[Milva McDonald]: Welcome to the April 18th, 2024 meeting of the Medford Chartered Study Committee. The first order of business is the minutes from April 4th. Did everyone have a chance to look at them? I move approval.
[Andreottola]: Second.
[Milva McDonald]: All in favor? Aye. Okay. Excellent. Okay. So, Now, our next item is a short one, and I'm going to let Jean speak because we already voted on this item, but there was a question about it. So I'm going to let Jean speak, and then we'll vote.
[Jean Zotter]: I asked Melva if I could bring this back to the committee. And apologies, I have a cold. It's around the budget proposal that passed city council and we had voted to not have the committee look at that proposal from the city council. And I just wanted to bring it back to the committee and make sure we're doing our due diligence. The city council, my understanding is city council passed this budget ordinance, it went to the mayor who vetoed it but said she would ask the committee to review it. And so do we feel like we adequately reviewed that ordinance? We didn't spend a lot of time on it. I know that it's contrary to state law, and it would have to be a special act to do the thing City Council wants. And I voted against it also, so I'm recognizing that. But I just wanted to make sure we thoroughly considered it. And one thing I thought that I could do is just research why federal and state legislatures can be involved in the budget, but why this doesn't happen at the local level, and bring it to the budget committee and let them discuss it.
[Andreottola]: Can I ask a question? Sure. Now, you're talking about This was last year. You're not talking about what the city council and the mayor have been working on together recently, which they've come to some kind of, I don't know, working agreement on developing something. I understand what you want to do, but since there's a process that they're already actively kind of involved in and piloting, we want to look at that, then to go back to something that they already compromised on or in the process of compromising on. I don't know if you follow what I'm trying to say. Yeah, no, I do. I just don't know. I see what you're saying. I'd be open to kind of discussing it, but I want to kind of have it updated, though. Like, where are they now? Is there something that's still actively in discussion between the mayor and the city council? Or is this something that they're already kind of working through.
[Milva McDonald]: Let me just say the City Council is, Pat, they've been working with the administration on a budget on an ordinance that is, I think, pretty far along in the process. This particular question is specifically about the City Council being able to move money in the budget. So it's a very narrow question that we would be looking at.
[Andreottola]: So, so, and then it will give the city council veto power over the man.
[Jean Zotter]: It would. Yeah, that's a total amount, but they could move the money between lines.
[Andreottola]: So like if they could defund the police department, or they could move money from the fire department to the, you know, to the school.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Andreottola]: Over the administration.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Andreottola]: And would very, could be very conflictual with, you know, union negotiations and stuff. And we saw that that was, you know, a pretty significant problem in Boston this past year. and why would we want to revisit that if the city council isn't in the project isn't I don't know if they moved on from that or not.
[Milva McDonald]: That's what I'd like to know. We've already discussed it and we already voted on it. Right now, the question is, would we like to do more research on it and then revisit it? So that's really the only question on the table that we're going to vote on is, do we want to reopen it so that Gene can do more research? And the research would really be about State about state and federal because and maybe Boston because there's no other city in Massachusetts that can do this because it's. because state law says that city councils can't. So that's the question.
[Andreottola]: And I've actually talked to a Boston city councilor about it and kind of what the process is in Boston and the problems they had this, you know, not this year, last year. And, you know, I would say if we're gonna research you, won't we research you by talking to the city council and the mayor?
[Jean Zotter]: I mean, I'd be open to people's ideas. I mean, I don't but I don't. Well, it's just do you do you want to do you want to do you want me to do that or not?
[Eunice Browne]: So, OK, Eunice, you know, I see Jean's point, which I think originated and correct me if I'm wrong, Jean, but you were sort of saying that Um, you know, the 1 of the reasons to bring this up, um, was because a lot of the feedback that we got through surveys and talking to, you know, elected and just, you know, people around that. The council that both the council and the people. The residents want a different balance of power and want the city council to have a little bit more control of the budget. So I see that in 1 way of. You know, and I was going to bring this up later on in a larger sense of. You know, looking at all of the surveys and things. Has the charter addressed as we're getting towards the finality of this has the charter addressed. some of the concerns of the residents and this was clearly one of them. So have we sufficiently addressed it and given the residents in as many places as we can, um, you know, some of the things that they've been concerned about. So I see it from that point of view. Um, I watched the city council budget meeting last night. Um, they had, uh, three departments presenting their budgets. And, you know, as they prefaced it and chief of staff Nazarian spoke last night to kind of kick the process off Councilor Collins did bring up the fact that they're, you know.
[Milva McDonald]: Hamstrung I guess in what they can do with the budget so it continues to come up They're not hamstrung any more than any other city council in the state So to say they're hamstrung. I'm just I just want to say they're not hamstrung because They don't get to do that um, so
[Eunice Browne]: They seem to think they are.
[Milva McDonald]: I know. I just want to clarify because Hamstrong gives the impression that they have less power than others.
