[Milva McDonald]: All right, welcome to the March 7th, 2024 meeting of the Medford Charter Study Committee. Our first order of business is to talk about and accept the minutes. Did everyone have a chance to look at the minutes from our last meeting?
[Maury Carroll]: Move approval. I'll second that.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, great. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Great. Okay, so our next agenda item is we need to move on to talking about Article 6, which is financial procedures and budget. And I have the Collins Center here, Anthony and Frank. Did you two prepare a presentation or do you just want to take questions? How do we want to do it?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: We did not have a presentation, but we're prepared to take questions.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so the main things. Well, I've sent you guys all you've seen the template of what article six entails. So we want to just sort of If you have any questions about that or any particular issues that you want to talk about related to that, we also have on the table the budget amendment that the city council presented last year, which we should probably discuss and decide one way or the other whether we think we should recommend it as is or something else.
[David Zabner]: So I'll just say what you just said one more time about last year.
[Milva McDonald]: The city council. Oh, David, that was before you joined the committee. So I don't know if you've actually seen the text and I should have sent it out. So I apologize. My bad. Everybody else knows what I'm talking about, right? You're talking about the budget ordinance? Not the ordinance. There was an amendment to the charter that the city council proposed. Oh, right.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I did not know about it, Melva, because I don't think I was there when that was done also.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. Then it essentially, does somebody who's familiar with it want to say what it, I mean, I will share the whole text with you, but
[Eunice Browne]: Does somebody want to summarize it? I'm sort of drawing a blank because I've been looking at the ordinance lately.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I think I have the text up if you want me to share the screen.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. That would be great. Let me give you that.
[Ron Giovino]: It was the city council's attempt to get control of the whole process, the timeline, what they can and what they can't. It was their attempt at doing a charter review.
[Milva McDonald]: It didn't involve the timeline. The timeline is something we have to discuss.
[Ron Giovino]: I thought part of it was that. There was a timeline in there, I think. It started when it was supposed to start.
[Jean Zotter]: We're about to look at it. I think the main thing was instead of just taking money out of the budget, they could move money in the budget as long as they didn't change the bottom line of the amount.
[Milva McDonald]: Right. So this is it. So now everybody can see it. And Jean, you did just sort of say what the main aspect of it. It does involve timeline issues, which is definitely something that we're going to talk about, because that is included in Article 6. But the main part of it was the power to move move money, right, basically, from one appropriation to another.
[Jean Zotter]: It could subtract and add to different lines in the budget.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. So does anybody have any questions about it for the Collins Center?
[SPEAKER_14]: Is this the entirety of a text that they suggested?
[Milva McDonald]: For the budget.
[SPEAKER_14]: There is more.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I'm sorry, if you see the link at the top of my window there, I think this is from the city's archive. You know what, let me put this into the chat for those of you that want to see the actual document.
[Milva McDonald]: And Paulette, you, let's see, I see Paulette has a question, so.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, so what I'm asking is, does this mean that the city council could then change an item in the school committee budget?
[Milva McDonald]: I don't believe. Isn't the school committee budget separate or maybe?
[Ron Giovino]: I don't think the city council has the authority to touch the school committee budget.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony or Frank, do you know?
[Wright]: Yeah, so by state law, city councils only approve the school committee budget as presented. They either approve it or they don't approve it.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, so I wanted just to be very clear that this, when it says that they can move things around, does not change the process for the school committee budget. We don't want the city council second-guessing the school committee.
[Ron Giovino]: It was my understanding, Paulette, and you would know better than I do, that it's against the law to do that. Well, I thought that that was Massachusetts general law. It's not necessarily our charge.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So I just want to be clear, because we have this, and that's, you know.
[Wright]: Well, Massachusetts general law does not allow them to change the school committee budget. However, Massachusetts general law also does not allow city councils to move money around in budgets or to add anything to a budget line. They're only allowed to cut. So this charter would be asking the legislature to, this charter provision, if included in a proposed new charter, would be requesting the legislature to approve a provision which would be distinct from state law as applies to other municipalities in the Commonwealth.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So when I read this, I don't see then if what Frank just said, I don't see the distinction that would keep a city councilor from saying, well, let's move this in the school committee budget.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I agree with you, Paulette.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So I think language to that effect needs to be added.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, only if we're going to include it in the charter.
[Maury Carroll]: We shouldn't even include any of this in the charter. This was, if you recall, this was the city council's way to try to take a jockey position away from the mayor, for lack of a better term.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Is it a standing document? Does it have any validity?
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, wait a minute. I want it. David has a stand up, so I want to hear from him. But Phyllis, what this is, is it's an amendment that the city council proposed and asked the mayor to approve it, at which point it would have gone to the Attorney General. But she didn't do that, and it was sort of thrown back to us because we are reviewing the charter.
[Wright]: Oh, okay, thank you, Milton. As a correction, it wouldn't go to the Attorney General. When towns make changes, they go to the Attorney General. Cities, when they propose charter changes, they go to the legislature.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, well, City Council specifically talked about, I'm not gonna remember the number, the provision off the top of my head, but they specifically talked about a process for making an amendment that would that it would go to the Attorney General. So they could have been wrong, but that is definitely what they talked about.
[Maury Carroll]: Basically, what they're creating is a home rule petition, which goes as a... No, they weren't creating... No, but that's basically what they're doing when they're doing this without calling it that, and then it goes to the House.
[Milva McDonald]: There's a process for making charter amendments, and that's what they were going to use. That would have not had it go through the State House.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: If I may, and I don't mean to shut down the debate, there are different processes for making charterments. to the Attorney General versus going to the legislature. I think one key distinction for the purpose of this discussion is on the substance of the change. This type of change being a significant change from the budget process outlined in understate law would probably have to go through the legislature and have to be approved as a special act, sort of a special exemption for Medford.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, that's interesting because the city council, when they proposed it, specifically because it didn't affect the composition of the local government or anything like that, specifically felt that it could fall under one of those types of amendments that could go to the attorney general. But that aside, David, I'd like to hear from you now.
[David Zabner]: Yeah. So I have a few different questions. 1 is I would love an overview of the current budget process because I didn't understand that. So, does the mayor produce 2 different budgets? Or the city at large and a different 1 for the schools is 1 question. I have. A 2nd question is kind of a procedural question, which was. I thought that this discussion of budget procedures and stuff was maybe going to go to a subcommittee. Is this like we it has gone to the subcommittee and now we're talking about as the whole um and the third thing I guess is um Uh, yeah, i'd love an overview I guess also of state law in regards to this stuff um Because I personally i'm like more than happy to to uh, write our charter in such a way that it requires special permissions under state law, but I realize that that's, you know, in a charter that is probably already going to be some work to get it passed, it kind of adds to the level of difficulty possibly. So I guess all three of the... Sorry for having three questions. That's okay.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm going to let the Collins Center answer the main question. I'll just quickly say that we have not formed a subcommittee for this, and if we feel that we need one, we will. But I just wanted the whole committee to have a chance to talk about it first.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Frank, I was going to say, feel free to chime in here. I'll sort of talk at a high level to answer your question. So, generally speaking across the Commonwealth, the budget procedure, that's, you know, the steps it has to take and the timeline that it has to follow is outlined in Chapter I'm sorry, section 32 of chapter 44. It has some sort of explicit timelines that cities have to follow. It specifically states that there's a specific time, or sorry, a deadline in which the mayor submits their budget to the city council. And it states that the city council, and this applies to cities, not to town meeting, but it specifically states that city councils can cut um the budget or can cut budget line items but it cannot make um it cannot increase line items or increase the budget generally um i don't i don't i don't have the specific section in here but there's a uh there's also a line stating um the uh budget creation procedure for the school committee the school committee has a little bit more leeway with the school uh department budget they the school committee itself can sort of increase and decrease and move things around in its budget, but it ultimately goes to the city council with the full mayoral budget. And it can't be, Frank, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it can't be reduced, but it can be rejected.
[Wright]: Yes, that's true. The City Council can only vote a school committee budget up and down. I don't know exactly what the procedure is in Medford, but my experience from other municipalities is that the superintendent along with the mayor, but primarily the superintendent, proposes a budget, which the mayor then incorporates into an overall budget to present to the city council. And then the superintendent and generally the finance officer from the school department will present it to the city council. The mayor may be there. Sometimes I've seen them there, sometimes I haven't. But then it's up to the city council, as Anthony said earlier, to either vote it up or down. There's no opportunity to make any amendments cuts or just a really quick follow up question to that.
[David Zabner]: If the school committee votes to ask for 30Million dollars. And the mayor only wants to give him 5. How does that work out? Or is it that the mayor says you have 5Million dollars to use? However, you want to split it up. And then the school committee splits it up from there.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: It's a collaborative process with the mayor. They wouldn't, I wouldn't say they wouldn't. I mean, Frank's been part of this process a lot, but it's, I think the ideal case is that the school department knows how much it's getting sort of in school aid. Under law, the school department has to provide, I'm not an expert in school reform, but under state law, there are certain sort of, minimums that the school department has to comply with, that the city has to comply with. So it knows those and then it knows sort of what can go over it and it's sort of a negotiation with the mayor and sort of their budget in terms of revenues and how they can divide those between, if we just think sort of basically between schools and municipal government between there. Frank, feel free to clarify anything I may have mixed up or jumbled.
