[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Welcome to the April 4th, 2024 meeting of the Medford Charter Study Committee. Our first item on the agenda is to look at the minutes from our March 7th meeting. Anyone have a chance to look at them over?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Everything looks good. Move approval.
[Maury Carroll]: I'll second that.
[Milva McDonald]: All in favor?
[Maury Carroll]: Aye.
[Milva McDonald]: Aye. Okay, great. So the minutes are accepted. Let me just take care of Gene here before we get going. Okay. So our first item on the agenda is, well, after the minutes, is Articles 2 and 3. So did everyone have a chance to look over the draft? I know there were some questions on the draft. Do we just want to dive into our questions and comments on that section? Because I know the first ones I noticed were about eligibility.
[Eunice Browne]: Can you put it up on the screen so that we can? Okay. We can do that. Go through it because I know I'm the author of an awful lot of the comments, so my apologies.
[Milva McDonald]: Here we are, and I will make them bigger. Okay. So is that big enough? Should I make it a little bigger? A little bigger. Okay. So your first question was here under eligibility, right?
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Your first comments, whatever.
[Eunice Browne]: Right. You know, and I had a lot of thoughts. I think there's a show more on there too. So here.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm going to move my rail over. Okay, do you want to just open up? So talk about what you.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. I think, obviously, being a Medford resident and voter goes without saying. And we talked about this a little bit the last time. It's reflected in the minutes about felony convictions. And I put in there having a clean quarry. with no felonies at any time, or if we, for some reason, can't do that, then if somebody's been convicted of a felony at any point in their lifetime, that if they're going to run, then they need to be completely transparent about it on all of their campaign materials. And I did notice, I have some of the backup in front of me. Bear with me here. Everett had something in their charter. It comes under the school committee prohibitions, but it can certainly apply to anybody and I would like it. When we talk about the school committee subcommittee, I'll bring it up there too, but they have in their charter a felony conviction. Any person who has been finally convicted of a state or federal felony shall not be eligible to petition for or serve in any elective or appointive office or position under the city. Then it goes on to say, Any school committee who has been finally convicted of a state or felony shall be deemed to have vacated said office and shall be disqualified from serving in any other elective or appointed office under the city. And this appeared to be an amendment to their charter in October of 2021. And what I found interesting was that it didn't, you know, the first part of it didn't specify, you know, that the felony had to be... If it happened while in office or something like that, any person who has been finally convicted of a state or felony or federal felony shall not be eligible to serve. So it didn't matter when the felony occurred, you're not eligible to serve according to their charter. And as I said, this is under the school committee prohibitions. But it certainly could be applicable for, I would make it applicable for any branch. or all three of our branches, quite frankly. When we jump over to the executive branch, I wrote the same thing. That would be one of my feelings. I'm also of the mind and I know it's a pretty unpopular opinion.
[Milva McDonald]: Should we focus on that one and then move on? What do you think? Yeah, probably. I mean, just so we can get through them. Take them one at a time. Okay, does anybody have comments about the... Okay, Jean.
[Jean Zotter]: Well, I'd like to hear from the Collins Center how other cities other than Everett deal with this issue. But in general, I'm not in favor of that. I think that people who've been through the criminal justice system can be good, if they've served their time, can be good city councilors, mayor. For example, if they had a drug addiction issue, overcame that, they may be able to relate to issues in the community better than someone who has not gone through that type of an issue. And then we know, or at least I know, and I can present data if people need it, that people of color are in the criminal justice system more than white people for very similar crimes in Massachusetts and nationally. So to me, it has a disproportionate impact on people of color and has been used in other places to keep people of color out of elected office. So those are my two concerns about that, but I'd love to hear from the Collins Center, you know, what other cities have done.
[Andreottola]: I'd also like to, I'm sorry.
[Milva McDonald]: Let's let Anthony Wilson answer, and then Anthony, we'll hear your question, okay? Anthony and Andrea, so Anthony Wilson, go ahead.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: And I don't know if Marilyn can, Oh, she's still on mute, but I'll just say, so there are provisions in charters around the state regarding felony convictions. The majority of the language about felony conviction, if I understand correctly, this is a conversation about whether or not a person can be eligible for office, which I think you mentioned, Everett. The majority, sort of the vast majority of the way that felony convictions are discussed in charters across Massachusetts is in the context of a person being holding office and being, for lack of a better term, ejected from office because of a felony conviction during their tenure. Marilyn, I don't know if you have anything to add.
[Contreas]: No, that's the most common provision. It has to relate to your serving Well, it doesn't relate to your serving in office, but it has to occur while you're serving in office.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. Anthony Andrea, you had a question or a comment.
[Andreottola]: I just had a comment. I just had a comment on, you know, the whole issue of somebody who may have had a felony conviction in their past serving or being viewed by the city of Medford as being a citizen in full standing with all the rights and responsibilities and entitlements of the community. If we kind of take it upon ourselves to kind of eliminate the opportunity of them ever being involved in government, we would be doing like a disservice to not only them, but to our whole community. You know, I believe in rehabilitation and second chances. I believe in more than second. I believe in, and you know, everybody should always have a chance. And if they can prove to the community that they can serve and they can be elected, you know, with having a felony in their past or having any kind of transgression, if they can overcome that and have something to give our community, we would be foolish and wrong to deny them. And I think it's not only morally wrong, I think those types of provisions. And I know why the one was put in in Everett. That was due to multiple infractions while in office by people elected and in school positions where they wanted to kind of send a message to the community. I don't believe we need to do that in Medford and I think it would be wise for us to stay very clear of any type of language that kind of portrays us in that light.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I agree with what Jean and Anthony have said. The only, you know, rehabilitation is, that's what the community is about. However, a conviction, a felony conviction during their term is a black eye on the city. So I would think we have to look at that a little bit harder. If someone is convicted of a felony, that the process of serving time and their sentence and all that stuff would hang over the city in every level, mayor, city council, and school committee. I think we need to look at the difference between having a history that you served your time and an active felony conviction during your time in office.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Thank you. Dean.
[Jean Zotter]: I just want to agree with Ron. I think that's in article or section 10, because we've talked about it before, that if you have a conviction, felony conviction while in office, then that's different. And I know that's covered in a different section. I would support that.
[Milva McDonald]: A different section of the charter. Yes. I think it's like the last section.
[Andreottola]: Can I add to that? OK. In that regard, I agree with everyone. And I don't think it should be even a felony conviction. In some communities where, say, a mayor is accused of a crime and it hasn't been fully litigated and there hasn't been kind of a a resolution. I believe that, you know, we as a community should have a mechanism to remove them from office, you know, and not to wait, even wait for a felony conviction. You know, I know that happened in, and I believe somewhere on the South Shore where the mayor was convicted, was was charged with kind of getting, receiving like kickbacks from a marijuana kind of company and they were under indictment and the town was able to kind of get them out of office. And it was like right after an election or they would have to wait, you know, sometimes people don't come to trial for, you know, four or five 10 years, you know what I mean?
[Milva McDonald]: So. So, we are looking at recall provisions, which I think would.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Exactly.
[Milva McDonald]: Address what you're talking about. So, I want to hear from Maury, but first I just wanted to quickly ask Anthony or Marilyn, what section of the charter, the provision for an elected official to be vacated if they are convicted of a felony while in office, where does that go in the charter?
[Contreas]: Usually in the general provision section.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. Um, Maury. He's muted. Oh, Maury. I'm sorry. You're muted.
[Maury Carroll]: Here we go. Sorry. I agree with what everyone is saying here. I understand where Eunice is coming from with her proposal, with her critique of it. I'm one that believes everyone should have an opportunity to right a wrong, and if they've done whatever they can done, made up But whatever they had to, whether it be time served or whatever the case is, everyone has a right to do it. My point was that if you're indicted during your tenure, And I heard what Anthony just said, but if we take that role, we're saying you're guilty without, you know, before you've had your time to claim your innocence through a court of law. So I mean, it's kind of like, it's a touchy feely type situation that I think it just has to play itself out. And if someone really is in trouble, they'll generally just, you know, resign from that position, hopefully. And as you were just saying, we need a vehicle for recall, and that would handle that.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you, Maury. Okay, I don't see any more hands right now. How do we want to wrap this part of this because we have a lot to move on to. Does anybody have any other comment? Do we want to try to make any motions on any of these points?