[Eunice Browne]: Right. That all being said, the fact that, you know, the largest city in the Commonwealth has tried this and it doesn't seem to be going well and that, you know, as a rule, nobody else does it, I think says plenty. So I think in that regard, I wouldn't be for revisiting it.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Ron, I'm going to let you speak and then we're going to vote.
[Ron Giovino]: That's my point. I don't think we're here to debate this issue. I think we're here to decide. The only thing I'm asking is if you can explain to elaborate more of what the instructions are from the mayor. What's the expectations of what we're supposed to do because we've already done it.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, there were the three budget amendments that the city council proposed. I'm not going to get the date right, but it was a while back. And she said, there's currently a charter study committee, and they will look at these issues along with the whole charter. That's what I understand, anyway. And so this was one of them. So the question is, do we want to reopen this so that Dean can do research on it? It wouldn't mean that you're voting to allow, you know, to say that we want to put in the charter that the city council can move money. The question is, do we want to reopen the question so we can get more information?
[Ron Giovino]: Can I just ask if Jean is in favor of this or not?
[Jean Zotter]: I am. My proposal is I'd bring it back to the budget committee and as a committee we could discuss it and we could decide as a committee whether we even bring it to the full committee or not. The committee might look at what I present to them and say, well, this doesn't sound very strong and let's not even bring it to the full committee unless this whole committee wants to hear it. But that's my proposal.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so that's what's on the table right now, and let's vote. Oh, sorry, Aubrey?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Well, if you brought it back to that subcommittee, would we be able to include that information in the public presentation at the end of the whole charter?
[Jean Zotter]: You mean to city council, if they ask us, did we? I think so, because it would be part of the committee minutes, and the discussion would be a public discussion.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, Paula. And I think Gene is willing to do the research and, you know, and feels I never it was about the time when I was joining. So, I'm not familiar with that discussion in particular. So, I think if she's willing to do the work. you know, so be it.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, we had the discussion and the vote, I think, a few meetings ago, where we talked about the state law. I mean, I don't have it handy right now, but it's pretty specific where it says it accepts Boston, but it says in communities other than Boston, and it pretty specifically says that the city council can't move money. So this, you know, If the committee, if the research were done and the committee decided to put it in the charter, it would be bucking state law. So, you know, it would, I mean, special, theoretically, a special act could make it, but it would be bucking. So, we brought up the state law. We talked a little bit about Boston and what was going on in Boston.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So overall, I'm not inclined to want the city council to be able to move money. On the other hand, when I have a member who's asking, hey, do you mind if I do any more research into it? There's something that's obviously nagging at her. I'm disinclined to turn that down.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So let's vote then. So the vote is, the proposal is for Jean to do research and bring the research back to the budget subcommittee.
[Andreottola]: And what is exactly the research on?
[Milva McDonald]: I believe, Gene, you said it would be on state, why state and federal governments or bodies can move money and budgets and local governments can't?
[Andreottola]: Yeah, and I would look at what would it be specific to overriding the administration, which is exactly the only thing that's on the table because the mayor and the city council are in a in are piloting a budget process right now for the new ordinance. I mean we're going contrary to what the mayor and the city council are doing right now by Anthony redoing this. I don't, I don't, you know, I know this is something that you want to do.
[Milva McDonald]: So Anthony, you can vote what you can vote yes or no on whether to do that.
[Andreottola]: So on whether to go ahead with the reason I'd like to vote to be specifically for, uh, to research, uh, giving the power to the city council to veto the administration because that's what the only thing you're researching. It's not about moving money around. It's about giving.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's about moving money.
[Ron Giovino]: The motion is to reopen the subcommittee so Gene can add research. If that's a yes or no. The details are not.
[Milva McDonald]: So do we want to do a roll call? Do we want to do a roll call vote? Sure. Okay, Eunice.
[Andreottola]: Will this be a budget group, or will it just be Gene individually?
[Milva McDonald]: Gene would be doing the research and bringing it back to the budget subcommittee.
[Andreottola]: The budget subcommittee, not to the entire group?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, eventually, it depends. If the budget subcommittee wanted to bring it to the whole group, they would, but only if they were going to recommend something regarding what Gene found. Eunice? No. Anthony?
[Andreottola]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Danielle? Yes. Ron?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Jean? Yes. Aubrey? Yes. Paulette?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: And I am no. Okay, so Jean, you have a job.
[Jean Zotter]: Okay. Thanks, Melody.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. Okay. Ron? We are on a public participation question.
[Ron Giovino]: I wanted to bring this up because, you know, this previous vote we just took is kind of a good example of, you know, our charge is to make sure that we're representing the third wing, not the mayor's office, not the city council. It's the people that we're, you know, so I want to just propose a public participation subcommittee. So we can listen to what the people want and make a decision based on that. And I think we have a tendency to, my comment on this whole process is that I think we have a tendency to think that it's already defeated before we start. And I disagree. That's why I just voted yes. I think getting gathering research and coming to the committee and then everybody gets a vote, yay or nay, is the way it should be done. So I'm proposing that a public participation to discuss something that is, I think is a very, complicated subject, and I think it's something that, you know, the city is feeling some pains with now. I think it's our duty to at least talk about that. So I'm suggesting a public participation subcommittee.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so does anybody have any comments before we vote on whether to form such a subcommittee? You're muted, Gene.