[Wright]: No, I'm not an expert on school budgets either, but I think you pretty much summed it up. That's my experiences. It is a collaborative process and ultimately. The superintendent draft the initial budget and. You know, with them as input, because obviously there's an overall budget amount that the city has to work with. And, you know, the mayor obviously has other needs beyond the schools. So, you know, they try to present, they try to work together so that what they present to the city council that they both can stand behind and be comfortable with. So.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: And if I met, I don't mean to bore the committee, but but I'll just let me just read a quick excerpt from the section having to do with the school committee. So in the case of the school budget or in the case of a regional district assessment, the city council on the recommendation of the school committee or recommendation of the regional district school may by two thirds vote, increase the total amount appropriated for the support of the schools or the regional school district. So that was Um, there's the ability to increase the school budget only with the approval over over that requested by the mayor. Right?
[David Zabner]: So, at the end of the day, my question was, who's requesting the money? It's the mayor who's requesting. The money is, I think, kind of an important power bit there.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thanks. Now, Anthony, did you have your hand raised?
[Andreottola]: Yes, I did. I was just wondering if the comment center can comment. I know that Boston had adopted this type of budgeting process, and it's only been around for about two years, and they had quite a bit of trouble with it. There is a problem, too, when it comes to collective bargaining, where the city council could, in effect, kind of interfere with the ability of a mayor or a bargaining unit to bargain with a union when they don't have the final authority of the funds. Is that correct?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Oh, yeah, just a couple. So it's very new. So I'm not so I would say sort of take everything that I say with a little bit of a grain of salt. But I thought we sort of maybe did a memo on this, but I may be mixing up my projects, but. Boston is the only community in Massachusetts right now where the city council has the ability to increase or decrease lines in the budget. As you correctly pointed out, it's new. It happened in the past two years. They just went through a budget process where it happened that from the perspective of outsiders seemed pretty contentious and one of the issues raised was I think the City Council moved some money around or took money out of one budget area where the mayor's retort was about the impact that would have on their on the labor relations piece, the collective bargaining, as you correctly pointed out. There haven't been any specific, I think, guidelines that have come out, but when we talked to city managers, finance officials, There is the concern about the process in Boston. It took longer. I think the consensus is that their budgeting process took longer, was more contentious than it maybe had been in the past, is sort of what we're hearing generally. Frank, please chime in.
[Wright]: I don't have a lot of expertise in what's going on in Boston, but what you're saying is consistent with my understanding, Anthony. What's important to remember is collective bargaining agreements always have a proviso that the funding of it is always subject to annual appropriation by the city council because They only have an annual budget. They can't commit money. They could have a three-year contract, but they cannot commit money that they don't have that goes beyond that first year. That said, collective bargaining agreements are generally approved or signed by the mayor, but the money for the first year is committed and appropriated oftentimes out of a Salary fund, so to speak, that that's been stabilization fund and. And so the administration, the mayor has control, but allowing the city council now to step in annually and make. Changes to the budget can kind of make that very, um. less stable, I guess, situation for both the executive administration, the mayor's running of the city on a day-to-day basis, and for the collective bargaining units in the city.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. Okay, great. Gene?
[Jean Zotter]: I think the reason City Council did this or some of the, what I've heard is that they often got the budget so late, like timing of the budget when the budget came to them was an issue. They weren't always apprised of revenue or how the budget looked halfway through the process. Is there any way of balancing the power on some of those issues, even if it's not giving them the opportunity to move money around?
[Andreottola]: I'm sorry, can I ask a question? Is not the mayor and the city council in the process of piloting a budget process where this year they are doing this exact thing about the dates in January and in the spring, and if it works out, they plan on passing an ordinance about it next year. Am I correct?
[Milva McDonald]: You are right. That is true. But for us, we're looking at the question of what do we want to codify in the charter regarding the process. So, you know, it may, and I think as I sent out article six and timeline is covered in there. So I think it is something we can look at. Do you agree, Anthony and Frank?
[Wright]: My recollection is that Marilyn had indicated that she had seen that and had language from other municipalities consistent with that thought process.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yes. Yeah, just to add on there, one of the things that we've done in other communities is sort of in working with obviously the committee and sort of balancing those issues is thinking about times when the city council, the mayor, and the school committee can meet publicly and work together to think about what are the expected revenues, what are the expected expenses, and to sort of co-create some of those high-level priorities. You know, one of the nitty gritty things that happens during the budget process is the mayor sort of meets internally with the departments who kind of explain here are the. The things that they that they have to do here are the things that they want to do here are things that. And here's how much those things cost all over the sort of oversight of the. of this sort of finance form that says, here's what we're expecting our funds to be and how they align with the things. And that sort of drives the budget process internally. And so really setting a meeting between those three bodies publicly early in the process to set those priority goals, to do some level setting about here's what we're expecting in terms of revenue, and include those bodies in the process a lot earlier than may have traditionally been the practice, which it sounds like Medford's piloting now.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, thank you. Do you, is that, do you feel like you got an answer, Jean, or do you wanna? No, that's good. Okay. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I have some information. I have the council president's proposed thought. If you want me to, I can share it.
[Milva McDonald]: Are you talking about the ordinance?
[Ron Giovino]: No, I'm talking about the budget plan the future budget plan what it is now what they expect it to be so it may it may lighten people on you know what it is that the goal is here so do you want me to just share it, you know, I think, I think that. I think people can look at that if they want to, but right now, I think... The only reason why I say it is because there is a plan, there are dates, there are procedures. In April, they will sit down and do their own charter review, which they've already announced will be a separate from our charter review. So I don't want to go crazy into this process because it's really... It'd be interesting to look at what their plan is, but I don't... You know, I think we should pick and go. I mean, I think that they've already announced that, you know, we're appointed by one person in the city and they're elected, so they'll do their own thing and they won't collaborate. So, you know, I just wanna get that out. There's a plan out there. They're following this plan. They're going through the details in April. And if you wanted to see the plan, you can look, I'll send out, I'll email everybody the link if you want to look at.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. And we can look at it. My sense is that it has a lot more detail than we might include in the charter, but it definitely does include some things that we would be looking at. Like, you know, the time.
[Ron Giovino]: Surprisingly, it's not very detailed.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. We'll take a look at it. Eunice, and then Aubrey, and then Paulette.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, thanks. Well, to provide, I think, a little bit of context, perhaps, for people, I think a lot of this stemmed from, I don't know, maybe it was three years ago, maybe 2021, when, and maybe Paulette might be able to help me out here, when there wasn't, I guess they found a pretty big shortfall and I can't remember the details, but the long and short of it was that the city council never really got, the mayor puts together a budget book, which has the entire budget for all the different departments and so forth, and a lot of overview and things. They never got a budget book. They typically meet with department heads Each department had to find a little bit about their budget. They never got a lot of the data that they typically would get. And what they did get, they got very late. And they ended up having to go through the budget process with very little information to go on. And the budget meeting went for hours upon hours upon hours, I think. It's they usually vote on the budget on the last Tuesday of June and this particular meeting. And they do other things on the agenda. It's a typical city council meeting, but the meeting went until, like, 1 o'clock in the morning, which is a typical and they weren't going to pass the budget. And then the mayor at 1 o'clock in the morning found money for. something that they wanted, and lo and behold, the budget passed. City Council felt that they never wanted to go through that sort of mess again, and they began crafting ways to streamline and make the process better. Um, and so what they're in addition to the charter amendment that they've. Been talking about that we just brought up, they're also creating a whole ordinance and they've got the chief of staff and Bob Dickens in the. Finance director working with them on this. So I think my question is what we're doing with the charter and what they're doing with the ordinance. And they talk about timing and information that's required to be provided and so forth. How much do we get into the weeds in article six? You know, what what we're doing versus what they're doing. I guess I'm trying to spit it out is. Is there overlap? Are we doing what they're doing? Are they doing what we're doing? What's our responsibility under the charter to include. Because I know a lot of things in the overall charter, there's also ordinances under that as well and rules and so forth. I don't know that I'm making a whole lot of sense, but what are we doing in the charter and what are they doing in the ordinance and how do the two things coexist together? Does that make sense?
