okay. provide consistency. One of the other things we talked about with Ward is less expensive to run, less expensive to run a campaign. Okay.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Would the at-large have a greater span of representation for the whole city?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Say that again, Phyllis, please.
[Phyllis Morrison]: At large, you would have input from, I mean, the way I've come to know this is that some of our wards don't have schools, so they're underrepresented. What Eunice was talking about, that some of the wards are overrepresented, I think at large may give us a more global understanding of all the different schools and the needs of all the students in all the different areas. I'm a little bit, concerned that the wards that have schools in them may have more attention to them than the wards that don't. And that may not be the case at all. It may not be.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right. So a con for a ward would be may show preference for. Right. For their own ward. Yeah. Absolutely. For the school within a ward. Yeah. For the school within a ward. Yeah. Definitely. Okay. Another con to wards is there may be wards where no one is particularly interested in running. Yes, exactly.
[Phyllis Morrison]: We have wards on other committees that we can't get anyone to participate in. Other committees in the city.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Would it be, when you've got a ward and the person who's on it is your neighbor, is it more difficult to run against someone who is a ward representative? When you run at large, it never feels like you're running against a particular person. It feels more that you're all running for the same office, but it's not a head-on-head. fight, so to speak. I'm wondering if you run by ward, whether it feels more targeted.
[Phyllis Morrison]: And that may limit people, and that might be a hindrance to some people running.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Phyllis Morrison]: It may be a hindrance.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. I wonder if we can I mean, we, we did an extensive, um, you know, and Ron can certainly attest and I think Aubrey too, um, a whole lot of. You know, work on, um, you know, what representation on the city council side and. You know, I suspect that a lot of. The things that we came up with there, the pros and cons for the ward, the at-large, and the hybrid are pretty applicable here. And I think we're definitely hitting on some of them.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And after we develop this, I mean, this is our just initial putting it down on paper. We can review it. We can go back and look at that and see if there's anything we want to add. And if there's two as well. And also then highlight the ones that are particularly important consideration for school committee. Right. So. Oh, sorry, I can't see it. Who's got their Oh, Melva.
[Milva McDonald]: It's me. Sorry. I just wanted to say that I, I was unable to be at your last meeting, but I watched it and There was a woman who spoke in favor of ward representation who made, I thought, a lot of points that maybe, and I won't necessarily be able to reiterate them as articulately as she did, but does any, do you all remember?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, she was a former principal of the Curtis Tufts School, as well as she lives in Medford and is studying educational policy.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, maybe some of her points could be included in here, that's all.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: she felt strongly that it would have been helpful to have ward representation for her particular school so she had a point person to go. Yep.
[Milva McDonald]: Right. And also, I guess, would you say even if you don't have a school in your district, in your ward, say, because there's not a school in every single ward, right? Your kids are still going to a school. So there's still people in every ward who have kids in the schools. So, you know, I don't know how that exactly fits into it, but.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, we'll have to go back and she wrote me a follow up email actually, and I will make sure that the comments then are aligned because I thought she had some excellent feedback for us. Good. OK. So at large, a con would be elections are expensive. At large, elections are
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. And much more work. Much more work to campaign.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Time intensive, yeah, labor, time intensive, yeah, whatever. Yeah.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: It's harder to get your name recognition across the city. Yeah. At large, a pro would be doesn't limit somebody, doesn't limit a person who is deeply interested in education from running because of a geographic boundary. That would be a pro.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Right. That is a pro.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah.
[Phyllis Morrison]: from seeking, yeah, yeah, yeah.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, I'd like to go.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I also think that at large, if people in a ward aren't comfortable with their ward representative, they could seek out an at large representative of the school community, committee, excuse me. I think that sometimes that happens in places that people don't necessarily either feel comfortable or don't think that maybe in their understanding that their school community person is doing or being the voice for them that they want. And they may feel like they have a better avenue with an at-large member.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So in my experience, if a person was concerned about a topic, in my experience, that we received, we all received letters from everyone. You know, that it wasn't so, that as at large representatives.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Right, but that's your experience. And we may not have heard from people because they felt like they couldn't. Okay.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I think there were times that someone had a particular interest in a particular school committee member for sure, but it wasn't geographic. Okay, any more pros and cons in these two areas? Let's just then skip to the hybrid. And we have to talk numbers a little bit, okay? So, If we were doing a ward based on the way the city council, it would be eight ward. Possibly plus the mayor. Possibly plus the mayor. Then what about other at large?