[Jean Zotter]: I'm barely hanging in there today. What would the committee do, Ron? Is it looking at the charter to see how the charter could have more public participation, or is it more to go through the survey and all the comments we've gotten and double-checking against what we've decided so far and whether we're missing something?
[Ron Giovino]: No, good question. My thought is that how we conduct meetings in the city from across the board potentially, and I don't have any preconceived notions about the results here, but I do think we should look at how do we empower citizens to have the ability to talk in a public forum, and personally, at every level, including our level here. And I don't know what those rules are, but certainly I think people have the right and I think people are being challenged by interpretations of the right. And I just like to see it hard and fast. And, you know, it could be as loose as we decided to be, but I think it should represent the people in our charter. That's just my opinion.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, any other comments? Paulette.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So Ron, the one place where I have a problem with this is that I hear people say they're not listening to us and they're not hearing us. And I remember being at some very difficult meetings where, and at one point I sort of said, people are hearing you, they just don't agree with you. And I think that is a very central problem, because we could certainly talk about what's appropriate as is two minutes on one topic too short, is five minutes too long. So those sort of nuts and bolts we can talk about. But there is always going to be this tension between when people who are intaking the information don't agree with the speakers. And just because you've got a lot of speakers there, whatever the subject may be, doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to sway the people who are sitting in the seat. So when you're asking about this, are you talking about the nuts and bolts ends?
[Ron Giovino]: If you just five minute versus, I'm talking about the logistics of doing it, giving everybody the opportunity to understand that when they show up, it's the city council meeting, they'll have three minutes, two minutes. I'm not, I'm not asking that the, the, the committee, the council, the subcommittee, whatever it has to react the way they want to react. All I'm asking is that in a meeting, a public forum, you have the ability to, and we've talked about how do you get something on the agenda, but this is really talking about you have three minutes. Everybody has three minutes. And whatever other rules, this is just the structure of it. It's not, well, they have to answer me, they're forced to answer me. No, I just want to see it in writing. So over the past month, we've gone from 10 minutes to five minutes to three minutes. And I just don't, I think it should be fixed by a group that says, this is it. Everybody gets two minutes, maximum two hours on one given agenda, whatever it is, I'm only talking nuts and bolts.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Daniel, did you want to?
[Danielle Balocca]: Yeah, so the way you're talking about Ron, it sounds like it's not already in there and we'd have to do, like. For both for school committee and city council, or would it be like this? Would you imagine it being the same or what?
[Ron Giovino]: It's a good question. Again, I have no preconceived notion of what it should be. All I believe is that across the board, that every one of these meetings, school committee, city council, every public forum meeting, this meeting, if we get into the weeds of a really major scenario, If there are 50 people in the room, 50 people should be able to get up and have their fair shot at it. And I don't know how we do that, but that's my thought. How do we get that across the board? So, and it may be, Danielle, to your question, it may be different for a school committee than city council. I don't know. I don't have all those answers, but that's why I'm, you know, I started looking and figuring out what I wanted to, how I wanted to go, but I thought it was better to have a subcommittee do it because I think it's more.
[Danielle Balocca]: Is it something that's usually in the charter?
[Milva McDonald]: No, no, it's not. And that's why I'm just going to say my only comment I'm going to make is I will vote against this because it's not a charter issue to me. The city councils and school committees make their own rules in terms of how they conduct their meetings, and that's standard. And I don't think it should be in the charter. I've been sort of looking at the list of sort of checklists that I sent you all from the National Civic League about what belongs in a charter and what doesn't, and some of the questions whether it can be solved by an ordinance, whether it's policy versus charter. And to me, this is not a charter issue. That's just how I feel about it. Frances.
[Frances Nwajei]: I understand what Ron is saying. I think you're trying to provide clarity for anybody who might want to engage. I heard you use the term across the board. So I take that to mean our boards and commissions. I just wanted to remind everybody that public participation is not actually written as any legal part of the public meetings. So if you would want, I can see if I can get a quick consult with a simple question that says, can a charter have public participation written into it? Because there's no law, right? It's not like it will say refer to Massachusetts general law, blah, blah, blah. Because I think that you have to start there. Because if you go and you form your committee, and you you do all that and then you find out that you can't put something in the charter that's not state law, then you've wasted a lot of time towards the, you know, towards the end of your giant project. So just trying to figure out like how I can help get some clarity before you move forward.
[Milva McDonald]: Thanks, Francis. That could be helpful if the committee decides to go ahead with this. So does anybody else have any other comments before we vote? Eunice.