[SPEAKER_14]: I think that makes a lot of sense.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony or Frank, do you want to try to answer?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I guess I may ask a clarifying question. Assuming that you have a charter recommendation and the charter gets approved by the council, the charter supersedes any ordinances in terms of the work of the committee. Obviously, there are recommendations on best practices, but to the extent that you're aware that there are some issues, to be sensitive to them as you craft your, the process in your financial procedure section of the charter. While we recommend that there is a financial procedure section, and you, I guess in theory, you can get as detailed as you want in your financial procedure sections of the charter. But again, we have examples of charters, so there are sort of best practices on what makes sense to go into that section and really how detailed to be. I think timelines are generally very helpful. In terms of roles, I think you mentioned, someone mentioned something about the chief of staff being in there. I don't know if that would be our recommendation to sort of mention these specific positions rather than the authority of the established mayor and the legislative branch of city council in sort of the times when they have to do things. I think that's probably, more appropriate for a document that could last for 100 or several hundred years. I'm not sure if that's responsible, but I tried.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. I'm just so confused, but that's okay. And I think I sent out, I sent the ordinance, the city clerk sent me the draft ordinance. They've been working on this for a while. And the most recent iteration of it is from just a week or so ago, February 28th. I sent it to Melva. I got it from the clerk and she can, you know, you can send it out. I don't know if it makes sense for the whole group to see this.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, I think if anybody wants to see it, they can look at it. I think that, as Anthony pointed out, ultimately the charter will supersede any ordinance. So I also, I quickly looked at the ordinance and I do think there's probably more in it than, I mean, there's more in it, for instance, than in the example, the article six examples that we've been looking at. I think our job is to look at Article 6 and find out, you know, think about best practices and just try to craft an Article 6 that we think makes the most sense and is the best for the city. I think that's pretty much what our task is. That's how I see it anyway. And Anthony? Yeah.
[Andreottola]: And correct me if I'm wrong, is it possible in Article 6 that we just have a framework that asks that an ordinance be created? you know, by the city council and the mayor, you know, for financial processes. So, you know, basically just putting a frame around it and they can fill in the blank. Um, yeah. Oh, kind of, uh, you know, the, this is how it'll, how it'll work, but you know, the city council will create a, an ordinance, you know, for, you know, the actual times and dates and, you know, because they're going to do what, pick the dates and times that they want anyway.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't know. I mean, that's maybe something that Anthony and Frank can say if that's common. I mean, I think in the Article 6 charter, the examples that we've looked at, the example of charters, they have, you know, they have delineated timelines and dates without saying that there needs to be an ordinance to confirm them. So, but I don't know, Anthony or Frank, what you think.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I would just break a chance. You know, most charters, I haven't seen any charters that talk about the financial procedures and sort of refer it to an ordinance to lay them out in more detail. So that would be something I have not seen before.
[Wright]: Okay, thank you. I agree with Anthony. I think the charter provision would be broader. more general, and then you could fill in any specifics of, you know, any perceived blanks by ordinance.
[Ron Giovino]: Can I just ask a question to Anthony and Frank to clarify? The charter can be overridden at any point by an ordinance?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: No. No, the charter overrides ordinance.
[Ron Giovino]: But if the charter is approved, they cannot create an ordinance that changes the charter?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Correct.
[Ron Giovino]: Correct. Yeah. I'll wait my turn to speak on that. I just wanted to clarify.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Aubrey has been waiting.
[Maria D'Orsi]: It's all aligned. That's all right. I was going to ask a similar question to you, Mr. Naran, which was about the interaction between ordinance and charter. But I think he just asked it. So I guess my caution is about an ordinance being passed right before a charter is passed, and then that charter will say something very different.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, and then the ordinance that we're talking about will certainly be passed before the charter. And so that is a reason, I guess, to look at the ordinance, but I still think that our task remains the same, which is to craft a charter that we think is best for the city.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Paulette. Yeah, I guess I wasn't quite sure why we were going back to what the city council put out a year ago versus when Phyllis and I went and saw the mayor, the mayor very clearly expressed how she and the city council members had been working together on this budget process. So to me, that would be the starting point, not what the city council put out a year ago when they were trying to, it just doesn't seem to, it seems like it's already, That we need to look at what's what they're doing now and say what piece of that or pieces with that appropriately go into the charter or not.
[Milva McDonald]: So, thanks for that. I mean, the reason is because 1 of it was sort of. It was thrown to us as the Charter Study Committee after the city council laid these out and the mayor said, well, the Charter Study Committee is going to study them. And the city council also has recently referred to them. So I don't think they've forgotten about them, but that's why we're discussing it anyway.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Oh, OK. Well, then it makes sense to look at both. The other thing, Milva, I just want to mention that when I went to go look at Article 6, it said I needed permission.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, I shared it. I don't understand why Google sharing sometimes makes people ask for permission after I share it, but I will. Yeah, it's the same problem.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: The last thing I just wanted to mention is earlier, some time ago, when there was the whole discussion about the budget process and the school committee, the piece that was really left out was that the school committee certainly has a very major role in reviewing and crafting the budget over the years. There have been differences. Some mayors sort of, you know, basically likes to say here to the superintendent, work, work up to this. This is what you've got. And over time, the school committee said, no, no, we need to start with what we need. and basically start from, let's start at zero and what do we need? And that of course then says, well, the first thing we need to do is we need to put in our contracts and whatever. So the piece that was sort of left out was the very, the role of the school committee in the process.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. Okay, David? Yeah.
[David Zabner]: Um, I'm hearing that this is like a big complicated problem. Which makes me think that that it might be worth talking about in a subcommittee. And having a subcommittee kind of present some options and ideas. The other thing I'm wondering is. I'm looking at this article 6 information that you sent out. And I think a lot of it is maybe a little bit more straightforward and so maybe we can start. You know, we can move this discussion off of the budget, which I think is. Big and complicated and important and probably deserve some subcommittee time. And switch to talking about, like, uh, you know, do we want to include something like section 6, 7, which says you're not allowed to spend more money than the city appropriates. Do we want something like section 6, 6, which requires an independent audit. Kind of work our way up from the bottom there with, I think, some of these. less complicated, more straightforward issues.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. Okay. We definitely need to decide all those things. And I hear you, and maybe we will form a subcommittee. I see some hands. I see Ron has a hand. And Anthony and Aubrey, are your hands up? Okay. Anthony, is your hand up again?
[Andreottola]: No, I just don't know how to take it down.
[Milva McDonald]: So, Ron? Ron?
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I'm just going to, as you know, I'm kind of like the calendar guy that wants to make sure we have made a point of attacking all the stuff that's in front of us. The way I understand this budget thing is the frustration that happens on June 30th that causes chaos in the school committee, the city council, and the mayor's office. And it's just an inappropriate, non-professional way of how we negotiate, okay, you get this, you get that. I think that's the root core of what the issue is. So my understanding is the council wants to set up a schedule. I'm not talking about who's going to have what rights or whatever. What they've done is they've set up a schedule that's published in their documents. They've also publicly stated, and I really want to strongly emphasize this, that there'll be no collaboration with this organization and the city council. If this review board comes up with something that interests them, they will incorporate it. But there'll be no collaboration. So I don't want you to think that we're going to have our plan and their plan. They're going to be two separate plans going forward. I actually like the calendar, the way it's set up on that site that I sent out to everybody. And what it does is it tells you who should be involved in that process, what timing should be done. And it mandates the fact that in April, you're talking about this issue. In May, you've decided on this issue. In June, in June, you've talked to the school committee again. So on June 30, we're not, you know, one o'clock in the morning negotiating legal fees. So I'm just I again, I when you all look at the calendar that they have there, it's a very comprehensive calendar, who starts the process, and then they'll have to, they're gonna, whatever we present, they're gonna decide who's the power, what kind of vote, is it a super majority vote that changes a line item? All those things will be done, you know, post our work. But I think one of the things that should be our goal is to ensure that this budget process is not something that starts June 15th, and ends in June 30th. I think it's a process that should involve school committee, city council, and the mayor's office up front in January, which is when this calendar starts. So I just, I don't want to repeat myself, but I just think the reality is this is not something that's going to be, you know, this is what we've come up with. Here are the details. If we go into subcommittee, which I suggest we would do if we don't want to, you know, keep a simple ruling. But certainly, the reason why I asked about ordinances, we're here to write the charter. So they'll write the ordinances, but they can't change what we write. But they're going to end up approving it. So I just want the reality of the process to be out there. That's all.
[Milva McDonald]: Thanks, Ron. I just want to clarify, when you say calendar, you're referring to the ordinance that's under discussion right now.
[Eunice Browne]: I just want to clarify that. Can Ron share what he's talking about? Because I'm a little bit confused.
[Ron Giovino]: I'm sure he's talking about the ordinance. No, what they're talking about is a charter review that will start in April. The governance committee will start a charter review process.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, but that's not okay. So you weren't talking about the timing.
[Ron Giovino]: No I'm talking about a subcommittee of the city council will form to do a charter study review and when asked about this charter study review it was stated that we will not be collaborating, they'll do a separate study on whatever they want to do subsequent to what we are going to be doing. That's all I'm saying. That's going to happen. And certainly, this is one of the major issues that they will do. And I'm just duplication of effort, just
[Milva McDonald]: So it remains to be seen exactly what they'll do this spring. But regardless of that, our job, it doesn't really change our job. So I mean, I guess we just it maybe gives us a little more impetus to just stay focused and and keep on task and get our final report done by by the target date of October. So that's
[Ron Giovino]: No, and my point is the calendar, to me, looks very good. The calendar that's published looks like it's a common-sense approach, and Paulette, who's been involved in the process, would look at that and say, that's a very common-sense approach that should eliminate the June 30th chaos. So I like it.
[Milva McDonald]: And again, when you say calendar, you're talking about the dates that are laid out in the budget ordinance.