[Phyllis Morrison]: And what about combining wards? Is that something that we're going to put in here also?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, I think we should. I think when we talk about hybrid, that's one of the hybrid things that we want to consider. So in terms of if we go back up to the eight, so it's a minimum of nine. Okay, but that as up here at the top, just wards, here there's no at-large members. They're all wards. So I would put as a con, for me a con would be the size of the school committee may be unwieldy with eight Ward representatives, plus possibly some at large.
[Phyllis Morrison]: And maybe- And if we had two, we'd have 11 people on the school committee with the mayor. It's a lot. It's a lot. That's a lot. Right.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And the con of having so many people is on the school committee, and this is true with the city council, is that everybody needs their time to speak. Right. And you're trying to build consensus as it is, and now you're building consensus with even more people.
[Eunice Browne]: Yep. And when you get to that campaign time, you get a whole lot of grandstanding.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: You think? Yeah. So that's something. OK, so let's go down to hybrid. Milva had her hand up. Oh, sorry, Milva.
[Milva McDonald]: That's OK. I just want to say, regarding combining boards, It's very uncommon, but an example to look at would be Lowell. It's the only one I actually know of. There may be others, but the only one I know of that does combine wards, and I think we've discussed in past meetings that Lowell switched to ward representation for both city council and school committee based on a Voting Rights Act lawsuit as part of a settlement. They landed with eight ward city councilors and three at large, but their school committee has seven members. What they did for their school committee was they combined wards. So they have four ward representatives, each ward representative covers two wards, and they have two at large and one and the seventh is the mayor. So that's a model that is something that you all could look at if you're seriously considering the combining wards. Lowell would be where to look. The only other thing I would say about the combining wards is I spoke to the city clerk in Lowell, and combining wards is not a simple process, and they actually hired a consultant. Of course, they had to do this as their settlement for their lawsuit. In order to not increase the size of the school committee, as you guys are discussing, they combined the wards, but they hired a consultant because they had to make sure that the ward, because of all the laws about wards, they couldn't just decide, oh, we're going to combine these two and these two and these two. They had to make sure that the parameters were within state law. They have to be contiguous. There's population issues, et cetera. So that's another thing to consider in the mix when you're considering combining wards. You want to see those things.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I think, though, that I think that it's important for us that we do at least put it forth.
[Milva McDonald]: You mean to the whole committee?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. And if the committee decided to ultimately recommend it, we would say in our final report that part of our recommendation would be that the city hire, you know, that the city hire a consultant to make sure that the wards are combined legally, because if you're going to run it by the state house, then they're going to have to know that that's kosher.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right. Yes, it complicates it, but I just think we need to, I think we need to consider it. I think, Aubrey, if you could take the combining wards block and move it up to the hybrid, service and explanation in that block, that would be good.
[Maria D'Orsi]: It is. That's just a page.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. Oh, I see. Okay. So that's all part.
[Eunice Browne]: I think one of the pros to hybrid, and I think this goes back to where it's up. The consistency part is up in the ward section. I think it actually probably belongs in the hybrid section. If we're going to hybrid for the city council, it would provide consistency to the community to know that both of their bodies of government are the same, with the exception of the mayor possibly sitting on the school committee, which the jury's still out on. But if we had the hybrid for both, I think there would be a little less confusion for the public.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, except the one complication is when we're talking about school committee, we are talking about combining wards, which we're not talking about in. Yeah. Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Just to be clear, Lowell did not combine wards for city council. They only combined wards for school committee.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. But there is consistency, Eunice, that is correct in terms of offering some ward-based representation. Okay. Besides keeping to a manageable size, a pro for a hybrid would be provides both ward representation and at-large representation. Right? I mean, I know it's obvious, but. Okay, anything else people want to add? Is there any, besides consultancy, what else would, what would be a negative to a hybrid?