[Eunice Browne]: I'm in full agreement with Ron on this. I think it's just because it's not in the charter doesn't mean that it can't be. And I think that Any way that we can ensure that the public has more of a voice, a stronger voice, and inserting that in the charter, I think, is important. I think leaving anything like this up to the bodies themselves, quite frankly, in my opinion, is the fox guarding the hen house. They get to make whatever rules that they want with whatever convenience that they want. and disguised as, you know, you know, they make their own rules. So they can make a rule, you know, as President Bezos said at one point, that they don't even have to listen to public participation. He can make that rule if he wishes. And that completely disenfranchises the public. I think having something in the charter where, where a city that listens to the public, I think is important. Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony.
[Andreottola]: I just, I think I made most of my comments last week, but just to say, you know, that would really be changing the form of government. That would be more like having, they're changing our form of government to town meeting. Our city council, our school committee are, are elected. Uh, you know, we give them the power to make their own rules when we elect them. It, It's their job to have their rules, their standards, their professionalism. It is not our role or even a charter's role to dictate how people conduct their meetings. By the time this goes into effect, the people who are on city council now may not even be the city council members. And remember, the president of the city council has been able to suspend the time limit on public participation for as long as I can remember. And they do it often, and nobody has ever had a problem with it up until recently. And that's, you know, I understand that, you know, there's been some conflicts in the city council, but, you know, that, you know, things change, and over time, and, you know, there's ebb and flow of public participation. We can't regulate that. I know you want to, and I know you're doing this in goodwill, and it's for the citizens and for the community, and I applaud you for what you want to do, but I really don't think we can do it. It's not our place, not our role, and I can't imagine that that this could ever go forward, that the city council, the mayor, or the state legislature would ever allow something like this to be in the charter. Because they're elected, and we can't tie their hands by charter. I think we can only use our vote to make change. And I think that's the way our system's set up. And I'll shut up, but I understand and I support you and what you're trying to do. I just don't think we can do it.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you, Anthony. All right, I want to go ahead and vote, but Ron, did you have one more thing you wanted to say?
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I just want to respond to that. You know, the thought that we are powerless is not true because in our charter we have, if you can't get something on the agenda through the correct process, we have a roundabout way for citizens to gather signatures to do that. So we're not powerless. And part of my, and again, I haven't said one word about how I think this should go. All I'm saying is that our charge from the city is to investigate all options and to listen to all options. I don't believe we've done that in this regard on this process. And the subcommittee can have a discussion and the simple results could be, let's make sure that an ordinance is created by the city council at the beginning of each term. That's a rule. So I mean, those things can happen. And I just don't, I don't think it's fair to say it's impossible to happen without having a discussion and running it up the flagpole. So that's where I stand on it. I mean, I don't, I'm not saying how it should be done could be as simple as saying they must create an ordinance in their plan to allow for or not allow. They could say, they have a 10 second rule. Well, as long as that's in writing, that's what I'm asking for.
[Andreottola]: It already is wrong.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. I want to go ahead and vote on this. Paulette, do you have one more comment?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes. Throughout the school committee subcommittee, this topic has been on. And I've always referred it because we talked about talking about it as a whole committee rather than the subset of school committee. So I would feel disingenuous not to now say, yes, we should take a look at it, whatever the result may be. I just feel like we've consistently said we would take a look at it with the whole committee, or that's what the impression was, so.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so the vote that we're about to take is on whether should we form a subcommittee to look into how public participation is handled at public meetings. Is that accurate, Ron?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Eunice. Yes. Aubrey.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Ron.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Danielle.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony.
[Danielle Balocca]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Paulette. Yes. Jean.
[Jean Zotter]: I'm gonna say yes, but I would hope the committee looks at things like principles we can put in the preamble or I'm concerned about the specifics of dictating minutes or getting into the details. And if that came before me, I would vote no against those kinds of provisions.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm voting no. So we actually, since we only have eight members here, we now have a tie. And I'm not exactly sure. I guess we're going to have to bring it to the next meeting.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So the motion fails, isn't it? If there's a tie vote, the motion fails?
[Ron Giovino]: Unless you want to table it for reconsideration.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't know exactly how it works. Is that how it works?
[Ron Giovino]: If it doesn't pass, it fails. And if you could table it for reconsideration at another meeting.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Is there any harm to have Frances go ahead and do the piece that she volunteered to do?
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, I feel like we already heard from the Collins Center that there's nothing prohibiting putting it in the charter. They don't advise it because it's not really a charter issue.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, according to my recollection, is if it's the motion fail, if it's a die vote. I could be wrong, but that's what my recollection is.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. I mean, we can bring it when we have three members that aren't here. So let's table it and we'll see. I believe a couple of members might show up later. We'll table it for now. Okay. Do you mean table it for later in the same meeting? I'm sorry? Do you mean table it for later in the same meeting? We'll table it until the next meeting. How's that? Motion to table it. All in favor? Aye. Okay. It's tabled until the next meeting. Now, we're on. articles two and three, which we've spent a good amount of time talking about last meeting. And so what I asked is for people to, because we have to get through this material. So I asked if people have specific proposals that they want to make regarding this text, bring them and I'll bring it up.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I have a clarification. I wasn't here the last time. So in the first paragraph, it says, if the city has 10 or more wards, there should be either two or three Councilors. So it's an odd number. The beginning, it shall consist of 11 members. Is it the assumption that it's eight wards? Yes. Well, I think it ought to say eight wards and three large members. I don't think it defines that. And then you've got the question is, well, what happens if it becomes nine wards? And if it's nine wards?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, it says each ward shall have a single ward Councilor.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So. OK. So if it was nine, then it would be 11. OK. If it's 10, it would be 13. But it doesn't say eight.