[Ron Giovino]: I'm talking about what they want to do. What I sent out to everybody is their proposed budget plan, which is January, the mayor, the council, the staff, residents work together to develop a budget. In February, the school committee discusses the needs and budget recommendations. In March, the council submits recommendations. In April, the mayor submits budget by mid-May. Council holds budget review meetings and this details little details in here too and in june council approves amends or rejects the budget by mid-june So those that's that's kind of you know, that's kind of a nice thing. I I I think that's a really How they get to that point, I don't know. But I like the fact that I think in our charter, we should incorporate this calendar because it forces the fact that we're talking budget for six months versus... Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: And that's one of the things that we need to look at is what are best practices around those kinds of dates and those kinds of gatherings. Aubrey?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Just another clarification question around once, I think you said that once a charter is passed, an ordinance cannot supersede what's in it. Is that correct? Does anything exist that can change what is in a charter?
[David Zabner]: That's one of the other issues that we have to discuss eventually, which is procedures for amending the charter, which will be part of the charter.
[Milva McDonald]: What we can put in the charter is how often a charter review will take place, but I don't think we can change how the charter is amended or changed. That's pretty set out, right?
[Wright]: You would do that by a home rule petition to the legislature. You can do it through a special act, which is initiated as a home rule petition, which the city council passes and the mayor has to sign. They cannot override a mayor's unwillingness to sign. It's not like an ordinance where they can override a mayor's veto or pocket veto. Both the city council and the mayor can sign a home rule petition, which goes to the legislature, which if passed and signed by the governor, becomes a home rule amendment and is published as a special act, and that can amend the charter.
[Milva McDonald]: But that option is available whether or not we put that in the charter, correct?
[Wright]: Yes, that's state law, yes.
[Maria D'Orsi]: My preference for language in the charter will be probably more vague than we'd like and more evergreen as possible.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. I mean, regular charter review, for instance, is one of the things that we'll consider putting up. Okay. Gene and Anthony, and then I just want to get back and just see where everybody stands on the topic that we started with. Gene.
[Jean Zotter]: I just want to confirm the process for the charter, because I'm confused by the way we talk about it. When we finish and make our report in October, it will be to City Council, right? And City Council then can amend what we put before them. And so by them having a charter committee, we will propose something to them, they can amend it, and then it goes to the mayor, right? So city council will have a say in this charter, no matter what. I just wanna confirm that. Yes, okay. Yes.
[Andreottola]: Anthony. Not what the city council is saying that they, They're not even considering that we are rewriting a complete charter. I don't know if they're just ignoring that or if they're just going to dismiss it out of hand, but they indicated that they're not expecting to vote our charter.
[Milva McDonald]: I think that they will look at our report seriously. But I think that they are aware that they have the ability to change it. But I also think they will take our report seriously. That is my impression. Okay, just to go back to what we started with, I just wanted, because it was sort of we were asked to look at the amendments, I just want to go back to the initial amendment. We've talked about a lot of things in relationship to the amendment, but what do people, where are people at in terms of the giving the city council the power to move money in the budget, which is what essentially the core of that.
[Andreottola]: Can I say something? I just, I just like to say that, you know, there's a reason that no city or town in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts besides Boston has the ability to do that. And that it's, it's, it's, I think it's irresponsible of us to kind of even entertain that without doing a lot of research and and really looking at and seeing what issues and problems with the process the past two years. And I really think that, you know, just given some of the current events, kind of one, you know, when the city council can, you know, override a mayor and the executive, in the budget, it's really a huge change for a community like Medford, especially kind of given the financial situation Medford's in right now to kind of, to do this would be irresponsible.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thanks, Anthony. Daveed?
[David Zabner]: Yeah. For 1 thing, I just want to say, I agree with Ron, I think, on a lot of levels. I think the process that the city council is considering for the budget is 1. I'm excited to see how it works. I imagine it won't be perfect the 1st time through. So I think we should be thoughtful about. How much of it we kind of put in the charter and and. From my perspective, I think the. You know, I, I can see very good reasons why we might give the city council more budget power. I can also see that in a state where that's far out of the norm. I don't think we probably want to take that step. In my view, a really important thing the charter could do in this section is. Is set some really powerful rules regarding transparency. Um, and I think that's a place where, uh, you know, the, the, the thing that the city council is working through with the mayor right now says X and Y are going to meet on this date or in this month and start talking about this thing. I feel like that's a bit of a weird thing to put in a charter. Um, but I think it could be very reasonable to say, you know, on January 15th, the mayor, the city council, whoever has to release this information to the public. right, which I think by necessity will kickstart these conversations and by necessity will avoid that kind of, what is it, July 15th to July 30th frantic scrambling of trying to figure things out, right? If we say, hey, you know, the mayor has to, like, send out a skeletonized version of the budget or something by May 1st, I don't know that that's actually exactly the day, exactly the type of thing we'd ask for. But I think those types of transparency things could be a really powerful thing to include in the charter.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, and I think when we look at those, we'll have to sort of maybe do it in collaboration with what other cities do and maybe how realistic they are in terms of what, you know, what the finance department can provide when, but for sure. Eunice.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I think I agree with what Anthony's saying. I mean, the fact that Boston is the only city that allows the council to move money around, either they're a complete trendsetter or there's something to the fact that the other 350 cities and towns don't do this. So I think we either have to reject it out of hand or do a whole lot of thoughtful consideration and research in order to determine if that's what we want to do. And it's certainly great to be on the forefront or the cutting edge of something and maybe other communities will follow. But I think if we were to go that direction, I, I, I just, I don't think it's something that we can just, you know, decide to put it in a charter after, you know, one or two meetings. Um, I think, and, uh, and of course, listening to our call and center colleagues as well, um, you know, and heating, um, any advice that they would give. So, um, I, I think it's something that either, you know, we, we say no, no to right up front or, we take the time to do a whole lot of digging before we get there, because there's a reason 350 cities don't do this.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you, Eunice. Paulette?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, I just wanted to ask one question. So, you know, from my experience, you can start the budget process early and certainly put out all your questions and listen to your administrative people about their needs and whatever, but there was always something else that needed to happen. And that was when we learned what the appropriation would be from the state. And so up until that point of when that number was known, everything, you know, to when people sort of say, you know, we want to pack this away earlier and more calmly and all the rest of it. Well, that's true until you know that appropriation. And when that appropriation comes, and sometimes it's been quite late, all of a sudden that's when the scramble comes, because you're trying to figure out, of course, you want more, you've put in more, and now all of a sudden reality is struck and you have to make cuts. And that's always the most difficult part in my experience.
[Eunice Browne]: Is that the Cherry Sheets poet? Yeah. Is that Chapter 70 funding or Chapter 90?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I don't remember what the chapter and verse are, but I just remember that being a really critical piece. And I'm certainly not trying to argue we should let it go. I mean, as I was on the school committee, it started earlier and earlier, very much because the school committee wanted to make sure that we had out all of our needs. and weren't just responding to the appropriation. Instead, we wanted to be out there. But on the other hand, we also had to, once the appropriation is in, that certainly can upend. Depending if it's good, it's great. If it's low, it's very difficult. I don't quite remember. I remember appropriations differing from year to year of when we finally found out. So I just wanted to throw out that piece.
[Milva McDonald]: No, thank you. That's really important information. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I know I've used up all my time, but I just want to say two things. One is I agree with what Paula just said. I agree with what David has said. And Anthony's right. The only power of the city council, and I've watched budget deliberations for 50 years, it always comes down to the last hour, and the only power the city council has is to not approve. And if they don't approve in 15 days or 20 days, it automatically goes back, reverts back to last year's budget. So there's that pressure. So I think the best thing we can do is go to the root cause of all these problems, and that's to start forcing the conversation in public, transparent ways in January. So whatever the cherry sheets say, at least everybody has an understanding of how to adapt, and there's no wildness going on. And it happens every year, where the last hour of the last minute of the last day, and the city council is hands, all they can do is not approve, knowing that last year's budget would automatically roll in in 15 days. So that's my point. I just think we need to force a calendar. It's the most important thing we can do.
[Milva McDonald]: So, can I ask, um, I know Anthony and Frank, I see in article six, a couple of the charters that you gave us have something called an annual budget meeting, um, which, which included the city council mayor and school committee and, um, That wasn't maybe necessarily not public, but I suppose it could be public. What is Melrose specified only before the commencement of the budget process? Pittsfield said at least 60 days before the start of the fiscal year. I mean, do cities, are there cities that start this kind of thing in January? Is that a reasonable?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I guess I hesitate to say it's a trend only because We're involved in a lot of these processes, a lot of questions in terms of concerns about, you know, the rush to finish the budget in time before the window closed. That's something that we hear very commonly in communities, as well as the frustration about for the city council and the mayor really having sort of that driver's seat about creating the budget. We there are a number of charters around the state that where I think crafted by us in response to those concerns about putting those parties in the room together earlier in the process as early as January or even before that. For the the up and coming fiscal year's budget around sort of what we said that that budget meeting is really about. discussing priorities and looking at projections for what is expected. And that was a very good point about the state funding, which varies significant from year to year when the state finally puts its budget out, which affects really every municipality across the state in terms of the amount of money they will have in their coffers when their fiscal year starts. I'll turn it over to Frank if he has anything to add.