[Eunice Browne]: I mean, you're increasing, you know, the size. You know, right now there are six plus the mayor is seven. If we went to any sort of hybrid, we're likely increasing the size.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, not if you did the combined wards. Yeah, that's right.
[Phyllis Morrison]: And I'd rather combine the wards and have at least two at large. Because if we combine the wards, we're at four. Right? Two at large.
[Eunice Browne]: Four wards. Yeah. Plus two at large plus the mayor. Yeah. Then we're back to seven.
[Phyllis Morrison]: We're back to seven. I think seven is far more manageable than nine or 11. And manageable by mean, you know, people being able to speak, there being some, you know, I think the larger the number, it's not as effective. It's unwieldy. Yes. That's the word I'm looking for, Paulette. You already used it.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. Okay. So what other, is there any other cons to the hybrid.
[Milva McDonald]: Combining wards is a complicated matter that, you know, complicated and it brings in legal questions. Complicated issue, yeah. And it could also incur an expense because if the city has to hire consultants.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And another con is our citizens are not used to it. So it's something new.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I'm not familiar with this.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm just throwing, I'm just thinking out loud, and I don't even know if this would be a con, but for the elections department, the combining wards because they have to make ballots for, so they would have to make ballots for every ward. If the city council was not combined wards, then they would, yeah, I mean, I guess it wouldn't be that hard because then the school, just two each, like, let's say, theoretically, if one and two were combined, then both of those ballots would just have the same candidates for school committee, I guess. Yeah, I guess that's not that big of a deal now that I think about it.
[Eunice Browne]: We didn't have any input from what, I know she's gone now, but we didn't have any input at all from Melissa Ripley, did we Melva?
[Milva McDonald]: No.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, didn't think so. Because I mean, what you're just referring to, that's something that would probably come from that office. She was very hesitant to talk.
[Milva McDonald]: No point. But, you know, when we interviewed the city clerk who used to work in the elections department, practicality issues, you know, were on his mind. So something like this, yeah. This might not be that big of an issue. I mean, he was more, you know, talking about the three-year terms and the staggered terms.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: which kind of gets to us to the next. Okay, so let's leave this right now as it is, and let's go to the length of term issue.
[Maria D'Orsi]: I'll just add accessibility to the hybrid, because we're thinking it would be maybe a little bit cheaper and a little bit more accessible for folks. Okay, great.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Any others, by the way, either? I don't see any other hands up from our Zoom user or? Nia, I don't know if you have any questions.
[SPEAKER_02]: No, I don't have any questions, but it's very interesting.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Oh, good.
[Eunice Browne]: Is Ron still with us, or did he get blown away into the ocean? I don't see him.
[Phyllis Morrison]: No, he's not on.
[Eunice Browne]: OK, length of term. Might have landed in the Nantucket Sound by now.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I think we need to divide this into two year, four year, three year. Okay, so for the two years, we've discussed this.
[Phyllis Morrison]: As a pro, it may be people may be more willing to commit the two years.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Eunice Browne]: Yep. Yep. It allows the community to remove an ineffective member more quickly.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: All right, just in general gives voters more agency, yeah.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Our community is used to this right now?
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yep.
[Eunice Browne]: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've kept city council at two years, so it's consistency with our other branch of government.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: OK, that's good. OK. So cons would be as elected officials are always running. Yeah. It's expensive as a yeah. Expensive, and when I mean expensive, expensive for the candidate. Right.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. They don't seem they don't seem to get any traction.
[Milva McDonald]: What do you mean? Long-term projects? You're talking about like long-term projects?