[Milva McDonald]: Right, so this language, you know, when the call and center reviews this language, they might say you need to say this to make it clear. I mean, we pretty much we voted on. eight ward and three at large, because we currently have eight wards, and the subcommittee was concerned about wards. So I feel confident that when the call-in center looks at this, they're going to be able to tweak the language to have it say what it needs to say based on what we decided. Does that make sense? Okay.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, I'm just saying it doesn't say it in it.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, no, I understand. Okay, Jean.
[Jean Zotter]: Yeah, just that's my comment and the document is. There's just inconsistencies about how we talk about the number of Councilors in the wards and and what happened. So but if you mean later, you mean another in other. I think in Article 7. We just need to tighten up the language. Obviously I think the call center will do that. They definitely will help with that.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. Okay, Aubrey.
[Maria D'Orsi]: It's a process question because I don't think I understand how it works. So we will vote on these and then the call and center will review and then we'll bring back to us for a final
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, that's what I would like the Collins Center to do is to read it because there may be some language in here that, you know, maybe says something that we didn't want to say or that they'll say, well, you know, flag this or clarify this or whatever. And then that's the plan. Okay, so do we have any specific proposals on this text? Or... Where did we leave off? Well, we left... I don't know exactly where we left off, but my request was for everybody to review the document and come with a specific proposal, and then we will vote on those proposals, if any, and then we will vote on the text. Okay. So does anybody have any specific proposals?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I have a couple. So I have a concern about, and this actually came up on the school committee one, two, when I was writing the filling of vacancies. I don't know whether it's standard practice that if a candidate becomes appointed, that immediately of the day of the election, the next, the person who elected fills out the remainder of the term. That just seemed like, So we just had somebody on the school committee come in, who has come in in March, I think it was. Now, he was the next in line. So I guess because he was the next in line, he was elected. So maybe it doesn't matter if he was appointed He could be, he could serve on the, for almost the entirety of the, of the term. And then on election day, automatically he would be out and not fulfill the final six weeks. It just struck me as being odd.
[Milva McDonald]: Are you talking about this section right here? So are you just doing two? Oh, that's council president, sorry.
[Maria D'Orsi]: 2-10, I think.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. So which section? This is down at the end. You said the whole thing, so I was doing two at the end.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. OK. I was doing 2-10. Right. Or 2-10-9. Are you talking about letter C?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Hold on here. Yes, 210C. Now, it is in the case that there's nobody to fulfill a seat.
[Milva McDonald]: You know, I feel like there might be some confusing language here that the Collins Center is going to help us with because you're talking about where it says a person elected by the city council to fill a vacancy shall serve until the next regular election at which time the vacancy shall be filled by the voters and the person who chose to fill the vacancy shall
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So what it's saying is election day comes, okay? And the person has served as, for instance, AJ, Aaron, for almost two years, and all of a sudden, election day comes, and he would be told no.
[Milva McDonald]: And- Because, but only, this would only apply to a person who is basically appointed by the city council and not elected.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right, but I'm still is it if it's that early so in when I wrote it for school committee we'll see later I was says, if it happens in the first year. then the person should be, you know, be able to fill out the term and can have candidate for reelection next to their term. And if it happens in the second year, then they don't. I mean, it just sort of seems like if someone's put all that effort in for almost the whole term, I just found it a very strange thing. And I know that it's in others. I saw that. I just, it struck me as odd. So we can just listen to that if my saying, hey, I find this kind of odd and then we can send it to the call and center and.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, do you want to say that that it should be different? I mean, we can look at that. I mean, this particular situation we're talking about is a situation where there is not a person who ran who is taking a seat. This is a person who was appointed by the city council because there were no candidates that ran that could fill the vacancy.
[Danielle Balocca]: I think that makes sense to keep it like that, because I think it's like reminding the voters that this person was appointed, not elected. Right?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, basically, I think it's saying, okay, now that we have a person who was elected, they're gonna go right in.
[Danielle Balocca]: And so we're reminding us when we vote the next time that we didn't actually vote for that person into the position.