[Ron Giovino]: Are you going to add the convicted felony during term somewhere? Or do you want to move it?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, we could vote to put that in the charter and then just add it to the appropriate section later. So if that's something that people want to look at tonight, we could.
[Eunice Browne]: Well, I think that's in like section what, nine or 10? Right. Getting a bit of it today. So I know that there's a, I know there's a provision for, you know, while in office.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So you're saying you want to wait until we look at that section.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay. I think that makes sense. Okay. You know, I, But what I put, because I still believe in it, but, you know, I know that the other piece of being convicted. While in office lands elsewhere in the charter, so I think it makes sense to. Yeah, to me, it was, you know, sort of 1 in the same sort of 2 different things. So, I mean, if we're going the direction, if it's the will of the group to go in the direction of convicted while in office, then that clearly goes elsewhere in the in the charter. You know, so be wrong.
[Ron Giovino]: So just back to this point, I wasn't involved in the deliberations here, but I thought we talked about when you moved out of your ward, you were resigning from your ward councilor position.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, that was discussed in the subcommittee. And I think the decision was that it made sense for the person to, if they moved out of their ward and still resided in Medford, that they could finish out their term, which currently is a two-year term. So it would be less than two years unless they moved the day after they were elected.
[Eunice Browne]: or the day after they were sworn in. I'm sorry? If it's a two-year term and somebody moves three months or even six months into their term, and now you're looking at 18 or 20 months while they're in a different ward than the one that they were elected from.
[Milva McDonald]: If that's something that people want to
[Ron Giovino]: Can we ask the call-in center because I thought it was common protocol that that's what happened when you left your ward, you resigned your position, but maybe the call-in center knows better.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. Anthony or Marilyn, do you have any comments on that?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I'll go first if Maryland does. So I'm not sure if there's a pattern or perhaps a trend, but there are, I would say, there are a variety of communities that do it the way that is articulated here, whereas if you have a ward system and you're still in the city and you move out of the ward, that you continue to be a Councilor for that term. So there's a group in that category. I've seen an equal set of communities where if you leave the ward, you've effectively resigned from office. I think it's, and I'd love to get Marilyn's office, but I think it can be tricky in terms of one thing that happens, on the ground is it can be tricky in terms of, and it comes up usually in the context of eligibility, of proving where someone's residence is. So if you get into a situation in which, you know, someone is claiming that someone has left the ward and wants the person to, you know, resign from office, then it's a tricky question of establishing, you know, where their domicile is. That can be a tricky place to be.
[Milva McDonald]: Thanks. Marilyn, did you want to add to that?
[Contreas]: I would say that there is a slight trend to allow the Councilor who was elected to complete the term to which elected. And that's what charters in recent years have provided. I agree with Anthony that that domicile is an issue, but sometimes you have to take into consideration why the person is moving. Often it's to care for an elderly relative, for example.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Thank you. Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: Maybe something like if we add a clause in there, but as long as they're living, continue to maintain living status within the city, that if they want to continue as a ward alderman for what they were elected to, they must maintain a district office, let's say, in that ward where they're obligated to hold monthly office hours and so forth so the people that elected them still have access to them.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't know. Anthony or Marilyn, have you ever seen anything like that in a charter?
[Contreas]: No.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: You can't do it. I just say I'm not aware of too many communities where Councilors have like district offices. I think the only thing I point out is, and I know you're on your phone, Marilyn, so you can't see, but the language I'm looking at that's drafted looks fairly similar to other provisions like that.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Okay. Do we want to decide on this issue one way or the other?
[Ron Giovino]: I think we should vote.
[Jean Zotter]: Jean? Well, I guess I'm thinking just how this, like if, If it's a controversial move, say a Councilor is moving not because they're caring for a sick relative, so it's like a temporary thing, but they've completely moved to a new residence and the ward is unhappy, would the recall be an option for them? Because we will have the recall provision as opposed to something in here where that temporary move would be treated the same as someone who's moving out permanently.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Ron and then Eunice.
[Ron Giovino]: Just for full context of this, is there a decision made on how we replace? I know probably the at-large Councilors would be next up gets it? Or have we talked about, is it next up in wards as well?
[Milva McDonald]: Later in this section, the vacancies provisions are addressed, so.
[Ron Giovino]: I'm just wondering how easy, because it makes a difference if we have to have an election every time this happens.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I agree, Eunice just. You know, now that you say that certainly, you know. When it happens, having an election is a boatload of money, but going back to the point of, you know, if somebody moves. you know, across the city to care for, well, you know, caring for an elderly relative or whatever the case may be. Or what about somebody who's, you know, maybe been house hunting for a while and, you know, three months or five months into their, you know, they get elected in Ward X and, you know, four or five, six months later, you know, they land their dream house, you know, in a ward across the city. you know, what does that say? You know, they can continue in their original ward. I mean, people have all sorts of reasons for moving, but, you know, just moving across the city and continuing to, into a ward that already has a representative because he or she was elected as such, and you're continuing then to, represent the word that you just moved out of, um, you know, couldn't there be some animosity to toward, well, you know, you got elected in ward X and now you've moved over to ward Y, you know, you, you don't have as much of a vested interest in ward X anymore. So I think that that, you know, I don't know, I'm just sort of conflicted here. I feel like they should be replaced for somebody who has a vested interest and who's immersed in the world on a day-to-day basis. Once you move across the city and get involved in your orbit over there, maybe you're not as You know, invested in the original word is you were.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, yeah, Anthony, it sounds like you have a comment and Danielle Danielle has a comment in the chat. Did you want to speak Danielle? I don't know. Maybe she can't because. So it's too loud where she is. Okay. So Danielle says, I think it matters how long they lived in that ward, in the ward that they were elected in before moving. So that's another potential detail that we could look at. Ron and then Anthony.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I think, first of all, putting conditions on whether somebody, you know, health reasons, new house, is just too complicated. Number two, I think it's only two years that we're talking about. Number three, I'm thinking that if a person is elected in the ward, there's a trust factor in that ward. So people aren't going to feel like you're abandoning me because I'm at the other side of the same city. So I'm ready to vote on this. I think we just really need to start, you know, we've got a huge task to do list. And these kinds of things, I think, well, hopefully it doesn't happen that often, but to me, it's, you're still talking about good people being elected to the city council. And whether they are at large or not in the same ward they originally were elected is really a moot point. And let's hope that the elected officials are faithful to the entire community. So, for those reasons, I suggest we just approve this and move to our next.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So, if you want to make a motion, hold that thought. And I just want to hear from Frances because Frances has her hand up.
[Frances Nwajei]: Hi, as you know, I can't vote one way or another, but I do want to give you another lens. The more conditions that you place on who can be elected, not only does it affect those from minority populations, please think about our persons with disabilities as well. It is very difficult if you are a person with a disability that is a mobile disability that needs a barrier-free residence, right? And some people's disabilities worsen as they age. So there may be a need for you to move out of where you currently resided while she ran for office in the middle of your term. So, you know, I wanted to give you that lens to work from as a way of guiding your conversation.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you, Frances. Okay, Ron, did you want to make a motion?
[Ron Giovino]: I'd like to move for approval of this that we're discussing on the board council eligibility.
[Milva McDonald]: So you want to keep the language about regarding ward Councilors moving in the middle, during their term.
[Ron Giovino]: As written in yellow.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay.
[Andreottola]: That states that they can, as long as they live in Medford, they're okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes.
[Andreottola]: Okay, I second that motion.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. And let's see. Eunice. You're asking me a question or you're asking me? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's a roll call vote. Yes. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony.
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Jean. Yes. Maureen.
[Maury Carroll]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Danielle. I don't know if Danielle can vote in the chat. We'll watch the chat. And I can't see everyone because I'm sharing screens, so sorry. I just want to make sure I get everybody. I'm voting yes.
[Frances Nwajei]: I think that's it, Nova. Did you get Gene?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, I got Gene.
[Frances Nwajei]: I'm watching the chat to see if Daniel spoke.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. Okay, so that's that question is been dealt with, we will keep that language. Eunice, were there any other eligibility issues that you wanted to bring to the table?