[Eunice Browne]: In terms of long-term projects, in terms, you know, both, you know, their personal pet projects as well as, you know, district-wide projects.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah, another issue I think they might have on a two-year term is I'm not really sure that in that amount of time where you're maybe attentive to the issues of the school and the students, and then the next year you're running, I'm not sure how much they can immerse themselves in understanding the day-to-day operation, not the day-to-day, but how the schools should run effectively.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I think the learning curve is steep. Yeah, personally, I always say it takes at least 3 years to know what you're doing, but that's my personal opinion.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I think that's the general rule of thumb almost in any job. The 1st year is just trying to figure things out. The 2nd year, you get your number. The 3rd year, you make changes.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. I think when we get the less traction long-term projects, I really want to look at it from the superintendent's point of view when she told us difficult to manage. Yeah, there were too many transitional things. And plan long-term. objectives with ever-changing membership? Yeah. Okay. Those are our very main points. Let's go to four years. And if anybody wants, you know, remembers something, wants to skip back, this is just to get something on paper, okay?
[Eunice Browne]: For you, it's definitely the preference of the superintendent.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah. Well, they'd be fully invested by then and fully informed and fully vested by then, I think.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Eunice Browne]: To go over to the cons on that grouping, we're stuck for four years with an ineffective member. Right. There might be burnout on the part of the member. Yeah. Candidates may not want to commit to four years.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, we heard that. Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Phyllis Morrison]: So we may have a decline of people who want to run, but there may not be interest. Yeah.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. I would think a pro for four years, although, well, I don't know. Let me talk this out for a minute.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Well, less elections, less money spent on campaigns. Fewer elections.
[Eunice Browne]: I mean, once this charter goes into, it'll be a while before this charter goes into effect, but we're sort of on the, we're on the brink of a major building project right now, you know, and maybe there'll be another type of, you know, building project. So I think to have consistency like that through, you know, a major impactful What's the word I want? Project, I guess, would be helpful.
[Phyllis Morrison]: They could really see some projects from start to finish, too.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Or educational initiatives. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, great. All right. Okay, so three years. Pro to be the sweet spot. Yep.
[Phyllis Morrison]: You know, I think we could engage people and, you know, I think the three year term. allows for more investiture on the part of the member. They have that first initial year, they have the second year to dig in, and maybe in the third year they're campaigning, but at least they have more understanding, more knowledge, and they can make a good decision about whether they would invest again in another three years, you know, invest another three years in this. I think three years seems to be a very like, like, like Eunice said, we called it the sweet spot. And it seems to be just the right fit. Like someone said at one of our meetings, like the three bears. Yeah. Goldilocks. That's it. That's it. Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: I totally understand, and I get the sweet spot. The only problem is it's not the sweet spot, or it's basically a nightmare for the elections department. I mean. Well, that's the other thing. That's a con. Oh, yeah, I know. But I mean, and it's a big one. It's a huge one.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Well, everyone seems to like the idea. A lot of people seem to like the idea, Mildred, of three years.
[Milva McDonald]: I totally get it.
[Phyllis Morrison]: For a lot of various positive reasons, you know.
[Milva McDonald]: I totally get it. But you've got to think about it basically means... I have. I mean, would we be having elections? Because if you have a four-year mayoral term, when are these elections going to be? And we would have to have elections on off years.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Wait, I think that what we're saying, if we were suggesting the three-year, is we are saying in our discussions, three years for everybody. Three-year mayor, three-year city council.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. Okay, so you would propose that.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, we would propose that. We certainly wouldn't propose three years for one and- No, not for the others. Yeah, it would have to be consistent.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, off year elections would still be an issue, so.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So far, because some of this happened before I joined the committee, have we talked to, how much discussion, and I know that it was sort of a complicated election, this past election, who have we talked to about this? And what feedback, where are we getting through? I don't wanna discount the possibility of this just because someone thinks it might be difficult. Because when I talk to people about this now, I see them kind of light up, say, yes, three years would be perfect. So part of the question is really trying to understand what are the logistic difficulties and are they really so great that they overcome our potential for suggesting this?