[Wright]: The only thing I would add, I think, is that you have to keep in mind that a budget is not static, that the budget is a fluid document. The budget is essentially a snapshot of what you think you're going to need in the next year, next fiscal year. My experience is discussions that start early, say January, which is halfway through the fiscal year, are an analysis of how that fiscal year's budget is going. Are we meeting our needs? Do we have a surplus? And then a projection as to where things will go into the next fiscal year, the next budget, generally. And then if you meet, as the year goes along, the fifth year goes along to its conclusion towards June, you can obviously get more specific. So the earlier the meeting, I think the less specific you're going to get. You can't expect a lot of detail beyond what's been spent and what projects, where things stand, but the, detail as to what funds are needed, what funds have been spent for the current fiscal year, needed for the next fiscal year, and what the administration is proposing for spending in the next year become clearer and clearer as you approach. And I don't know how realistic it is to have an expectation of getting a clear picture in January or February. It probably changes from year to year. It depends. I mean, you know, things change. Fiscally, things change. Project-wise, goals, et cetera. But so that's why I think a charter, you want to be careful about being too, too specific in a charter because things are fluid. But I guess those would be my comments at this point.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. Anthony Wilson, can I ask? The charters that you mentioned that you had helped craft specifically addressing some of these budget needs, we have from you Weymouth, Pittsfield, and Melrose. Do you include those in that? And if not, can we all be referred to the charters that you mentioned?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I think the ones that I said, I know, I know for a fact, Pittsfields is 60 days before a budget. I forget. I think Melrose, I think they all might be the same. I think it might be either 60 or 90 days. I feel the 60.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, I think.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Go ahead, sorry, go ahead.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: So I think between 60 and 90 is, 60 and 90 before, you know, the fiscal year, which is, you know, July 1st of that year. So I think that's probably where most of the charges we worked on have been in. I know that there've been a few where they go further, sort of further back. And I think Frank's point is very well taken in terms of the resolution on what, you know, being able to know what the future holds, sort of, you know, it dims.
[Wright]: The recollection in Somerville was that the meeting, it wasn't by charter, but the city council and the mayor's office had agreed that they would meet in March. Don't hold me to that, but that's my recollection.
[Milva McDonald]: The fiscal year starts July 1st, is that? That's right.
[Unidentified]: July, yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Okay, so I think, Anthony, did you, does your, Anthony Andreottola, is your hand up?
[Andreottola]: No, it's just there.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so it seems like maybe just to explore, there's, what I hear anyway is that we have a strong interest in being able to craft a timeline that addresses transparency, collaboration, but we also want to make sure that it falls into best practices and that it's actually doable and reasonable. I also hear interest in forming a subcommittee to do that. I want to go ahead and do that, but before that, I want to just see if we want to continue to consider the amendment that would allow the city council to move money. So far, I haven't heard people speaking in favor of it? Do we want to just focus on what's in article six and say, you know, we don't feel comfortable including that in the charter for the various reasons that have been expressed? Or do we, I haven't heard any motions, for instance.
[David Zabner]: I mean, I'm happy to make a motion to reject the idea of the city council moving money around. Good. So I'll go ahead and make that motion.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. I second it. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Should we do a roll call?
[Unidentified]: Yes. I think so.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Anthony Andreadola. Voting yes means that we are giving the city council power to move money in the budget.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Eunice. Yes. Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Paulette. You're on mute, Paulette. Yes. Aubrey.
[Jean Zotter]: Yes. Jean. Yes. I'm interested in it, but I think it's too much for us right now.
[Jean Zotter]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Phyllis. Yes. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Danielle was here, but it looks like she must have dropped off. All right. Yeah. I will also vote yes. Okay. Thank you. That's taken care of. Now, in terms of the subcommittee, are there people who want to be on this article six subcommittee? Nope. Maury, yes?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Anybody else? I'll do it.
[Eunice Browne]: Jean? Against my better judgment, because I'm on two others, I'll go for yes as well.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So we have Maury, Jean, Eunice, and I will also do it. So that's four of us. So what we will do is we will start meeting and we will I mean, I think we have pretty good guidelines with the charters we have. And we can sort of look at the timelines and we'll bring something back. And if there's, if anybody, I'm going to assume, and Anthony and Frank, you can say if this doesn't seem right, I'm going to assume that what's contained in those charters you gave us are reasonable practices in terms of, let's say, if we pick a timeline that's outlined in one of those charters, that that's probably going to be workable. But is that, or would that vary from city to city?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I would say it probably varies from city to city. I would say that those are probably within the average of what places are doing.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so one of the things that we would maybe, would you recommend that the subcommittee, if we say, okay, this is the timeline that we want to propose for an annual budget meeting, for submission of budget, that it would be wise to check with the financial department? Or would, I mean, how would you recommend handling making sure that what we recommend is consistent with what is doable in Medford?
[Wright]: If I could, Anthony, I mean, additionally, I'd say they're reasonable from the perspective of the legislature, because they approve them.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Wright]: Now, as far as whether it's reasonable in a particular municipality, I think because the executive runs the municipality on a day-to-day basis, that you do need the executive and I assume the executive want the finance director's input as to whether or not what's being proposed is workable. Okay, yeah. And then that can be taken into consideration before the city council.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. That sounds good. Okay, great. Um, Eunice, did you have another comment?
[Eunice Browne]: Um, yeah, we two things. First of all, I think when we get to subcommittee, you know, we should be looking at, you know, not only what we've got, but we should definitely have in front of us copies of the amendment and copies of the ordinance as well. So that we can be looking at all of that. Um, We'll, if we need to inquire of the finance department, um, or any other entity, are we going to get cooperation from them? Because I know that the finance director has been in front of the city council, you know, for this ordinance a half a dozen times now. And, um, Is he going to think, well, I've answered all these questions. You know, why it again with another. Entity another body and who do I answer to?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, I think we'll maybe talk about that when we get in subcommittee, see what we come up with if. You know, and I think the chief of staff has always been with the chief financial officer when they've pretty much meetings. So maybe it would be just something that we could run by the chief of staff, who I think would be aware of, you know, whether this was something that, you know, they that they looked at. So but we can we can figure that out. We can talk about it. Okay. Um, Aubrey.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Just a question about the document itself. Is it colored by town? So Melrose is brown, Pittsfield is green, and Weymouth is purple. Anything in purple is from Weymouth?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, so for that Article 6 document is, yeah, where I included the text from each of those towns' charters under each section, and they are color-coded in that way, yes. Okay, great. We also were going to talk about the draft of Articles 2 and 3. Did people have a chance to look at it? Are there any concerns or questions? Some of it we've already voted on, and those parts are in green, but are there any concerns or questions about the rest, anything else?
[David Zabner]: Eunice has her hand raised.
[Milva McDonald]: Is that your hand or is that an old hand, Eunice? No, it's a new hand.
[Eunice Browne]: Oh, okay. Sorry. Go ahead then. The right hand is talking to the left. I mean, I have questions, but I mean, looking at what. What you put forth, which is a great start and looking at your little color coded thing here. With black being subcommittee reviewed green being language by the full committee and blue language that warrants further investigation. I think there's only a couple of sections here where it seems to be green, which is stuff that we've all- That we voted on. Yeah. Me personally, I really feel like, and I know it's time-consuming, but I really feel like we need to go through this bit by bit. You mean with the whole committee? Kind of, yeah. I'm sorry to have to say that.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: A lot of black and a lot of blue here.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, actually, I thought we got rid of all the blue that last meeting. Is there still blue there?
[Eunice Browne]: Let's see, blue is language that warrants by the full committee.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, and I thought we looked at the blue last meeting and put it in black.
[Eunice Browne]: Well, maybe I printed mine out, and I printed it out a while ago.
[David Zabner]: The only remaining blue I see is section 3.1. Which is what? So it's mayor qualifications, appointment, term of office, compensation, and prohibitions. I should actually remove the word appointment. So the one bit that remains in blue. Actually, I can share my screen.
[Milva McDonald]: Maybe that'll be I think I have to give you the Oh, I see it. I see the prohibitions. Yeah. Okay, let's just take a look at that. I have it up here.
[David Zabner]: That's a good place to start our discussion. Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice.
[David Zabner]: I'm wondering when you say go through it as a group. I think the idea that we had as a committee was like, we've given people, I think, almost 2 months now to read this. Yeah. And so the hope was that, like, people would find things that were. Objectionable confusing, interesting and could ask questions and if not, I think we could just move to an up and down vote.
[Eunice Browne]: I mean, well, I guess otherwise I think we could take.
[David Zabner]: Committee time and, like, you know, read it out loud or. I mean, I've gone through it by section, but.
[Eunice Browne]: notated almost section by section questions and things like that.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Well, we want to hear those questions. Yeah. But first, let's look at this blue part and we can try to remember why it's still in blue. The mayor shall hold no other city office or city employment for which a salary or other emolument is payable from the city treasury. I think that that's something like that. It's in our current charter. No former mayor shall hold any compensated appointed city office or city employment until one year following the date on which his former mayor's city service is terminated. Do you remember why it's in blue, David? Yeah, that's why I think it's in blue because of the... That's why it's blue. Yeah.