[Milva McDonald]: Is that right? Yeah. And instead of waiting, it means they would go in right in November instead of waiting till January. The thing that is odd to me, though, is how do you know which person who won? What if there's two open seats? I don't know. how do you know which person is gonna take over right away for the person who was appointed? Does that make sense?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, exactly. If it's Ward, it's easier, but yeah. Right, exactly. I'm just saying there's a lot of gray around this. Yeah. And when we get to the school committee one, you'll see how I wrote it just to try and- Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: Eunice. My question in this particular section, just trying to read here. If there's a vacancy and there's no next person up, so to speak, then it looks like the remaining members of the city council shall elect a person to fill the vacancy. My question is, elect from where? Just the 40,000 registered voters, they can pick one?
[Milva McDonald]: When people are appointed, it doesn't specify they can choose.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay. So they can choose anybody in Medford?
[Jean Zotter]: Okay. Pretty much, Jean. I'm assuming they could only choose people that could run for office.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. They would have to have the regular eligibility. Right.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah. Is the ward piece of that waived at that point?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, the ward is in letter B. But I think... No, it's in C2. Yeah. You mean, could they appoint someone who doesn't live in the ward? Is that what you're saying?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right.
[Milva McDonald]: I would imagine they would pick somebody who lived in the ward. I mean, otherwise it wouldn't be a ward representative.
[Adam Hurtubise]: But what if there's nobody available?
[Milva McDonald]: no one available in the ward period, well, then they would, yeah, they would have to find somebody to serve.
[Ron Giovino]: You know, when you look through the general laws and every reading about filling vacancies, when they're talking about wards and they're talking about not having a candidate to pick, they don't pick.
[Milva McDonald]: You're saying they just leave the seat open?
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I think that the strategy is that if you'd sell a ward that you're gonna have nobody representing the ward and we're leaving that open, their expectation is that someone will step up and walk in because that's all you would have to do is raise your hand at that point.
[Milva McDonald]: So they don't leave the seat open.
[Ron Giovino]: They do leave the seat, they wouldn't give it to somebody outside the ward.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right.
[Ron Giovino]: So they would leave it open until somebody from the ward says, okay, I'll do it. That's the way I read all the mass general law pieces of when a vacancy needs to be filled and they don't meet the criteria, they leave it pressuring the citizens to come up with a candidate.
[Milva McDonald]: If you have references, I would like to see those.
[Ron Giovino]: Oh, look, it's in the Mass General Laws. I read it a while ago, but I'll get it for you.
[Andreottola]: It would be interesting to know if there's some type of nomination, who gets to nominate. Joe Smith and Charlie Brown, do city councilors individually come up with somebody, or does the mayor? Like, do they choose from, I mean, like, do they have, like, the mini election in the city council? Or do they just, you know, come up with one name out of a hat? And it's, I'd like to know a little bit more about that myself, because I think we might run into those kind of problems. Because, you know, we don't know how, like, wards will react. We don't know who lives in each ward. There might be wards where, you know, there's no politicians, you know, so it's information I think we, you know, could be useful to kind of understand what that might look like.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, it sounds to me, so I haven't heard any sort of specific proposals for how to change this, so I'm going to just put it in Highlighter so that It's a section that we might want to revisit and get some help with from the Collins Center. Does that make sense?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sounds good.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. OK. I had two points, two seven. What did I say there? I wanted to align. Oh, I wanted to add. Under staff where the council may establish additional council support positions and consultants by ordinance. I wanted to add subject to appropriation. Does anybody? So we vote on that?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Could you repeat it, Myrna?
[Milva McDonald]: I just want to add to this.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Highlight it?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, this part right here, staff. I think you could just put it at the beginning and just say subject to appropriation, the council may establish additional council support positions and consultants by ordinance as a council, or we could say by ordinance and subject to appropriation. It could go either way. Basically, this gives the city council the ability to hire staff, but I think we should say subject to appropriation because because it involves money?
[Ron Giovino]: I guess the question would be the next paragraph talks about salaries, and are they able to get a line item for staff salaries that they can juggle around to make room for another person? I don't know how that works.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, that would be the appropriation part.
[Ron Giovino]: Right. That's why I say it should be there.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Andreottola]: I'll make a motion that we vote on that.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So I can't, who's, anybody second? I'll second. Okay, so the motion is that we add to this section on staff, add the words subject to appropriation. Okay, so let's see. Anthony?
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Danielle? Yes. Ron?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Paulette? Yes. Eunice? Yep. I can't see everyone anymore because I'm sharing my screen. Who am I missing? Great, yes. Jean?
[Jean Zotter]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: And then me. Yes. Okay, great. So we'll just add that in. What happened? Here we go. The only other question I had I don't know why this isn't. There we go. Was 3-7. Let's see. 3-7. When the part about acting mayor, where it said the city council by the affirmative vote of eight members may determine whether the mayor is unable to perform the duties of the office. That just sounded, I felt like that should be deleted because it sounds a little explosive. Although, I can't tell whether it's referring to the acting mayor. or not, and that's, I guess I'm confused by it. So, that's why I thought maybe take it out.