[Milva McDonald]: I think what you've got to do is you've got to find another city that does it and maybe talk to them. I haven't been successful in doing that. There are some towns that do it. They have elections in the spring. But they don't conflict with state and federal elections.
[Phyllis Morrison]: We brought that up at another meeting. We had two members, and that was when I, yeah, yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: But if you guys find a city and or talk to our elections department or some other elections official and find out exactly how it would work, that would be great.
[Eunice Browne]: Is there anything on that comparables list that you gave us a while back?
[Milva McDonald]: There are some communities that have three-year terms. I believe, you know, that they're towns. So, you know, but it doesn't mean there isn't one. I'll have to go back again. I'm pretty sure the Collins Center wasn't able to provide a city that had it, but I'll double check my message from them about three-year terms while you guys are talking. Keep going. Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: What I'm also curious about regarding All of these things that are showing up now on our little chart here is what kind of results do we have from the surveys? What kind of results do we have from or feedback from the surveys regarding school committee Because and I know we're going to get, you know, a survey, you know, data dump on Thursday night from David. Darn sorry.
[Milva McDonald]: I tried to put something in the chat and it said it was too long. Keep going. Sorry.
[Eunice Browne]: You know, I know we're going to get a data dump from David on Thursday night, which will be great. But I think, you know, some of the things that, you know. You know, some of the feedback from, you know, the various interviews. So be interesting to see. what's out there, what people are thinking. And the other thing that I also wonder about, especially in regards to all this, is have we been able to or could we sit down with George Scarpelli and John Falco, who have sat on both bodies, and get some of their input? I think that would be pretty valuable.
[Milva McDonald]: I just put into the chat. Oh, sorry. I just want to say that the information we got from the call-in center when I asked them about three-year terms and staggered terms, I just put it in the chat.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I certainly don't want to abbreviate our conversations, but we have about 12 minutes left in the meeting, and we have some ways to go here.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, so my Zoom just went away. I have to find it again. Here we are.
[Eunice Browne]: I do that all the time.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, well, okay. Yeah, so let's try and get through these. Okay, now I've got the notes, but I don't have the...
[Phyllis Morrison]: Okay, there's the chart. Okay. You're doing a great job with this.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Term limit. Pros new and fresh perspective. Okay. Pros term limit.
[Phyllis Morrison]: What are we proposing for term limit?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: We're not, we haven't. Okay, thank you. Term limit, yes. Pro... For no, it would be allows the voters to decide, would be the...
[Eunice Browne]: I think a reason for a yes. Well, I guess it goes with the new fresh perspective, but it doesn't allow incumbents to get too complacent.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, that suggests that incumbents by their nature are complacent and I would disagree with that. So you can put a question mark next to it. I mean, I'd be okay if you, but I'm not accepting it as a statement of fact.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay. It's an opinion.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. Kristen Glyona in the chat says, can you lose institutional knowledge?
[Phyllis Morrison]: Con, that's a con, C-O-N. You can lose institutional knowledge. I can't.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. Yeah, I do. Or yeah, lose institutional knowledge. That's a great point.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Lose, yeah. Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: I guess I would wonder also about the pool of candidates. You know, you would need to know that there would be enough people that would step up and run. I don't think it's been a problem in the past, and it wasn't a problem in this past election, although there was murmurings that it might be.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So there were people who were definitely encouraged by others because there was concern that there wouldn't be enough. uh candidates and there's certainly uh we talked before you came on milva that we had an election where uh we had there were no there was nobody running against the incumbents um yep yeah yep okay so just in terms of time which has sprung before us. What time is it now? 8.22. So let's do the role of mayor. This is one of the more controversial areas, actually, between all the people we've talked to. Yeah. I've seen a lot of differences of opinion. So as a participant, For chair and participant, both of it allows mayor in-depth knowledge. Right. Of the workings, of the needs, sorry, I think of the needs of the school system.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I think it also keeps about the successes of the school system too.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. Also, the school budget is the largest proportion of the budget, of the overall budget. Of the city budget, yeah. Yeah, proportion of the city budget. Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: I thought Superintendent Belson's comments on this were extremely helpful.