[David Zabner]: which I think that probably we'll just have to come back to that if and when we have the vote about the mayor's presence on the school committee. Right. So, I can make a note and comment that this, you know, this needs to... Whatever vote we make can exclude this particular subsection.
[Milva McDonald]: What's that? I'm sorry. Well, because if the mayor is chair of the school committee, Does that count as other employment?
[David Zabner]: No, I mean, I don't know about other employment. It certainly counts as another city office.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[David Zabner]: So it would certainly be a violation of this clause.
[Milva McDonald]: So Anthony and Frank, I'm sure that this text came out, came from charter language that exists. Is this, how do, would this just be something that a city that had the mayor as chair of the school committee not have in their charter?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: As it relates to the mayor's position on the school committee, I'm not aware of this being an issue in cities that have. I've seen this language before. You may be able to resolve it just by... Accepting the school committee.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I think I can shed a little light. Go ahead, Paula. Well, so long ago, what we received was a stipend. And the mayor also received the stipend. It was 100 bucks a month. And so the mayor, as being part of the school committee, also received that. Over time, the state came in and said, oh, you guys can't do it as a stipend. You have to do it as a salary. So the mayor continued, to my knowledge, of receiving that in addition to their mayoral pay. I think that practice is still the same now, though we could check in the budget book to see whether in fact the mayor is receiving that. But I think that's probably why it exists, is that it was sort of a leftover from a stipend to a salary. So the question is, if you were to say, yep, the mayor should get more money than just his mayor's salary, or her mayor salary, whatever. And so the mayor's salary is in effect, the mayor's salary plus the school committee's salary, or whether the mayor's salary includes, if the mayor should be a member of the school committee, whether their salary is inclusive of all their duties. Now, the other thing we had talked about at another time was putting together a salary review committee to review the salaries, and certainly that might be a consideration. Right now, was this to go into effect, you would essentially be reducing the salary of the mayor.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, beyond the fact that I think this says that the mayor can't be on the school committee, right?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Because she'll hold no other duties. It's not considered a separate. It's considered part of the mayor's duties. She's not a school committee member. She's the mayor.
[Milva McDonald]: Right. Anthony and Frank, would this clause preclude a mayor being on the school committee? No.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yeah, I think, you know, this question hasn't really arisen in any of the projects I've been on. I think that the understanding is exactly as Paulette laid it out. The mayor has a seat on the school committee as the mayor.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, gotcha. Yep.
[Wright]: I agree. And the general principle in law is the specific overrides the general. So if the mayor is specifically named as a member of the school committee, And there's a general clause that says they shall not hold any other position. then the specific would override the general. And I think it's very specifically set up.
[Milva McDonald]: And that would be in the charter that would say the mayor would be on the school committee if that's what we decide. Yes. Okay. So then I think that this clause would not be a problem, except maybe it would interfere with the salary issue at all?
[Jean Zotter]: I think it would. I would like to know what other cities do. Do other cities pay the mayor a school committee salary and a mayor salary? Because that's what I've heard we're doing in Medford.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Some school committee don't pay their school committee members at all. And some pay them more than Medford does. It varies greatly, but many school committees are unpaid.
[Jean Zotter]: Right. But I would like to know if other cities where the mayor sits on the school committee and they pay the school committee, if they get paid for both positions, or if that's just considered part of the mayor's job and part of the mayor's salary. Does that make sense?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: We can look into that. I don't have the answer sitting right here.
[Andreottola]: I don't believe the mayor gets two separate checks. I believe the money might come out of that school committee line item, but the mayor draws one salary.
[SPEAKER_14]: Either way, I think maybe we come back to this. Okay. Either way.
[Milva McDonald]: I think we are clear that we can keep this clause in and it's not going to interfere with the mayor being on the school committee. At least we know that. So we have that question answered.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I apologize. I just wanted to add one thing. I do know that there are some I'm just looking through some charters quickly. So this isn't to say that there's a trend, but there are some where there's a line that says, the mayor shall receive no additional compensation for serving as chairperson of the school committee. So I have some charters.
[Milva McDonald]: So we can put that in. OK.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: That usually goes under the mayor's compensation section.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. OK. Maury, you had a call.
[Maury Carroll]: Yeah, I was just going to kind of say what Anthony said, but the mayor ends up, under our situation, being the highest paid person on the school committee because the mayor gets the school committee salary plus gets the bump for being the chairperson. So that's how it's set up right now. Yeah, that's right. Well, the vice chair gets a bump. as well as the mayor. The mayor gets the highest, the vice gets second.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: You know, I have to look into that.
[Maury Carroll]: That's the way it is, I can tell you already.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so we'll look into that, but and the salaries come in another part of the charter and we did discuss compensation last meeting, but we didn't specifically discuss because we don't know yet if we're going to, we don't know yet what the recommendation is going to be about the mayor and the school committee. So we'll revisit it when we know. Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay, Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I would like to see the something in there with the recommendation of the compensation review board. I don't know what the details are.
[Milva McDonald]: That goes in a different that goes in a different section of the chart. Yeah, a different article.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, because this actually talk. Okay. And Where does the recall process go? In what section?
[Milva McDonald]: That's under Article 8, and we're talking, you know, the Article 8 subcommittee is talking about that, so we will get to that.
[Unidentified]: Okay. So, yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so Paulette and Eunice have their hands up. So what we want- No, not me. Sorry. Eunice.
[Eunice Browne]: I mean, as I said, I had a variety of things. I didn't get to the executive branch, but I've been to the legislative branch and do have a lot of questions. But I think one of my overarching ones, going right back to section 2.1, is the term limits. And I know that we voted earlier on that only the mayor would have the three-term limit. I'm concerned. Four terms, yeah. Four terms. I'm concerned looking at the survey results, which as they say, the survey said we want term limits. Right. We had 650 people telling us that they want term limits and now we've said no to term limits. Right. I'm a bit concerned that we're going against what the community wants.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, it wasn't all 650, but you're right, it was a big majority.
[Eunice Browne]: I think anecdotally, it's also what you hear out there.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, that's right. We did talk about this at our, you know, at not the last meeting. It was the meeting before where we decided not to have the term limits for city council. And I don't, you know, if we want to reopen the discussion, we can, but as I recall, some of the rationale was, um, we looked at some of the research and there was research specific to legislative bodies that showed that term limits reduce the effectiveness of legislative bodies. That was one of the reasons I remember that we decided against it. I mean, are you saying you want to reopen that discussion?
[Eunice Browne]: I just, I fear that once we make all of this public, And people start, I don't know how we're going to present this to the public. I mean, this is going to turn out to be 60 some odd pages in all likelihood. And a smattering of the community will read the 60 pages, but most of the community will look for the cliff notes. And when we say, when we break things down into bite-sized bullets and we Say, you know, however, we put it that it's clear that the legislative branch doesn't have term limits. You know, I'm afraid that a lot of people are going to be like, well, that's what we wanted. You know, how come you guys didn't do that? You didn't you didn't listen to us and and I think, you know, I'm just a little bit concerned. You know, I, I obviously was here and heard and participated in the entire conversation and I think I actually abstained in that vote because I couldn't decide on the fly and. And I'm still, you know. sort of ambivalent, but I'm concerned about what the community is going to think when a good portion of the community has told us that they don't want, that they want term limits and we're not giving them what they want.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, I understand. Does anybody have any thoughts about that, that they want to add?
[SPEAKER_14]: Yeah, I mean, I think the thing I'd say is that
[David Zabner]: uh, in, in, uh, Republican and representative forms of government, uh, there's what the people want, and then there's what the deciders decide. And those things often differ. Um, I understand that a lot of people want term limits. I, you know, I've given them a lot of thought, um, and decided in the other direction. Um, it's, uh, There's a lot of things people want that are not super reasonable. And I think term limits fall under that category. I like to think that if I had a long conversation with everybody who wants term limits, I would convince them of my side. But I think at the end of the day, there are, it doesn't make sense for this committee to put out something that's kind of against what our conscience demands, what we think is best, what we think is right. And, you know, we voted on this, and I think it was pretty overwhelming that we felt that it wasn't right to put term limits on city councilors. So I think if you have arguments to add about why to change our mind, that's a conversation, but yeah.
[Andreottola]: Can I add? Yeah, Anthony. Well, we did give them term limits for the mayor. And so we are listening to the public in that sense. And the mayor is the executive and has the most power in the city. And if we have another 30-year mayor, the city really becomes kind of a fiefdom at that point. So in that sense, we are putting in term limits were limited, you know, the most powerful person, position in the city, you know, to, you know, to a certain length of time. And, you know, the, and I think term limits for, you know, a mayor, four-year terms make sense, but a city council who has to run every two years, and I think that, I think it's a good compromise.
[Jean Zotter]: Okay, thank you, Jean. I just think we should explain how we made our decisions because we're not here to just do what the survey says. We had a thoughtful process where we looked at research and I think we should tell the public why we made the decision and what their research was that we looked at. We just have to remember what all the reasons were for our decisions when we presented.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, that's exactly right. And Eunice, I mean, I do think that the final report will be probably longer than most people will read, but maybe what we'll also try to do is, you know, we'll have a bullet point section in the beginning where we'll try to summarize things as succinctly as possible. Maybe like, I don't know what people would call it, the Cliff Notes version, I don't know. But, you know, we'll try to make it accessible.