[Eunice Browne]: I mean, I certainly brought up several there and you know, I'll preface this by saying that None of these are going to be well received, but these are all things that I've heard within the community that I felt should be addressed in front of the charter committee in order to. give the community members that I've heard from a voice. Going to another one that I wrote, minimum length of residency in Medford, and I came across something in a charter in Chicopee. No person shall be eligible to any of the offices of 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. That's the number that they chose. We can choose another number. I would be, interested in increasing it. Again, hearing from members of the community where there are people who choose to run for office who don't know the community that well and come in and run without having any understanding of Medford, our history, our culture, our ways of doing things and so forth. and I think it's something that concerns the community.
[Ron Giovino]: Can I just ask where we're looking? Is this on, is it in this section?
[Milva McDonald]: No, it's not in the draft we have. So, but it would go under eligibility if it were.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: So, and we can move on to the others. These are, again, other things that I've heard from community members, minimum and maximum ages of candidates. There are elected officials who don't have a whole lot of life experience running our city and big budgets and so forth.
[Ron Giovino]: Can I ask what those numbers are, Janice, instead of just saying minimum? Do you have an idea of what the maximum and the minimum ages should be?
[Eunice Browne]: Me personally, if it were up to me, I would say probably minimum age of 30, maximum age of maybe 65 or 70. I better run this year then. Maybe.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm not that far off from it. So, and I see you also have homeowner versus renter. Should a renter be eligible to serve on the city council? And I guess what I would like to first do is ask the Collins Center if there are any laws that, you know, that would affect the ability to put these into the charter. That would you know that that maybe that certain that you can't prove you can't prohibit people from running for office. That's what I'm wondering.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I was just taking trying to look up so off the top of my head it's a little bit tough but Well, I think number one, we're not here to give you legal advice, so some of these you might write by a lawyer, but I'm sort of without, with the caveat that I'm not trying to give you legal advice, I don't believe it's permissible to make that distinction between renters and owners and other things of that nature. The age piece, I was sort of, If you give me, I'm sure to double check on the constitution. I believe that all voters are eligible to run for public office. So I don't think that. That's right. Yeah, so if they meet the age to vote in Massachusetts, they're all eligible to run for office, no matter what age, 18 to whenever. On the other piece about the time in, The community, I am aware of some cities that, some cities and towns that apply that for employees as well as to members of multi-member boards. I'm not aware and sort of, I sort of would defer to Maryland's experience. I'm not aware of any communities that have those, I personally am not aware of, I can't think of any communities off the top of my head that had that provision for elected officials. I'm not sure if it's, So I guess I'd be curious to hear from you, Marilyn, what you'd say to that.
[Contreas]: Well, I think we just go back. If you're eligible to vote, you have a domicile in the city, then you can be a candidate for office. I think that the reference to Chicopee was to appointed positions, because the city solicitor and city engineer, they would all be appointed positions.
[Eunice Browne]: It didn't say appointed, perhaps when no person they are, they are, they are appointed to that. No, clearly they are. No person shall be eligible to any offices of city government. So I interpreted that to mean our elected offices as well.
[Contreas]: I'm where it lists where it lists certain offices. I think it's limited to the offices that are listed.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yeah, and I'm aware of Chicopee's charter and I don't believe that the elected positions have that sort of time in the city prohibition.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. And Francis pointed out in the chat that age is actually a protected category. So I do think that some of these could open up legal questions that we don't have the answers to right now. That's just my thought.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, well, as I said, you know, it's things I've heard within the community. I felt like it should be at least considered.
[Milva McDonald]: Does anybody have any other comments on this or thoughts?
[Ron Giovino]: And I hear what Eunice is saying. However, you know, the voter is who we have to trust in all these situations. So, you know, there could be a thousand scenarios where you will like the decision or not like the decision. I'm sure there's legalities on age for sure, but I would not vote for those changes, and I keep my faith in the voters even though sometimes I'm disappointed.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: can we move on Eunice or do you want do you have any other do you want to uh no as i said i i knew these wouldn't be well received but um you know i feel like i you know should be the voice of the community uh okay thank you um okay uh let's see then
[Ron Giovino]: So we can just, maybe we could just take a quick vote, Melva, just to see if there's an issue here that we need to investigate, or is it just not?
[Milva McDonald]: What do you want to vote on?
[Ron Giovino]: The five items that Eunice has brought up.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Can you articulate the motion? Okay.
[Ron Giovino]: Would you want to break them up? So the first one would be the age.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't know if we want to do that many votes.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, so we have age, we have home ownership, we have two years at least. I'm just paraphrasing what I'm reading here. I mean, Eunice may have better details than I do.
[Milva McDonald]: We could potentially just... make motion, you know, vote on whether we want to pursue the eligibility, any of the eligibility issues that were just, you know, the list of eligibility, the length of residency, age for running, home ownership. We can just vote on whether we wanted to look further at those. Anthony.
[Andreottola]: I would rather that we not, you know, kind of, even let that kind of get into our record as a vote, because I think it will not be well received by the vast majority of the community, and that to kind of, I don't even think we should kind of entertain, you know, those types of restrictions on our community, because,
[Ron Giovino]: Well, just point of information, I mean, if we start restricting people's opinions here, we're not setting a good example either, Anthony. I'm hoping that this kind of, if I could just finish, this kind of resolution that Eunice has, when we put it up to a vote, we'll know whether the committee agrees with it or not. I mean, I just don't think we should be not taking votes on things that a member brings up in these committees.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Lori?
[Maury Carroll]: I'm going to kind of lean towards Anthony. This is just kind of conversation between the committee. I don't think it has to be brought to the floor for a vote myself, but whatever the committee wants to do on these questions is fine. But to me, this is more or less discussion, just like we would in a subcommittee or something else like that. I don't think it should be voted on.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Frances?
[Frances Nwajei]: I just wanted to lend my lens again. If you are going to vote, understand that you are voting based on civil rights laws. Federal laws override everything else. I would really urge that you seek guidance as to whether or not you can place parameters around age, because elected officials do are still considered employees of a specific type for the city, right? So if you start saying that you need to be a certain age, could pose a problem. I can't provide you with the legal guidance, but I would really urge you to, in trying to do the right thing, not create a situation where we are now out of compliance or we open up something that we cannot deal with.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. Eunice.
[Eunice Browne]: I'm okay with it not going to a vote, but I will say two things. First, that, as I said, I feel like I'm bringing something that the community has been asking about, And I can go back now with confidence and say to a community member who might say to me, well, you know, can't we put length of residency in the charter or can't we put, you know, renters are not allowed to serve in the charter. Now I can go back and say. We had a fulsome discussion about it, and here's where we landed. You know, my opinion on it notwithstanding, I can say with confidence that we dealt with the issue. I hope that regardless of how people may feel about any topic or consideration that any of us brings up that it's, you know, there's not an undertone of we shouldn't be entertaining that because I think anything that any of us bring to the table is important.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you, Eunice. Anthony Wilson, do you want to say something?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yeah, I just wanted to, I'm in no way trying to overcomplicate this or add to the complicated nature of the discussion, but I just want the body to be fully informed. So I've just been sort of searching furiously while you're having the conversation and Worcester does have a one year residency requirement for its Councilors and Boston has one as well.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. Um... Ron, is that you?
[Ron Giovino]: It is Ron. A couple of things. First of all, I don't want to set a precedent for not allowing things to go onto the floor. Secondly, since we're not going to vote on it, I want to be on the record as saying I am against age, home ownership, renters serving on the council, all the other issues. I'm totally against those limitations. So I just want to be on the record since we're not going to be able to vote.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. Okay. Can we move on or are we okay with this eligibility section as it is?
[Maury Carroll]: Jean has her hand up.
[Jean Zotter]: Oh, sorry. Yeah, that's okay, Melba. If we're moving on, I have a moving on from this question. Okay, go ahead. This maybe will just be in the drafting. I just wanna, a couple of things I noticed when I was reviewing it today. Some places we say eight wards, then another place we say city council can determine the number of wards.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, we're gonna get to that. Okay.