[Eunice Browne]: I agree. Yep. It gives the mayor guaranteed visibility twice a month.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Phyllis Morrison]: And he was in that role a long time. I thought his input was quite valuable.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. And as a school committee, as a member, it ensures that you have an opportunity to see the mayor in person. at school committee meetings, which allows for those discussions, those very important discussions.
[Eunice Browne]: I think it allows, because of her knowledge across the city, she's able to have the, you know, the holistic view of how everything fits together. From a budgeting standpoint, a staffing standpoint, just basically how the city operates as a whole.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Now, when we get to having the cons of having the mayor, I think there may be a perception that this gives the mayor too much power.
[Milva McDonald]: I get that and I've heard that, but I guess for me, it would be helpful if we could actually be more specific about what that means. What is this specific power that is a concern?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, we've just, I think it's a little hard to say because Milva, all along, people have been saying, oh, the mayor has too much power. The mayor has too much power. Yeah, I know. When we're talking about city council. So that's why I say a perception.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm not saying that. I agree. I just feel like for us, it could be helpful to sort of have understand what what is this too much power? What what what exactly would we be trying to counter if we if we were trying to counter that?
[Phyllis Morrison]: There's something in the Kristen put something in the chat can have an equal vote braces not be the chairperson. I'm not sure how that that vote breaks down. Kristen, could you Are you able to speak up and give a little bit? Yeah, that's how it is in every book. Like for instance, does our mayor have an equal vote or does she have an override? I'm not sure. So she already has an equal vote. I believe it's equal, but- That's what I think it is too, Milva. So it wouldn't matter whether she was the chairperson or not, I'm not sure.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, every place that I've looked at. I mean, there are some places that have the mayor be at the meetings, but she doesn't have a vote. Oh, yeah. So no, there's no override. The mayor doesn't get to override.
[Eunice Browne]: Can you allow Kristen to unmute?
[Phyllis Morrison]: She can't unmute herself. I don't know if I... I...
[Milva McDonald]: Is there a thing that says ask to unmute? Yeah. That's what you have to click.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, but I don't know where that is. I saw it before.
[Milva McDonald]: It's on her square, maybe, on that little three-dot menu. Probably up in the upper right-hand corner.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Oh, I don't have that up because I have the... Because you're sharing screen. Can we just write her a message and say, please unmute?
[Eunice Browne]: Wait a minute, maybe, can you... She says she can't unmute. Okay, I think I did it for her.
[AfWQKXpwhx4_SPEAKER_11]: Yeah. Hi, everybody. I was like, what's wrong with me? Why can't I do this? I just, in terms of perception, it might help if she's not viewed as the chair, but has a seat open to her to join maybe as she needs to. Might be more of a sense of equality versus leadership role.
[Eunice Browne]: So you think it's more optics than anything else?
[AfWQKXpwhx4_SPEAKER_11]: Yes, and. It's been a little controversial in Everett. The mayor just joined our school committee as a voting member a few years ago. You know, he's not always there. He seems to be there. He pops in when he needs to sway, maybe. But he doesn't always have to be there. I watched Brianna get burnt out over the pandemic. She was in every meeting everywhere. And I don't know that that's beneficial to us either.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: But on the other hand, Kristen, we talked to Brianna directly about this and she said she preferred to be the chair. Oh, she did. And part of that is because when you're the chair, you are organizing the discussion, but you're not on point to add to this discussion.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right. It's more when you're the chair. And I certainly had opportunities over time when I was the vice chair to run the meetings. When you're the chair, you're you're worrying about controlling the meeting, the flow, but you're not worrying about what salient point you have to add to the discussion. When you're a member, you have to worry about that salient point. And sometimes the mayor doesn't want to Getting the salient points, she's gathering the information. So, you know, that's during, I would say, Kristen, during COVID. Everybody was burnt out. Of course the mayor was burnt out. We slogged through so many meetings. It was unbearably difficult. And so you can't, you can't use that. We asked her very specifically about that and she said, okay, good.