[David Zabner]: Executive summary.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, we'll try to make it as accessible as possible so that people can see.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I mean, thinking this through a bit, what I'm hoping that I can convey to people, because I think that there is going to be backlash on this, is that you have to look at term limits and term lengths, not only in the here and now, and maybe your happy with our elected officials now, or maybe you're not. But whichever side of that fence that you fall on now, maybe you don't like our elected officials and you really want term limits because you can't get them out of here fast enough, or maybe you'll love them. And why would you want term limits? Because you think, oh, they can serve forever. They're fantastic. You have to think of a point where there are elected officials seated that you don't like. Those that like them now, eventually you're gonna get a bunch that you don't like or vice versa. So I think term limits has to be, you know, thought of in the broader spectrum. But again, I'm just concerned about what the public's gonna say.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, no, I understand. And it's, and you know, I do think we have to think through it very carefully, especially in light of that.
[Ron Giovino]: Can I just say something to that point? I mean, I think and I know from watching what all you guys have committed to this process. If somebody has followed what we've been doing and doesn't respect what we're doing, I don't think we can win them over. I think we've done a thoughtful process in everything we've done. I think some of the decisions not everybody's happy with, You can't please everybody, but I really think we did very thought. Nothing was rushed through. It was all thoughtful and everybody had their opinion. I hope that everybody feels very proud of the work you guys are doing because if anybody wants to complain, you can send them down here to the Cape and we'll have a complaint department down here for them.
[Milva McDonald]: Thanks, Ron. You'll make them sit in the deck. Okay. So back to this Article 2 and 3 draft. So I think, you know, exactly what Naveed said earlier, the hope is that committee members can read this, review it, and then we can vote on it. So that's why I was asking if there are any particular questions or concerns with any of this text.
[David Zabner]: So I want to say really quick, my plan is like at 825, I'm going to move to approve articles two and three. So I'd love for the next 20 minutes.
[Milva McDonald]: Before 825, because we have a couple of other items.
[David Zabner]: Sure, so, you know, 820, whenever it is before the end of this meeting, I'm hoping we have a vote up or down on it.
[Ron Giovino]: So I'd love there is 1. there is 1 other blue section or I'm not looking at.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. What is it? Which section?
[Ron Giovino]: 3, 5, where it talks about special meetings of the city council.
[David Zabner]: I think we did actually vote on that and it should be green. If I remember maybe I'm looking at my draft here.
[Unidentified]: It is still in blue blue.
[David Zabner]: But if I remember correctly, we voted on it and it should be green.
[Unidentified]: It should be green. You think is everybody.
[David Zabner]: But
[Phyllis Morrison]: Melville, I can't read it. Could you just read that section to me because I can't read it so fine.
[Milva McDonald]: The mayor may call a special meeting of the city council for any purpose. Noting notice of meeting shall, except in an emergency which shall be designated by the mayor, be delivered at least 48 weekday hours in advance of the time set and shall specify the date, time, and location of the meeting and the purpose for which the meeting is to be held. A copy of the notice shall be posted immediately or as required by the general laws relative to such a posting. So basically it just allows the mayor to call a special meeting of the city council.
[Phyllis Morrison]: And has to give 48 hours notice, weekday notice.
[Milva McDonald]: Right. And if I remember correctly, Daveed, I mean, we gave city council the ability to call a special meeting, right? So we, and we talked about how well there's, you know, there may actually be occasion And we talked about the regularity of the city council meeting anyway, but they do now meet every other week, twice a month, so we felt like this was reasonable.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I think it is very reasonable. Okay. That's my vote.
[Ron Giovino]: Move to turn it into green. Green.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I agree.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, well, we can move to turn that into green and vote on that specifically, but I guess first I want to ask, does everybody feel like they've had enough time to look at this text of these articles?
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yes. Okay. Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: And do we have any other specific concerns or questions about any aspect of it or objections?
[Eunice Browne]: You know, I went through it, but it seems like there's no appetite for a whole lot of further discussion, so.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, if there's a specific aspect that you want to discuss, Eunice, we definitely want to discuss it, so.
[Eunice Browne]: Whatever notes you have, share them. Okay. All right. Well, then I'll go for it. So under Section 2.1, eligibility, I'm curious. Are the Collins folks still with us? Yes. OK, great. Do any other communities, and well, I found one for each, but I'd be wondering about eligibility of people getting elected. And I tossed these things out, and I don't think they're going to be well-received, but I'll toss them out anyway. length of residency in the city, minimum and maximum age, let's see, clean quarry, and a couple of these things I found. I was going through some different charters the other night because I'm on the school subcommittee as well and I was looking for something and I can't remember what it was now, but I came across a couple of interesting things. and Everett has a section in their charter. It's under school committee prohibitions, but I suspect that it could be under any of the branches. And it's entitled felony conviction. And it says any person who has been finally convicted of a state or federal felony shall not be eligible to petition for or serve in any elected or appointed office in the city. And I'm wondering if that's something that we should be including in all of our branches so that we are ensuring that we're not employing criminals.
[David Zabner]: So I'll just say before we start discussing that, the things you listed were not things that we considered. So it's not something we debated and rejected. They're not there because we didn't consider it. That's right.
[Ron Giovino]: Following that up... Can the Collins Center tell us if in mass general laws it's prohibited?
[Andreottola]: No, it's not.
[Ron Giovino]: Convicted felons can run for municipal office.
[Andreottola]: Yes, there's quite a few in the state house.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, Anthony or Frank, do you have any comments about this?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Well, I guess I'll just start with, you know, we don't give legal advice, but I'm not aware of any state law prohibiting that for local. Positions from the state level, I don't think it's something we've ever recommended and sort of, I guess, an unflattering response from us is. To look and determine how common it is, we'd have to do some research. I've seen some charters where there's a, particularly for ward Councilors, a time limit to live in the particular ward. So I've seen that. I haven't seen too many regarding the felony conviction piece.
[Eunice Browne]: The felony one in Everett appears to be new. It looks like it was amended as part of an October 2021 update. Acts of 2021, chapter 14, amended as part of the October 2021 update. So that appears to be relatively new. And then in regards to length of residency, I came across this in Chickapee's charter, and it comes under Article 8 general provisions, certain persons not eligible. No person shall be eligible to any of the offices of the city government except superintendent of schools, city solicitor, and city engineer, unless he is a citizen and has been a resident of the city for at least two years. I'm wondering if there's something, and I suppose there would be some debate as to what that number of years would be, two or more, but there's precedent for it.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. Paulette. Yeah, when I looked at some things pertaining the school committee, it specified that a person should be a resident for a year. Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay.
[Wright]: I've seen those questions come up. If you're going to include something like that, You want to be very specific because I've seen the issue come up and the question then becomes, well, a year from when? A year from when they pull papers? A year from the date of their preliminary? A year from the date of the general election? A year from the date that they would take office? And so if you're going to go down that road, you want to be sure to be very specific as to what your residency requirement is as relates to a calendar. The only observation I would make as to residency requirements beyond elected officials is My experiences is a sense that if you have a residency requirement. City offices, the department heads, et cetera, that you limit the pool from which. You're trying to hire. Professionals generally, by and large, or anybody who's going to be an employee of the city. Um, as far as the quality of your candidates will be a much limited, more limited pool. For instance, if you're looking at a city engineer, or you're looking. Um, etc, etc, you know, it employees. You know, that's a policy decision you have to make. And do you want to limit yourself to the 50 or 1,000 residents of Medford? And of that group, how many have interest in working for the city versus a much broader pool of people in, say, the greater Boston area who might be interested?
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. Paulette, were you going to speak?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, I just wanted to, I would have no interest for it to be a residency requirement for positions, but for elected officials, if let's suppose, you know, we now have this ward system. And I see that there's, I really want to be elected. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to rent an apartment in another ward. And so I can run in that ward, because in my ward, there's no chance. So the question is, that's okay if someone wants to move. But shouldn't they live in that ward for at least a year before they run to represent that ward? You remember, if you think about it on the federal level, there were discussions about opportunist nature of some people say moving to New York in order to run for whatever and however you settle, but that's what the discussion is. So in my mind, it actually makes some sense to say, we want you to live in where you're going to be elected for a year. And I would say from the time you pull papers would be a, because remember, when you, when you pull papers, you have to, you have to put in your address. And so what if I'm moving from Somerville and I've got a Somerville address, you know, or whatever, I mean, it says it has to be, so I don't know. I'm just, I'm thinking, yes, it makes some sense to do. And I would not go more than a year. I think a year is a reasonable time.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, David?
[David Zabner]: I guess, number one, I think in terms of opportunists, a year is hardly a hindrance, right? And I think at the end of the day, this is a place where we have to trust voters to elect the people they want to elect. I don't know why we would put arbitrary requirements in front of the voters. um you know if you can convince your neighbors that that you're the person to represent them you know as i i think you should have to live in the city you know we shouldn't have somebody from uh living in in los angeles on uh the metford uh uh city council but um so i don't know i think that these types of things are are both arbitrary and kind of like weirdly take power away from the voters in a way that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, personally.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thanks. I know we have Gene and Ron, but we haven't heard from Maury much, and I see Maury's hand, so can we hear from Maury?