[Ron Giovino]: It looks like the beginning is talking about the existing mayor not being able to fulfill the duties. Then an exacting mayor would be appointed. I mean, it's hard to say what the reasons would be to be
[Milva McDonald]: So are we talking about after, so this is sentence is talking about after the 60 days, then the city council decides whether to keep that person.
[Ron Giovino]: Where do you see 60 days?
[Milva McDonald]: Where it says the president of the city council shall appoint an acting mayor from among the city council or department heads to hold that role for no more than 60 days.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: So I'm just, it feels, it doesn't feel clear to me.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And I had another question regarding that. It says the president of the city council shall appoint an acting mayor from among the city council. Can he or she appoint themselves?
[Milva McDonald]: Probably. Or department heads.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, OK. So if the city council president appoints themselves, There's no vote taken or anything else like that, does it?
[Milva McDonald]: No, this gives the President of the City Council the power to do it during a temporary absence. There's also the section about vacancy, which is different.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right. Well, I just think it should be clear, that question about appointing themselves, I would can appoint themselves or whatever.
[Milva McDonald]: To me, since it doesn't say they can't, they can, but if you think it should be added in. Because they're from among the city council, right?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. I don't know. just the fact that there's no other collab, there's no vote, there's no other collaboration, it's a very unilateral move. I think that that's what we mean, that whoever's the city council is automatically, I think we should say it, that there's... Say that the president of the city council shall appoint an acting mayor.
[Milva McDonald]: from among the city council or department heads? What are we saying exactly?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Shall appoint an acting mayor from among the city, including him, her, themselves? I mean, I don't know. If it's good to everybody else and your guys aren't worried about it, that's fine.
[Milva McDonald]: I think it's clear that it could include the president. What I find unclear is the next sentence. So I guess I would like to hear how other people are reading that, if it's just me that finds it unclear.
[Andreottola]: Can you read it out loud, please?
[Milva McDonald]: So first, whenever, by reason of sickness or other cause, the mayor is unable to perform the duties of the office, the president of the city council shall appoint an acting mayor from among the city council or department heads to hold that role for no more than 60 days. The city council, by the affirmative vote of eight members, may determine whether the mayor is unable to perform the duties of the office.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: That sentence should come before the other sentence. Yeah, you're right.
[Milva McDonald]: The mayor may, of their own authority, declare themselves temporarily unable to perform the duties of the office, notwithstanding any general or special law. To the contrary, the vote shall be taken in public session by a roll call vote. The mayor may at any point declare themselves able to perform the duties of office, ending the role of acting mayor. So that So Paulette, you're saying the city council, and what about then the sentence, the mayor may have their own authority to declare themselves town brewery-enabled?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Those should go first. Why don't you first say how the absence would happen, and then I would actually separate it by a new paragraph saying how, you know, first you would write, what constitutes the absence of the mayor?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, it says by reason of sickness or other cause, so.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, but then you have the city council by the affirmative vote may determine whether the mayor is unable to perform the duties.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, that's the sentence that I'm suggesting we take out.
[Jean Zotter]: I think it's confusing because it's not clear if that applies to the acting mayor or to the mayor.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Right. I can imagine the scenario. where if a mayor forbid to be in a car accident or something and unable to say for themselves that they are not able to perform their duties, that the city council would then be able to vote on their behalf and say they're not able to do their duty.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, I think that was the intention.
[Danielle Balocca]: But I can see, maybe your concern is like they may determine this by just some other matter of opinion.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, but you know, now that I look at it, when it says the mayor can declare themselves able to perform the duties, that sort of makes it, you know.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I mean, I think you're looking at two different things. Either the mayor can decide for him or herself that they're unable to perform, or the city council can determine that the mayor is unfit for duty for whatever reason.
[Milva McDonald]: Um, right. And if the mayor says they are fit, then they are. Yeah. Okay. So now that I'm really reading it again, I, I, I change, I'm, I'm okay with it. I'm, uh, I take back my proposal. Sorry. Okay, does anybody have any other proposals on this text?
[Ron Giovino]: The only thing that's confusing in this section in we should ask the call-in center is I kind of think that they're not actually detailing the powers of the mayor. I mean, I understand it's a short, it's short term. Acting mayor? Yes, right. Like the acting mayor, if anything emergency-wise that would happen, that the acting mayor would have to act. But certainly not, it doesn't, you know, there's no negotiating of contracts. There's no, it seems like a very small paragraph that talks about, unless the general law is covered in more detail.
[Milva McDonald]: What do you think should be added?
[Ron Giovino]: Well, I mean, I'm thinking that no contracts, the acting mayor has no negotiating power on contracts.
[Milva McDonald]: I would think that that's... Well, they can't make a permanent appointment or removal from city service.
[Ron Giovino]: Right. And I think that, and I don't know, I mean, if there was ever a point where they just, obviously, we extend... you know, employee contracts forever around here. So maybe that's not a factor, but I just think it's a very simplistic paragraph that says, you know, I don't want to leave anything. And the Collins Center would be able to tell us if that's true or not. I just don't want to be.