[Phyllis Morrison]: And we just met with her the other night, Kristen. So that's very, very current information.
[Milva McDonald]: Paulette, that point you just made though, is a very interesting one. that, you know, the chair is less of a participant in discussion and more of an overseer, and that, I think that could be a plus for keeping the mayor as chairperson. But I don't know, because this perception of power, like, what is the power of the chair to run the meetings, right? I mean...
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: One of the things Kristen just said is about the mayor in Everett is sometimes he comes and he drops in. Well, when our mayors, and I'm going to go across the board to the last three that I've worked with directly, because their chair, they have to show up. And sure, they might take a meeting off now and then when they have a conflict, but by and large, the fact of the matter is they're there. While I'm afraid that if they're just a participant, they, you know, I'm not talking about Brianna or Stephanie or Michael, I'm talking about theoretical of future, that it just doesn't put the pressure on them to attend. And I want them there. I mean, that's, you know, So now back to our, we're closing down on time. It's now 8.32. Let's go back to our, Aubrey, can you go back to the page? Thank you, Aubrey.
[Eunice Browne]: I would say a con being the chair is that because she's running the meetings, she's, you know, organizing the agenda, she's, you know, doing a whole lot of stuff that it's adding to her already overflowing plate. And perhaps when she can't do stuff, she's delegating to the superintendent in her stead, who already also has an overflowing plate.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, actually, she she also would be delegating to the vice chair.
[Eunice Browne]: Right. Okay. Okay. And I'll just add, I just happened to check my email. Ron has emailed all of us. If you'd like me to read it out to you. My apologies, but we have a complete blackout here. Oh, as I said, he's probably in the near Tuckett sound by now. I'm not sure if you'll even get this email. I just wanted to give you my quick opinion on what I remember. First, after the last meeting and citizen input, I 100% support ward representation for the school committee. I use the exact same criteria we use to approve the ward rep for city council. I think three-year terms is a huge mistake, and in the city not known for... Christmas voting habits? Yeah. I'm not quite sure what he's getting at there, but the election would be confusing and isolated. I support two-year terms. I think four is too much. No limit on the amount of terms. I still can't get over that Christmas voting.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I think he means I don't think the mayor, not the make, should be shared.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I think the mayor must be on the committee as the mayor is fully responsible for policies and procedures. He's in a blackout. What can you do? I do not think.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: Mayor should be chair. I do not think the mayor should be chair. It takes time away from her other role, and the school committee would probably be run better with someone different. That's all I have, nothing I can do. Good luck tonight.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I think we needed that little respite there, and a happy one too, yeah. Ron gets extra points for tonight. Ron and Bruce too. Yeah.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: All right. Guys, it's now 8.34, it's getting close to bedtime. Yeah, yeah, past mine. I think that we've made a significant, you know, significant headway on this and I think that now we're going to leave it and
[Phyllis Morrison]: Paula, can we introduce Milva to Naya? Milva is the chair of the whole charter study. Can you introduce yourself to Milva? I don't know if Aubrey was on when you first came on too, so if you could, that'd be great.
[SPEAKER_02]: I'm Naya Plinton. I'm a journalist at Northeastern University. I'm a student, sophomore. And basically, we have an assignment that I'm doing, we're going to public meetings. And I thought it would be interesting to come to this one. So it's been great hearing what you all have to say. It's very interesting. And you guys seem very dedicated to like, everything like you guys covered a lot of things um also uh phyllis and colette yeah if you could it would be super helpful if you could send me your um email and phone number because i have to include it in my assignment it's okay if you're not comfortable but my professor um i'm gonna type mine in the chat right now do you have access to the chat okay yes i do i might as well my email okay
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: OK, I just sent you mine in the chat.
[Milva McDonald]: We have a full committee meeting on Thursday if you're interested in coming again. But you probably have enough to fulfill your assignment.
[SPEAKER_02]: Actually, I will send one of my classmates, most likely, because I do have enough to fulfill my assignment. But some people have been having trouble finding meetings because, obviously, the storm kind of moved everyone's.