[Maury Carroll]: Oh, thanks. My thinking on this is I definitely agree with our elected officials to have Some sort of length in the city before they're eligible. We've always used kind of like different organizations become president or executive board members. We always use one calendar year. So it can stretch it out to a year and a half, year, you know, whenever, however long that person has lived in that area, it's based on one calendar year. So that's all I have to say, but I do, I do believe in the residency requirement.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. Ron and then Jean.
[Ron Giovino]: Jean can go first.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Jean.
[Jean Zotter]: Thank you, Ron. I put it in the chat, but there is in section nine of the model charter something.
[Milva McDonald]: Can you just clarify the model charter? Do you mean the generic modern charter that the Common Center provided?
[Jean Zotter]: Yes, on felony convictions. I would caution that if that's a route that this group wants to go down, that we do it very carefully and thoughtfully. People who have served time can be good elected officials if they have rehabilitated. Also, we know our criminal justice system disproportionately impacts people of color who are arrested more, served longer sentences, convicted more of exact same crimes. I would be cautious at the same time. I know I'm on the group that's looking at the citizens petition, and we know what happened in Fall River. And so there are times when there's been corruption cases against elected officials, and then what do you do about that? So I just think it's really complicated and something that we should be thoughtful about.
[Milva McDonald]: Um, Jean, what section nine is what, what is the heading of that section?
[Jean Zotter]: Sure. It's like a catch-all. It's a general provisions. Okay.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: If I may.
[Jean Zotter]: Yeah, go ahead, Anthony.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I was just going to add. To the extent that, so I've never dealt with felony convictions in the qualifications for office piece. There are some communities that have a provision on felony convictions, and they sort of fall into two categories. One is you're holding office and you're convicted of a felony for really anything, anywhere, and that subjecting you to possibly a censure or removal. or two, you're holding office and you're convicted of a felony or some activity related to your office, and that also removing you or subjecting you to censure or removal from office. Watertown, I think, is the most recent one where they've got the broader one where if you're convicted of a felony anywhere, you are subject to censure or removal. I've just never dealt with it in the context of the application.
[Eunice Browne]: So does that include somebody having been convicted of a felony in their past that comes out later while they're serving?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: So the provisions that I've seen or been a part of, they are for convictions while you're serving in office for activity. You know, the convictions while you're in office and the activity in theory is, you know, they don't cover all possible circumstances, but in theory it sounds like.
[Ron Giovino]: The model shows Pittsfield and it's exactly that. Only elected officials who have been convicted of a state or federal felony while holding office shall be deemed to have vacated their office.
[Milva McDonald]: That's a distinction for sure.
[David Zabner]: And that's vacate and not become ineligible. Is that what you said?
[Milva McDonald]: Yes.
[Ron Giovino]: vacate so they couldn't hear run again and be re-elected probably it just says they have to vacate their office the action has to take place while they're in office according to pittsfields I do have something else on this topic as well. We've kind of developed over this year and a half a theme of voters trusting the voters. And we talk about the ward representation decision, and there's a lot of concern about what if a ward does not have a representative, what happens? I think in ward representation, you must be part of that ward. And I think there's provisions that we've talked about that when you leave the ward, there's a process to change to make sure you always have a ward representative. So if we're sticking to ward representation, I think that that makes it a lot more personal. The election process becomes a lot more personal, a lot more, you identify with the candidates a lot more. And I think all this other stuff goes away. That's just my opinion.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, thank you. All right. We have we have like maybe one or one more minute on this. But Anthony and Phyllis want to speak.
[Andreottola]: So just quickly, I'm a little worried about the ward stuff with the residency of living in that particular ward. Give a message being such a small community. And, you know, you can be live on the street. and your neighbor is in a different ward on the next block, you know. So I think that's something we need to look at further. And just on the felony stuff, in Massachusetts, you know, we have, you know, quarry where criminal offender record information where, you know, after 10 years, most people who have a felony don't even have to kind of, acknowledge that felony on job applications, that box has been removed in the state, you know, if you've been convicted of felony. We don't even ask that of employees now. You know, if they have a, you know, if they can pass a quarry, they, you know, they don't even have to answer that question. So just that being said, I think we, We shouldn't be looking at putting barriers up for people to run. We should be looking to kind of take them down. We started out wanting to make it, flatten the field and to try to be more inclusive. And I don't think we should set up a lot of kind of limitations and restrictions on who can run. When they can win, you know, if they get the votes, they should be elected.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Thank you. Phyllis. Just a couple of quick things. I appreciate Eunice's bringing this information forth because we could always say that we have now had a discussion on it. And I think that's very important. But the most important reason I raised my hand, it is now 8-24. Yeah. And as much as I really, I think this meeting has been very informative. I do want to get ready to watch the State of the Union Address by the President of the United States. And so I don't know, Milva, where you want to take us or where we want to end on this or that, but the time is coming short now.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, that is right. So I think what I want to do is I feel like we have some questions about eligibility and we're going to, I think we're going to have more discussion on that at our next meeting. So think it over and. I will put the eligibility sections in blue in Articles 2 and 3. We will discuss that more. Please carefully read Articles 2 and 3, and we will try to resolve all the issues, and we will provisionally vote on it at the next meeting. Does that sound like a plan? Thank you for giving it more time. I appreciate it. Okay, so we only have a few minutes, and we were going to just quickly have subcommittee reports. I can say I did, next meeting we'll also look at Article 7, which I shared with you. Article 7 has a draft, so hopefully we can get that taken care of. Any other subcommittees want to chime in?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Paula. I just wanted to announce that we're going to set up two meetings. The first is Tuesday, March 19th, and the second one is Wednesday, April 10th. I think it's a Wednesday. Because I think that we're trying to present at the meeting, what was it, April 18th meeting?
[Milva McDonald]: Yes. Yeah, that sounds right.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So, yeah, so that's kind of our goal. By the 19th, we should understand whether that's really accurate, but hopefully it will be.
[Milva McDonald]: And this is for the school committee? Yes. Okay, that's great. And Article 8, we're also working, and we have a lot of questions and a lot of research to do, but we're working. Anthony, Andrea, did you have your hand up?
[Andreottola]: No, I just couldn't think of it.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay.
[David Zabner]: Yeah, I just want to say, I, I'm going to break my promise and not make that motion. I hope we can get through questions at our next meeting.
[Eunice Browne]: Because I emailed them out beforehand, or is that a. A, no, no, you can email them.
[Ron Giovino]: You can't talk about them.
[Milva McDonald]: I think if you email them, we can just sort of prepare that to think about them, and then we would be prepared for the next meeting, but we just can't have discussion about them. But I am not an expert, and I'm not a lawyer, so. Can you just put them in the minutes?
[Jean Zotter]: I'm sorry?
[David Zabner]: Or in the agenda.
[Jean Zotter]: Yeah, put them in the minutes, so everybody knows, or in the agenda.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes. So if you send them to me, Eunice, I'll put them in the agenda. How's that?
[Eunice Browne]: I'll see what I... I'll try and boil it down as best as I can. I went through it with a fine-tooth comb, and I apologize.
[David Zabner]: That's okay. All right, so... No, no. Not only no to apologize, like, that's awesome. I hope everybody decides to sit down and do that.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes. Before we end, two minutes, I just want to ask if there's any members of the public that have any comments or questions or things that they want to share. Okay. So, jeez, we're going to end two minutes early. Oh, my God. We can keep talking. All right. Thanks, everyone. I'll move to adjourn. Oh, wait a minute. Aubrey, did you have a question?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yeah. Can you say the school committee dates one more time, Paulette?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Tuesday, March 19th, which is not far off, and April 10th, Wednesday, April 10th.
[Eunice Browne]: 7 o'clock, right?
[Milva McDonald]: Yes. Our next full committee meeting is April 4th. And we must have an article eight.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Our next regular meeting is April 4th.
[Milva McDonald]: And I will contact the Article 6 people and we'll schedule a meeting. Okay? Do we have Article 8 meeting? Yes. Did we set a date? I can't. I don't think we did. Oh, geez. That fell off my radar then. I will do that.
[Eunice Browne]: You weren't going to set a date until we got questions answered that we needed. Right. Is that what that's? That's right. You're right. I put together a calendar and invited everybody to it on Google, and I was starting to put all of these meeting dates and other important city stuff in it, and I got feedback that nobody could see it. If somebody wants to help me- I actually can't see it. Okay. Aubrey is going to help you. Okay, yeah, I'll get in touch because I think this will be helpful for everybody so that we can, you know, for scheduling and so forth. So.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, and Anthony Wilson, I think I sent you some questions about article eight and that must have been what I was waiting for. So I'll send I'll resend them to you. They have to do with recalls and things like that.
[Eunice Browne]: So I'm not working for anybody else but Aubrey and me. Gene can't see it. David, I think I'll work with Aubrey and see if we can make it because I think it would help people.
[Milva McDonald]: Now, where's that motion to adjourn? I move that the meeting come to an end. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Great.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I'll see you all soon. Thank you.
|
total time: 26.63 minutes total words: 2616 |
total time: 9.2 minutes total words: 853 |
||