[Jean Zotter]: It's also in the eligibility, it came up in the, Yeah, it says, yeah, that's in the eligibility also. And then sometimes we have eight Councilors, which I think we mean two-thirds. Anyways, those are just little things I noticed that I think.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, that was, yeah, okay. Thank you, though. Those are good. There may very well be details that are a little off, so. Okay. So hopefully maybe you can note those and we can look at them later. The next section is powers and duties.
[Eunice Browne]: Wait a minute, was there a term as well? We answered one of the things about moving out of the city, but the other one I had a little need to clarify this and that's in section 22 eligibility attorney of section 10 dash question mark, question mark, question mark.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, that's because we haven't done section 10 yet. Okay, good point. That's why the question marks are there. Make sure we don't, you know, miss it later. But I and we were using language from other charters. So I don't I don't know. Yeah. We'll look at that too. You know, there's probably definitely some cleaning up that will have to be done. Powers and duties. Do we have questions on this section?
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. A couple of things. I think the way it seems to be written now is that the president and vice president are elected at the beginning of a term and serve the entire term. My question was, should they serve for two years, which is in essence a full term, or should they serve for one year and then relinquish those positions? and somebody else gets a shot. The second year, I know that we're talking over in the school committee subcommittee, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think a couple of my fellow committee members are here, that those positions are going to be one year only and they will rotate around. So I'm wondering if the same should be done here.
[Milva McDonald]: So the idea would be for the council to elect a president and vice president annually instead of? Correct.
[Ron Giovino]: Just annually, but someone could do it consecutively.
[Milva McDonald]: Is that what we did in the school committee?
[Ron Giovino]: No. No, right. I think the school committee does that already. But remember, they're vice chairpersons.
[Milva McDonald]: I remember you talking about the positions rotating. Having a required rotation so that the same person can't.
[Ron Giovino]: School committee side, they already have a chairperson. So it's not a chairmanship. It's a vice president. It's a vice chair.
[Milva McDonald]: And the secretary.
[Ron Giovino]: Right, I'm just thinking, all I'm saying is, if a council president is doing the job and the councilors want that person to be there, they should not be forced to not pick that person. So I would say vote every year to give them options, but not limit their vote. That would be the way I would like to see it.
[Maury Carroll]: I agree fully what Ron was saying. I mean, if we want to do it annually, that's fine. But all members annually have a right to be elected or reelected, depending on the consensus of who's running for those positions within that body.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Go ahead, Anthony.
[Andreottola]: What is it now? Because I know sometimes that the chairpersons have changed midterm. I remember when John Falco decided to run for mayor and Rick Caraviello became the chair? Do they relinquish the chair? How do they decide who's the chair now? It's on an annual basis.
[Milva McDonald]: Don't they do it every two years after the election?
[Maury Carroll]: They actually do it every year.
[Milva McDonald]: They do do it every year. Okay. Phyllis, can you Can you unmute?
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yes, I can unmute. Can you hear me, Melva? I just wanted to agree that I think that if they want, they can have a vote every year. But if someone is consecutive, I think that is the way it should be also. I just wanted to state my agreement with that. I'm almost home. I'm on my phone. But I've been happy to listen in while I've been driving.
[Milva McDonald]: Great. Thank you. Thank you.
[Phyllis Morrison]: All right. Thank you.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. So right now, let's see. So I'm just trying to find where it says the appointment. Oh, here we go. So right now it says that they do it just after every, you know, after the election. So it would be two years instead of one. And it sounds like there's some thoughts that maybe we should change it to annually.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Well, Melva, one of the things we talked about at the school committee and Ron and Eunice might back this up is that it may become too much of a workload for someone also. So annually, I think might be something that should be considered. And the person, like I said, like we've already, you know, I've agreed that with Ron and them, if they wanna continue and they voted, that's great. But, you know, the option to maybe step down from that position, maybe would be something that someone would be looking for.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Anthony or Marilyn from the Collins Center, do you have any feedback on other communities that maybe do that or how well it might work or anything like that?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Operationally, I'm not aware of any issues. I would say From what I can see, the most communities are on the two-year cycle. It aligns with the election of a new council, the election of the council president.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. Okay. Well, right now, the draft we have has it working that way. And if there's any appetite to change that?
[Ron Giovino]: I'd like to move that it changes to annual, but the president can run consecutive terms if elected.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. I think we probably don't- I'll second that. Okay. So I'll do a roll call vote. Eunice. Yes. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Maury.
[Jean Zotter]: Yes. Jean. I don't know. I don't have a strong feeling. Sure. Yes. Phyllis. Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't know if Danielle is here. She's going to vote. Anthony.
[Andreottola]: I'm going to abstain because I don't know how the city council does it amongst themselves. I think they have their own kind of mechanism. I don't want to weigh in on it right now.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm voting no.
[Jean Zotter]: But I think I got everybody who's here. Danielle just put in the chat, she votes no. She votes no.
[Milva McDonald]: That's five yes, two no, one abstain, so the motion carries. We will change that language. Okay, was there any other issue in this section that people wanted to raise?
[Ron Giovino]: No, but I just have one point on the first line of powers and duties. that the President sets the agenda, we also have the Article 8 that is looking at how we establish an override to that too. I don't know if that conflicts with this writing or it complements it with the Article 8 information.
[Milva McDonald]: Oh, you mean the free petition where they petition to get something?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't think that would affect this.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Got it. So Eunice or anybody else had, are there any other questions or issues that you want to raise now?
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I think, you know, when you talk about, you know, regulating proceedings and deciding questions of order and so forth, you know, one thing that I've noticed prior councils and this one now too, I guess, in terms of regulating, and I think we may have talked about this elsewhere, is not only regulating the proceedings from the standpoint of the community and keeping order, but also the behavior of the individuals behind the rail. and making sure that they're being respectful of the community members that are in front of them and of their colleagues. There's been occasions where some of the Councilors have not behaved with respect to the residents, and I'm just And, you know, and I'm wondering, you know, with help from the Collins Center, if there's any and I approached, you know, former President Morell, I tried to approach Falco about it and couldn't get a hold of them. But if there was any way to. You know, deal with the behavior some of the behaviors and, you know, Councilor Morell had told me there's nothing in the charter that. Allows me to do anything short of saying to, you know, their fellow Councilor. You know, could you please not do that anymore and if the behavior continues. There's really nothing they can do because there's nothing in the charter that allows them to do anything. So that would be, you know, one, one issue and the other one, you know, that's kind of a corollary to it is any sort of attendance issue with the Councilors, you know, missing and inordinate amount of meetings. And, you know, that that has occurred in the past and, you know, I did find, Some backup to that, you know, with a couple of different, you know, Barnstable and Beverly both address the issue. I couldn't find anything regarding meeting control. So I don't know if there's something that we can insert where the council president would have some sort of authority to do something more than say to their colleague, please don't do that anymore, which doesn't really carry any teeth at all.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Anthony or Marilyn, do you have any thoughts?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I was just curious before anything, what was it? I didn't hear exactly what in Beverly or Barnstable they were addressing their charter.
[Eunice Browne]: They were addressing the absences issue. Barnstable, for example, in section 211, in the event a delegate of the assembly fails to attend regular meetings of the assembly committee meetings and fails to represent the town, within which the delegate was elected for a significant period of time to be established by ordinance. Without filing a reasonable excuse with the clerk of the assembly, the assembly of delegates shall notify the board of selectmen in the town, and I think they do regional stuff down there, don't they? Is this the county legislature? I'm not sure how Barnstable works in terms of that.
[Contreas]: Possible does have a county charter. I know that.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay.
[Contreas]: Beverly, it looks like because the words assembly and delegate aren't associated with local government.
[Eunice Browne]: And they. Reading further, they seem to talk a little bit more about it also in Barnstable and then in Beverly as well with multiple members' bodies. But I don't see why we couldn't put something in the charter that just because it hasn't been done before, why not? If a Councilor is missing an excessive amount of meetings, are they really representing the people that elected them?
[Milva McDonald]: What would you want to put in? They're elected. Yeah. They're elected.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, and therein lies the problem.
[Ron Giovino]: But Eunice, they can be recalled, which we're working on.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah.