[Milva McDonald]: Same length, same length, 630 to eight.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I mean, if you, for a little bit of context, this is a subcommittee of a larger committee of 11, where we are reviewing and recreating or creating Medford's city charter, which is its blueprint of government. And we have been meeting Since December of 2022. So, oh, my gosh. And we've had surveys.
[Phyllis Morrison]: We've had public meetings. We've had listening sessions. We've had all sorts of things going on.
[SPEAKER_02]: It sounds like you guys are definitely keeping busy. Yes.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Nia, one thing which I've been moaned recently and often is how difficult it is that we don't have local press anymore. And so it used to be we had two papers covering stories about issues happening in Medford. And so something like this would be better known to our citizenship. And it's a real sad thing.
[SPEAKER_02]: for us older people. I read an article recently that's on the up and up. Local journalism is making a big comeback. Especially students that are my age, I'm 20, there's a lot of people interested in local journalism and it's making a comeback actually because it's more compatible with social media than a lot of big media outlets and people tend to trust local news more. It is making a comeback.
[Eunice Browne]: That's good. Prior to this meeting, and I'm sorry I'm taking up the time, but just two seconds. Prior to this meeting, a subcommittee of our city council met the resident engagement standing committee. The topic was, improving citizen engagement, and they had a slide deck of different ways that they were going to try to engage better with the community. that might be something that you might be interested in. Zach Bares is the president of our city council. And if you go to the city of Medford website and click on the city council tab, you'll find all of our city councilors there with their contact information, subcommittees, meetings, and so forth. You might wanna take a look through that.
[SPEAKER_02]: I definitely will. Thank you so much. Also. Thank you. So nice to meet you. And I hope you come back.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Thank you. Thank you guys to have you.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, guys, back to our meeting. Great. Great to have you. We, we're going to go on to. So number five held from the January meeting, we're going to hold it again. And going forth next meeting, I think there are things I still have to do some outreach to other people who were former school committee meetings, and I'll hopefully get to that this time. Eunice, you had suggested That this subcommittee meeting look back on the earlier charter.
[Eunice Browne]: What are they called? Yeah, we got 2 things that Melvin shared with us way back. early at the beginning, a generic charter framework, which was sort of bare bones, but about 10 sections. The charter is typically about 10 articles, or 10 articles, and then subsections in each article. There's an article that is school committee, and then article four. Legislative and it's subsections at executive elections, finances, et cetera. And then we received from the Collins center. Charters from similar communities, Melrose, Fitzfield and way myth and Melville God lover. Combine the whole thing together so that if you go under article 4, which is the school committee for an example, and the 10 subsections that it has, it gives. Each of the 3 communities, each 1 color coded with what how they do things in their community. So, my suggestion would be, which is what the. Article 2 and article 3 subcommittee did is that we take article for school committee. and go through each section. I think the first section, as a matter of fact, covers much of what we just talked about, but there's other sections as well. Article section one is the composition terms of office eligibility. Section 2 is the chair and the vice chair, prohibitions, powers and duties, vacancies, compensation, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. My suggestion would be next meeting, and I can help facilitate this, would be to put up the Article 4, screen-shared and we work through each section. It might take a couple of meetings, but we get in there everything that should belong in there. All right.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Well, ladies, I'm really loving this meeting, but it is now coming on 10 to 9 and I'm going to have to sign off. Okay.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: The last thing I just need to ask is in terms of availability, Tuesday, March 5th. The Tuesdays are really hard for me, but Thursday the 29th, that's only two weeks away. I think the March 5th is three weeks away. Is that all right with people, March 5th? Sure. Is there any community participation that we haven't gotten to? I think we've been calling We don't have anybody who, let's see. I think we're okay. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Anybody want to add anything?
[Phyllis Morrison]: No, I will make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Okay, do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you so much, guys. Bye, everybody. Good night.
|
total time: 49.7 minutes total words: 2817 |
total time: 9.17 minutes total words: 823 |
||