[Ron Giovino]: That would be the recourse, I think.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yeah, as far as we're aware, no council has the authority to remove someone from office. It would be through the recall provision.
[Eunice Browne]: Which has, you know, huge thresholds, you know. But if a councilor, you know, this happened, you know, last term, a councilor missed, you know, in the course of, you know, a two-year period, 60 meetings. Somehow or another, that shouldn't be allowed to happen. Maybe that was a fluke, but it happened once, not to say that it won't happen again. Should the community really have to go through the ordeal of a recall to remove somebody that's week after week after week, simply not showing up. And the only thing we can do about it is a recall that takes a hell of a lot of work.
[Milva McDonald]: Hey, Maury, did you want to speak?
[Maury Carroll]: Yeah, two things. I hear what Eunice is saying, and I understand the individual items that she's talking about, but I don't believe the charter can be micromanaging every part of a description and so forth of job responsibility here. Unfortunately, as far as I'm concerned, you have a situation like Eunice is referring to, I think recall is the only way of handling it. But I wanted to get back to the election of president and vice president. Do we handle how vice president, if vice president is going to be handled the same as president as far as the annual elections and so forth? Are they grouped as one? I thought we only said president.
[Milva McDonald]: I thought we said both.
[Maury Carroll]: That's why I'm asking. Maybe I missed it. But as long as it's both, fine.
[Milva McDonald]: That's what I wrote down.
[Maury Carroll]: Thank you.
[Jean Zotter]: Okay. Gene. I was going to Eunice's point about not showing up. We have had in the past councilors who chair subcommittees, and then the subcommittee doesn't meet for two years. But I didn't know if the council president shall appoint all members of all committees of the city council, whether that also means if someone isn't calling a committee meeting for two years as chair, does that mean they could put a new person in charge of the committee or something? I think that's one thing you don't show up to general council meetings. If you still have quorum, you can still function. But if work is happening in the committee meetings and those committees never meet, that work isn't happening. I didn't know if That line there meant that they could also take away an appointment and appoint someone else as chair.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony or Marilyn? That's how I read. That the president could who appoints. The council president who appoints members of all committees could also withdraw that appointment and appoint somebody else. Is that true?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: That's my understanding in most communities where the president has the authority to, uh, the president, the president appoints all members to the committee, uh, you know, committees of the city council, including the chairs and inherently carries with that the authority to remove members, uh, or change the chair. Um, Marilyn, I don't know if you have a different opinion on that.
[Contreas]: Well, I'm just thinking, wouldn't that be addressed in council rules?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: So, so, so are you saying that this isn't even necessary in the charter where it says the council president shall appoint all members of all committees of the city council.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: So, in the, to the extent. Most chars, they have their language about the council's rules and so forth, is merely that the council will pick the day of organization, which I believe that this body has discussed, and will instruct that on the day of organization or at some time thereafter, the body will vote to accept its rules of order or how it will conduct business. And the chars also spell out that you'll meet with a certain frequency. and it specifies officers, but it doesn't go into the sort of the gritty details of, you know, what the rules should be, the committees, you know, those powers are inherent in being an officer of the body.
[Milva McDonald]: So that's something that we should probably add. Just a general statement about establishing the rules
[Contreas]: That makes sense. That should be in, that's in article two. There's a standard provision that's always there about. Yeah, yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: And I don't think it's here, so we should. Maybe, oh, maybe it's on, maybe it's here.
[Contreas]: It usually says that they can. Did they set the date of the meeting by order?
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Yeah. Yeah, we do have that. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Okay, so it's coming later. But so just before we move on to that, just looking at what you were talking about, Eunice, in terms of you raised two issues, addressing conduct during meetings and addressing absences. Is there any further discussion we want to have on that or any action we want to try to take on that?
[Andreottola]: I'd like to just say that I believe that these are elected city council members and they need to establish their own rules, their own processes, their own ways of policing themselves. I don't think it needs to be part of the charter. I mean, they have to They have to figure out how to work together and how to set their own standards and requirements. I don't think we should be delegating to city council how they do their job. I believe that's on them as elected officials.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, so can we move on to the next section? Do we have any other? OK. I don't think there were any questions on this section, the prohibitions. Although, maybe there was one.
[Eunice Browne]: I did find something. I can't remember where I saw it. I think it might have been in the National Civic League. That I indicated in there and neither the city council or any of its members show in any manner. Control or demand the appointment. Or removal of any city administrative office or employee. Whom the city manager will be the mayor. Or any subordinate is empowered to a point. You know. And I was just a little bit concerned about anything, you know, making sure that anything that's HR related would be done within executive session.
[Milva McDonald]: So, you're talking about the section where it says interference with administration? Right. Okay. And you are suggesting that we change that language?
[Eunice Browne]: Spammers are out loud and clear tonight on the phone, aren't they? Yeah. I just wouldn't want to make sure that any sort of personnel issue would be dealt with.
[Ron Giovino]: in terms of... Well, I think the employee's right to privacy is a federal guaranteed law, so.
[Eunice Browne]: That's fine.
[Ron Giovino]: I mean, I just think you can't, and I've never seen it, and I don't think you ever will, you'll never see anybody talking about personnel issues because it's against the federal government. I defer to Jean on that one, though.
[Jean Zotter]: Go ahead, Jean, sorry. Well, I mean, it's complicated, but there's union, issues. And so there's state and federal law that would potentially affect this. But I think that we decided not to give city council the power to weigh in on city administration officials. Department heads. Yeah. And so I don't know that we need that language that's proposed here because they cannot demand appointment or removal.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, no, you've got a point about that. Yeah, you're right.
[Jean Zotter]: And the interference with administration covers the other part I think you were saying, where basically I read that as saying, they can do inquiries and investigations of the operation of the city, but that they can't direct, like they can't fire or hire or order city officials to do something that's solely the purview of the mayor. That sounds right. I think it says, too. And then Francis was saying, well, the city clerk is a city council employee. But I read this provision as the city clerk is managed by the president as an employee. So that's the supervisor of the city clerk.
[Frances Nwajei]: Right. The city clerk reports to the city council through the president. which is why when something is, you know, when we're doing something like in the clerk's office or the clerk is involved in something, a member of city council might be involved, right? Doesn't mean that they don't take direction from the mayor, but that's the only position that reports to city council.
[Jean Zotter]: Right. And I think I read, but we'll get to that part, that the president has the ability to hire and fire that position. It's not like a joint city council position, is how I read. So that they don't need to go on executive session, but that's my reading of it. I don't know if the Collins Center has how it happens in other cities.
[Ron Giovino]: I just thought they'd take a vote of the whole council to renew this.
[Jean Zotter]: That's true. They do vote on the city clerk. Yes, you're right. But, yeah, so maybe we should go to that section.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, we'll be getting to that shortly. There were, well, the compensation language units that we, what we, if I, I'm going to phrase it correctly. What we voted on was to say that the city council would pass an ordinance to create a committee, an advisory committee about salaries. The actual compensation would still have to be set by ordinance. This committee would not be able to set salaries. So that would go laid, that would go elsewhere in the charter, but I believe that it wouldn't negate the need for this. Okay. Does that, does that make sense?
[Eunice Browne]: Where do we think that that part is going?
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony, Anthony and member Anthony Wilson, we had, We had talked on email about it and then the committee had a meeting that you were not outvoted to recommend the formation of a committee by ordinance to review salaries. What section of the charter would that go in?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Well, the formation of the committee to review salaries for, so you're in the section now on compensation, so it could go here where you have language about the city council creating an ordinance. I think off the top of my head, you're talking about just that the city create a committee to review all municipal salaries.
[Milva McDonald]: I'll have to pull that up, I thought I... No, it was just elected officials, not all municipal salaries.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yeah, and I'm blanking on where it should go, but I thought I sent you, I believe I sent you something.
[Milva McDonald]: You did, and I'm sorry, so I probably have that somewhere. I can look for now. Yeah, but the vote, but this would be a committee that wouldn't actually set the salaries, right? The city council still does that.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Correct, the ordinance.
[Milva McDonald]: So we still need this. Okay. That other language will just have to find the appropriate place for it. I knew we had a big long discussion about it. Yeah. This is the part now where we get into the meetings and the rules.
[Eunice Browne]: I didn't know if my commentary belonged. here or some of the concerns that I had are more about public engagement and accessibility and so forth. I didn't know if they belonged here or over in our public engagement section or what. And I know that there's some rumblings of concerns about public speaking and so forth. So I didn't know where all of that stuff should go. Maybe it's not here.
[Milva McDonald]: When you say all that stuff, you mean the comments you had about frequency of meetings and times of meetings, et cetera?
[Eunice Browne]: Right. That's, you know, to me, you know, I don't know whether that belongs here where it talks about regular meetings or whether it goes over in what is it section eight that we're working on public engagement or what?
[Milva McDonald]: Um, it would be if it's about city council meetings, and when the council would meet, I think that it would go here. This does already address meetings where it says regular meetings of the city council be held at a time and place, fixed by ordinance, etc.
[Eunice Browne]: Right. It's my feeling that if the city council is putting together an ordinance of when to hold a meeting, they are going to do that to their convenience. and that's not always at times convenient for the public. Medford City Council up until a couple of years ago, and maybe not even that, used to meet weekly at seven o'clock on a Tuesday night for as long as I can remember and since the beginning of time. you know, committee of the whole meetings and subcommittee meetings and so forth, always, always, always began at seven o'clock and the entire group would come together every Tuesday. And, you know, in the last, you know, year to 18 months or so, that has changed considerably where now they're meeting biweekly and they're inserting You know, they call them standing committees now, as opposed to subcommittees at six o'clock in the evening. And, you know, if they're going to put that in there, either, you know, by ordinance or by their preference or whatever, I feel like, you know, we should be going back to the seven o'clock because that was what the community expected and what You know, no time is perfect for everybody, but the seven o'clock time was what people were used to and what seemed to work best for the community. And I feel like if you allow them to put something in by ordinance, they're going to do it to their convenience, not the convenience of the public and the charter would, you know, supersede an ordinance. So that's why I put in, the suggestions that I added.
[Jean Zotter]: I understand why you're doing this, Eunice, and I hear that there's a frustration. I just think all of this is way too specific to be in a charter that's for 10 years and doesn't give the flexibility we need as a city to adapt to I just think it's way too specific.
[Milva McDonald]: Any other thoughts?
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, and just to, I understand what Eunice is saying too, and to Jean's point, you know, the path of this document is going right through the desks of the city council. So you gotta realize that, you know, being this specifical, just realistically doesn't fly. You just have to let them, we have to give them the ability to do their job. The recall is our only recourse to correct that.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Thank you. I was muted. I couldn't get I couldn't know it. So I was doing this. Sorry. You know, I understand that the frustration and I get all that but I'm of the mind also to that. These are councils and committees that with elected people on and they You know, they set their own agenda and their own rules. I think that if we start tying this to this charter, I think they're overstepping. That's my humble opinion on it. I don't know who said it. I think these are professional people, the time and that. And yes, of course, I agree with you, Eunice. It would be optimal to have it at a time that was best for the community. But the other point is, too, is that these are people that have to meet and they have to set the time where they can also meet, too, within a certain set time frame. As for rules governing their own assemblies and their own gatherings, I think that's theirs. I think we really are getting into a territory where we're overstepping the parameters of what I see is our role in this.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you, Phyllis. Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: Yeah, I understand the frustration. I'm one of those citizens of the community that's frustrated with the time going. I mean, it's been... weekly meetings from as long as I can remember, and to have meetings go on until 11, 30, 12, 1 o'clock in the morning, whenever they do it. And it's on a regular basis, it seems, that it's kind of unfair to the public to hang around at a 7 o'clock meeting and not have stuff come onto the floor until 11 or 12 o'clock. if they have people who are interested in things going on and they're waiting five and six hours, maybe they do have to have some restraints put on them. I'm not saying here dictate fully, but to me, the way it's been manipulated these days that they're putting everything into two weeks, yet they want to get paid for a whole year. How come their salary isn't prorated for their meetings? Are you saying that they're only going to meet for two weeks? They meet every other week. That's what they do.
[Phyllis Morrison]: You said they're going to meet for two weeks and want to get paid for the whole year. I thought that's what I heard.
[Maury Carroll]: They want to get paid the whole year. They're on a 52-week salary, but they're only meeting 26 times a year, if that.
[Eunice Browne]: Not even that because they only meet twice during the summer.
[Maury Carroll]: Exactly.
[Milva McDonald]: That's not in accounting committees.
[Maury Carroll]: I understand that. I'm just saying there's a lot of frustration in the community with the different changes that this council has adopted over the last few years. You've seen the frustration with people with different agenda items that have come up that they're waiting, to hear four or five, six hours into the meeting before anything comes up. And maybe it's- I agree, Mark.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I had to leave a meeting because it went on so long.
[Maury Carroll]: Maybe it's something that we should look like. And I said earlier, we don't want to micromanage them, but also they have a responsibility to the community to treat the constituency with some kind of proper protocol. And that's what I have to say about that.
[Milva McDonald]: Can we, can I ask Anthony Wilson or Marilyn if what your thoughts are on this or there's.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: would say generally communities don't there isn't a lot of specificity here some of what I can see on the screen really aligns with what is in most communities fixed by the you know fixed by ordinance fixed by council rules You know, I guess in theory you could add more if you wanted to, but, you know, councils could go have long meetings for a number of reasons. Budgets usually can be long meetings, you know, that meeting where they have the budget. So there's the ideal, there's the realities of governing. And so I guess, you know, to say they can only have, if I understand the tenor of the conversation, to say they can only have two hour meetings or what have you, you may not be setting it up to be really the most efficient document. I sort of tend to, would tend to say like, you know, the council will create its rules and it will, you know, it should be required to meet regularly at a certain time that would be, the notice would be given to the public ahead of time. They can expect meetings, you know, twice a month, so on and so forth. But generally, there isn't a lot of specificity or regulation applied to parameters around those types of rules.
[Milva McDonald]: What about the suggestion of a meeting saying that the city council shall meet, well, weekly? I mean, you'd have to give them a vacation. You can't just say weekly, I guess. I don't, I mean, because I feel that's one of the things that I heard.
[Eunice Browne]: Well, I mean, they prior to, you know, 18 months or so ago, they met. Pretty much weekly from probably the 2nd or 3rd week of September to the end of June. And I think that they always took the. The December holiday week off. And. Because that's the schedule they set. Right. Well, and that's the schedule that had been in place. Right. The beginning of time. But it was set.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, I don't know about that. I don't know how long it's been set, but it's been set for a long time.
[Eunice Browne]: And Maury's been watching them a whole lot longer than that. Right. So I guess a long, long time.
[Milva McDonald]: What I'm asking Anthony and Marilyn is, is that a level of specificity that, you know, is, to say weekly.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I'm not aware.
[Contreas]: I think it is too specific.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yeah.
[Contreas]: And that section of charter gives the council the authority to make rules. If you want to say something to the extent that, you know, the council should keep in mind the convenience of the public when setting their schedule. It, you know, begins to get the point across without a whole lot of verbiage.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we've heard discussion on this. Right now, the language is what it is. Do people feel, do people want to make any other suggestions or?
[Eunice Browne]: Clearly there's no appetite for changing much of anything. And the way things stand now, the council is going to do things the way in which they choose to. which isn't necessarily in the best interest of the community and the frustration that's out there now, that Maury was alluding to. I think what I was trying to do, and perhaps I can't put words in Maury's mouth, you can speak for yourself, Maury, but I was trying to put things in there that would reduce some of the simmering frustration that's in the community. Evidently, that's not what the charter can do.
[Maury Carroll]: I'm not sure of the mechanism that we can put in here regarding how to control their actions and what they're doing. Is there any way that on their adoption of their rules and regulations requiring public meetings and so forth, that they're required to do a certain thing. And I'm not quite sure how to say this, but I hear what Eunice is saying, and I hear throughout this city, day in, day out, regarding the way the city council is handling things at this present time for the city. You know, people aren't happy with the changes, that their voice isn't being heard any longer. And, you know, there's certain things that I would think that we're not gonna get involved with, but I think on a regular basis of meetings that maybe they, I think their feet should be held to the fire a little bit more than what it's being, than presently constituted right now, the way they're operating. And that's all I mean is I don't know what the mechanism is or the wording or the languages to make them more accountable to the public. I don't know if anybody has any thoughts or anything like that. Can I have my hand raised?
[Milva McDonald]: Go ahead, Anton.
[Andreottola]: I'd just like to add, I appreciate everybody's comments around the city council and and the frustration that some members of our community feel. Right now we're expressing our own views. I mean, I can't speak for the whole community. I've seen all the Facebook stuff. I've sat in on the last couple of City Council meetings on Zoom, something I don't usually do, and they're out of the norm. There's something going on right now, and I don't know how long it will last, but it will somehow resolve itself, even if it is through the next election. uh, you know, things will change. I don't think it's our responsibility as a, as a child review commission to, uh, to kind of police and try to control the city council. They were elected by the people. They got the votes. They have, uh, they have a responsibility to the people that elected them. And, uh, it's not our job to kind of regulate their position. You know, if they want to meet once a month, you know, if that's, you know, their decision and they have the votes to back it up. So that's the way it is. and for us to try to kind of reach, you know, that part of that government is way out of our purview, our ballpark. We really just can, you know, and somehow if there's a way to kind of voice it in the charter that the city council shall kind of, ask the public for, you know, you know, or, you know, seek recommendations on things, but we can't control them. It's not our job. And right now, there are some vocal people who have, you know, problems with the city council, maybe justly so, maybe not so justly so, you know, that's politics. We're, you know, we're not here to kind of help people decide their politics. And I guess that's all I want to say. Thank you.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you, Anthony, Phyllis, and then Ron.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I just wanted to ask, and this is a point of information for myself, people may already know this, to whom is the city council responsible to? Like who actually, are they responsible to anyone? Is there someone that oversees the city council?
[Milva McDonald]: No, I mean, they're elected, so. Yes, I know they're elected. They don't have the boss that I'm aware of.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Can you ask someone at the Collins Center if they have any information on that?
[Contreas]: So that they're responsible to the voters.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Right. I understand that. I get that. And this is just something I know this has nothing to do with this, but this is just a point of clarification myself. So once they're elected, the understanding is then that they can conduct themselves what we hope in a manner befitting to the reason that they were elected because people voted for them who think that they're gonna do the best job for this position. So there's no accountability whatsoever.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I think I understand where you're trying to go. I wouldn't phrase it like that. They'd be accountable to the ballot ultimately every two years. So I wouldn't say that they're not accountable. It would be through the electoral process.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Right, I understand that, Anthony. But I'm saying in the meantime, in the two years, there's no sense of accountability. Like the mayor couldn't say, OK, you've overstepped, or something like this couldn't happen.
[Milva McDonald]: No. I mean, unless if we get a recall provision into the charter, then
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah, honestly, I appreciate the couple of minutes here because I just needed to clear that up in my own head. I'm not going to make a point for the charter or against the charter. That's not my point here.
[Eunice Browne]: Thank you. As long as they're, you know, acting within, you know, federal and state law, they can conduct themselves In any which way they want is my understanding.
[Andreottola]: And if they have for the past 50 years, this isn't new. We've had, you know, we've had people who've had issues with the city council as long as I can remember from when I was a child. that there's been outrage and a certain group hates this council or these councillors. This isn't new. This isn't something that we need to get involved in. It will ultimately resolve itself. The people who are are able to get elected or the people who are, you know, can get the votes, that can get the support, that has the backing of the people. You know, let the ballot decide. I mean, if, I'm sorry, I'll start rambling.
[Milva McDonald]: I better shut up. Thank you, Anthony. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, a few points. First to Eunice, if you mandated that this council meet every day, it doesn't make them a better council. So there's two different things. I mean, if they met once a month, they could be more effective than one that meets every day. I think that we must hold on to the recall, because it's really the people's only way of really combating abuse. I'm also, hopefully, before the meeting ends, I'm going to introduce what I think is a very important piece, which is public participation, which happens to be hitting the city. I'm not asking to mandate how the city council works, but we, the public, are also a branch of this government. And so I'm hoping that, you know, I know it wasn't on the agenda, but I'm hoping that we can establish some rules of either a subcommittee to get a real handle on the controversy going on with public participation. So, you know, I think we have recall. I agree with Anthony. I think we have the vote. But, you know, I'm just not, there's just, the micromanaging the situations is not necessarily gonna give you better government, I guess is my point. However, I do think the people need some power to not have to put up with four years of a mayor, two years of a city council, or two years of a school committee, if the people as a group are disappointed.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. So we've discussed this, and we can talk about finding ways to add language, something along the lines of what Marilyn suggested, but specific requirements maybe are not advisable. So do we, are we okay with this? And maybe we can decide to look at some sort of general language that we would, you know, that would sort of reflect the point of view that we would like the city council to take when they set their rules and their meeting times. But beyond, does any, is there anything else that we want to cover beyond that?
[Eunice Browne]: I don't think that anything that we put in here is. Necessarily going to have, you know, as mere suggestions or recommendations for how we want things to be conducted. In terms of the frustration that's boiling over in the city right now. With the. elected officials as currently constituted, if it stays that way, in the future, I don't think that there's anything that we can put in here that would be a mere suggestion or recommendation would have any sort of effect. We can put language in saying, you know, we recommend that you do things based on the convenience of the community. You know, it's not an order, so they can take that whichever way they want, which is probably to say that they won't take it at all. Um, I would be more interested in pursuing what Ron is proposing, um, with some sort of a subcommittee or something. I'm not quite sure what he has in mind that might have more of an effect on how we can If we can't put it in here, as it is, perhaps is a different place that we can do things. You mean a different place in the charter? I'm not quite sure what Ron's proposing. So I'd certainly like to hear him out in some fashion at the appropriate time. I know we want to get through this piece.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, I mean, rules for public participation, I think would go under rules of procedure. So I think we're sort of in that.
[Eunice Browne]: Point right now, I mean, I brought up public participation, you know, to some extent, you know, in the. You know, blurb that I wrote on the side there, you know, with all meetings should be required to have a period for public. Comment within the 1st priority so that everybody has sufficient opportunity to speak.
[Milva McDonald]: You know, which, so I mean, I, I think that there are some state laws surrounding that. So maybe Marilyn and or Anthony Wilson can talk about that to a public participation and whether it's reflected in state law or.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: The open meeting law does provide provisions. It does not require public comment under the open meeting law if you read the law in the guide. So, you know, you definitely could put some language in there. It's not impermissible to add language around public comment. I guess my only suggestion here is What I guess to be to be to be, I guess, somewhat careful because. depending on the issue, it's an issue sort of that I've actually seen play out where something controversial has come on the agenda. The charter has, or at least the interpretation is that the charter requires public comment. And so you can spend an entire meeting in public comment and not get to the urgent business that's to be voted on and then have to have, another meeting and then and then there'd be a sort of a tug and pull about how much public comment to allow at that next meeting um so i think it's something that should not prohibit from from regulating here in the charter um but to be sort of sort of mindful of the impact it could have on the efficiency of meetings okay thank you um when you say it's it's um
[Milva McDonald]: something that could be in the charter, can you maybe be a little more specific about what type of language would be expected or typical?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I'm not aware of any typical language around, particularly in this section. There is language in the, there's a citizens, I forget the exact section number it is, but there's a section about sort of citizen participation in the model charter that I believe that we sent you. It's got a couple of different mechanisms, the referendum vote, the initiative petition. I've recently seen some language around the population being able to request like a town hall meeting here's you know I don't know if this will you know how this will land but I think if you would put some language here about that when the council adopts its rules to to includes language for reasonable, a reasonable period for citizens to be heard at a given council meeting, thereby not sort of requiring a certain time period or certain, that allows the council flexibility and its rules to say, public comment shall be, you know, X amount of time long, commenters will have X time to speak, that way they can adjust, you know, if they have 100 speakers, two minutes per speaker versus they have 10, they might allow more time or less depending on the circumstances.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. Thoughts? Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: I guess I'll speak again. Again, my point is that, you know, I think there needs to be a mechanism in our charter that defines what public participation is across the board. Five years ago, it was 10 minutes a person. Two years ago, it went to five, and on Tuesday, it went to three. I agree with what Anthony said about regulating and based on who's there and what's there, but I think a minimum of, actually, I don't, I'm not gonna say what my thoughts are. I think I like to keep it open, but I think I would like to see a subcommittee do the kind of research we've done on every other issue here. We know how to put a survey out in public. We know how to do that. To get some information and feedback because people are not happy with the ability to, I've experienced, I'm sure everybody else has experienced it. I think that my opinion is that this charter is the people's document. And I think that the people represent a part of this government. And I think there should be rules regulated because right now, as of Tuesday, we're at three minutes and 90 minutes total. In two years, when we vote again, we can go down to one minute and 60 seconds. So I'm trying to figure out what the right number is to put it in the charter. So it's not something that on a whim you can do because you don't like what the people are saying or for whatever reason. So that's, I'm asking that we formulate a, it doesn't have to be a long, you know, we're talking about one issue, but a public participation subcommittee that will do the research to bring back that says, hey, the people like it this way. This is what people are saying to us. And I strongly feel like it should be part of our charter.
[Maury Carroll]: I agree fully with what Ron's saying, and I want to bring it just a step further, and not just focus on public participation, because as Ron hit it right on the head, it's also the people's document on how the government is to be held. I think we should maybe bring up a couple of these topics that we brought up tonight on frequency of meetings. I'm not saying, maybe Anthony misunderstood, I'm not saying that the meeting should only be two hours, which Anthony brought up. I'm saying that they shouldn't start a meeting at seven and have the public there and their gender items are not coming up until 11 or 11 30. I can go back, I think it was either four or six years ago when they brought up something and they tabled it and they took it off the table after all the all the citizens left at 11 30 at night and voted on it to pass it when everyone was down there against it. So I think that maybe, and I think, and I'm going to agree with Ron, I think there's a few items here that maybe we should do in a subcommittee again, and relatively quick, because we're trying to move through this thing and not let this thing sit on the front of the month, but put together a subcommittee and let's hash this out. And, uh, bring some other suggestions maybe forward on rules and regulations.
[Milva McDonald]: So I guess my, I mean, we've, we've been talking in this meeting about sort of the general advisability of not getting specific in the charter. So, and I, what I'm hearing is, um, um, a sub, a subcommittee to sort of come up with recommendations for specific, rules about a time limit for public participation and, you know, number of meetings and things like that.
[Maury Carroll]: So I just want to... No, I don't think it's so specific as much as it is that it should be protocol that the public has a right and they're not regulated as wants and they just went from two to three minutes. You know, no one should be up there for 20 minutes either. You know, just but to put a guillotine over someone's head to say, okay, you got three minutes, and after three minutes, they turn your microphone off, I'm not entirely sure that that's proper protocol on how city government should be run.
[Jean Zotter]: Gene. I guess I'm just going to say I think city council should have the, ability to run a reasonable meeting in the time frames they have. I totally support public participation. There's multiple ways of providing input to city council, including written testimony, speaking at a meeting, coming to subcommittee meetings. And there is some case law, and there's an ACLU opinion on this, that I looked up and found. So I think there is some recognition that public needs to have the ability to participate in city council meetings, but also city council has the authority to place some limits on that so they can get like, I think what Anthony Wilson was saying is, so they can get the work done. So I'm not exactly sure what the subcommittee would do or how it would address that. But if people are interested in that ACLU opinion, I can share it with them.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. Eunice.
[Eunice Browne]: Totally agree with Ron and even more so with Maury, where I think we need to take things a step further as I continue to reiterate, if it's not in the charter, then you know, this council or perhaps future councils will do things that are at their will and convenience rather than that of the community. So I'm volunteering to serve on that committee.
[Milva McDonald]: So, um, be the, I put it together. So I just want to get a little more clarity on, cause the different things have been suggested for this subcommittee. Um, So Ron initially just suggested it to look into the issue of public participation. And I guess I'm not, I mean, we have a lot we have, we have, we have a lot to do before we finish this. And I guess I'm not entirely convinced we would need a subcommittee. I mean, I think we could continue to discuss it further. But I don't personally see the need for a subcommittee.
[Andreottola]: Can I say something?
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, Anthony.
[Andreottola]: I understand Ron and Eunice and Maury. You're hearing a lot from the community, and people are frustrated. But I'd just like you to understand one thing, that the people that you're hearing from, are a small, well, maybe they're not, they don't represent the entire city. And when we're looking at the charter, we have to look at it through the lens of the whole community. And I know some of the older, more conservative folks are very upset with the current city council, but that's just the way it is. We can't, I'm sorry, we can't, we can't, we can't change that in the charter. I just, I just, you know, you know, the future is, is in front of us. You know, we do things differently now. You know, we have people on zoom and meetings and people participate on zoom from the comfort of their home, you know, like, And, you know, people can email and communicate a lot of ways with their city councilors, and they do. They get a lot of calls and a lot of, you know, they interact with their constituents, and I don't know why we We, as a group, think that we can somehow, you know, kind of make those kind of changes. Why? We're not over the, you know, the city council. I like Chilis' question. I mean, they are the elected officials. We have to let them do their job. We have A charter isn't supposed to constrain them from governing. It's supposed to just give them the framework. And if you want to go into those weeds, go ahead. I really believe nothing good can come of it. That's just my opinion.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you, Anthony. I know we have Ron and Eunice that want to speak. We have four minutes left, and I want to have time to see if there's anyone from the public that wants to speak. So, and I know we didn't get through very much of our agenda, unfortunately, but I think we had productive discussion. Ron, do you want to quickly say what you were going to say?
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, just quickly, I'm kind of surprised at Anthony's comments because that's all we've done here for 15 months is make decisions on ward representation and things that, you know, we try to listen to the people. I haven't said how I want the participation to go. All I asked is that a subcommittee be formed to understand what the length of time each citizen should have based on the information we gather from other cities and from a quick survey. So, you know, when you say we are the advisory board, that's gonna advise the city council and the mayor and the citizens. So to say that we don't have power, we do have power, we have power to advise. So I don't appreciate that, you know, we shouldn't do these things because it may, you know, hurt the precious city council. That's my comment.
[Andreottola]: Okay, thank you. I like the opportunity to respond, Ron. Okay. In all due respect, In all due respect, I find your response. I'm sorry, I'm getting some interference, but what I said, I said because I want to see this. this charter study committee succeed in putting a charter together that can be taken seriously by the city council, that they will accept and forward to the mayor, that it can be something that can benefit our community, bring it forward, not try to regulate. We're not here to regulate. We're here to make recommendations. We're not a regulatory board. I think that we're getting off track if we think we have any type of power to change the behavior of elected officials through this through this board, this commission, whatever you want to call it. Do what you feel that you need to do, but I'm telling you, you go into those weeds and we as a committee are not going to come out of it. Thank you.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thanks, Anthony. Eunice, 30 seconds.
[Eunice Browne]: We've all put a ton of time into this effort for the past however many months. We've all served on multiple committees. I think if you've got at least two, perhaps three, maybe a couple more, you know, members willing to put the work in and serve on a committee to further investigate this issue, I think it's a worthy endeavor.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. I'm just unclear on exactly what the investigation would entail, so I would like to, we'll put it on the agenda for the next meeting, and we'll continue to discuss that. Phyllis? Oh, you can't unmute, sorry. Here. Okay, now you can unmute, I think.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Nope. I just think, Melba and everyone, that this has been a long time. I think that if two people want to put some points together, I'm of the opinion myself that we cannot regulate time in those things. Whatever that avenue wants to be done, that's fine. But I think that we've got to stop talking about this and move on to something else. If someone wants to make a presentation and put the points on the paper, then we'll do that that way. That's all.
[Milva McDonald]: I agree with that. We'll put it on the agenda for the next meeting. And in the meantime, if any individual member wants to gather information that they think would be helpful to the discussion, that would be fine. Okay. I would like to see if any members of the public would like to speak. Okay, so it's 830. And I have to end on time because I have something else at 830. So thank you, everybody. Motion to adjourn. All in favor. Aye. All right. Thanks. See you in a couple weeks.
|
total time: 22.95 minutes total words: 1853 |
|||