[Eunice Browne]: You may get, you know, you may get a, you know, somebody moving into the role temporarily that enjoys the power and wants to do all sorts of things.
[Ron Giovino]: Well, yeah, I mean, it wouldn't be able to do. That's why I'm asking what the call and send it to limit. The other thing too is to me on the surface, the appointment of an acting mayor, I think would have to be approved by the city council, but it doesn't seem like that's the way it is.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, are you making that proposal?
[Ron Giovino]: I, you know, I don't just, when I read it, I'm saying one person chooses the Spanish department head and there's no, I just think for the benefit of everybody, the city council should be able to, by even a simple majority, approve that. We approve the city clerk, we approve the messenger, we include all the other, seems like that would be one we'd want to at least get a majority vote.
[Milva McDonald]: So do you want to propose that?
[Ron Giovino]: I would. I agree with that.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Aubrey? If we did that, I'd want it to be as lower bar as reasonable because in an emergency situation, you don't want to create.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes.
[Ron Giovino]: Agree. That's why I meant when I said simple majority, I don't think it has to be a super majority, then it becomes too much.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Could you do it so that the city council president appoints someone and then within two weeks, it's confirmed to buy or does that make it too complicated?
[Ron Giovino]: The only thing that would make it complicated is those two weeks when the person's appointed and then they don't confirm.
[Milva McDonald]: And then they'd have to come up with a new one. I mean, to me, then they have to agree on a person to even vote on.
[Ron Giovino]: Well, I would hope that the city council would have some say in the choice anyways, but Yeah, I just, I feel like it just is a protection that, you know, common sense would prevail, but a simple majority seems to be fair.
[Milva McDonald]: So you're proposing that we add, take out the president of the city council and say the city council by a simple majority shall appoint an acting mayor?
[Ron Giovino]: No, I would say that the president appoints, the majority confirms. That's how I would, that's how I see it. I wouldn't say, I would say that city councilor, president of the city council still chooses the person.
[Milva McDonald]: Oh, and then, so the president of the city council shall appoint an acting mayor from among the city council or department heads to hold that role.
[Ron Giovino]: Subject to confirmation of the city council by majority vote.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so that's the proposal on the table?
[Andreottola]: That's what I would say. I second that. Example, if it was during budget season, and just say, God forbid, the mayor was not available, you'd want somebody in there that has at least the support of a majority of the city council to make a major decision like that, because by By state law, the budget has to go into effect. So you just don't want one person making that decision.
[Ron Giovino]: And on the positive side of that, just to add to what Anthony says, having the backing of the city council will help the acting mayor be a more powerful force to do what they need to do.
[Milva McDonald]: So yeah, I mean, we're going to vote on it. But my thought is, you know, this would be an emergency situation. This would be very temporary. And the acting mayor has limited powers anyway. So I'm OK with it the way it's written. But let's vote on it. Okay, so we're voting on whether to have the city council confirm by a simple majority the person appointed to acting mayor by the city council president. Does that make sense?
[Ron Giovino]: Yes. Somehow you got to put in their entire council, which means the president would have a vote on the confirmation too.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, he's part of the, he or she is part of the council, so, or they.
[Ron Giovino]: I just wouldn't want it to be confusing that the president appoints but doesn't have a vote. He does have a vote. He or she doesn't have a vote.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. I mean, we can make sure that's part of it.
[Ron Giovino]: Collin Central will fix that, but we can move the vote.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So, does everybody understand what we're voting on?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Eunice Browne]: And can the president nominate him or herself? Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Is that clear?
[Adam Hurtubise]: That usually happens.
[Milva McDonald]: It's clear it says from among the city council or department heads.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I'm sorry, I'm just trying to catch up quickly to read the whole thing through.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Eunice? Yes. Danielle? Yes. Dean. Yes. Phyllis.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Aubrey. No. Anthony.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm missing one person. Who am I missing? Paulette, thank you. Yes. Phyllis is here now. She voted yes. I'm voting no. So that passes.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I have one more question, Milva. Yeah. Again, on the compensation pieces that are in this entire thing, I know that at some point we had talked about writing about having a separate committee to set compensation or maybe to suggest compensation, but I don't see any of that. in here. So I understand maybe it was purposely not put in here, but we had talked about it.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, that will go in another section because what we will be doing is putting something in the charter that says that the city council will by ordinance form, if I'm understanding it correctly, that they will There will be a recommendation to form a compensation committee to review salaries, but that committee won't have any decision-making power on salaries. The city council would still have to pass the salaries by ordinance. Okay. But it would be an advisory body. Thank you. That would do the work. But it goes in another section. I believe it will go in Article 5. I mean, that's something again that we have already voted on and I, and we have all the notes on and the column center will write it up for us.
[Ron Giovino]: No, but just 1 question when he was scrolling through there, the highlighted stuff you've covered all that right. There's some highlights and yellow, you know, there were some.
[Milva McDonald]: So, this. This was, where's that blue, this part was, I think Daveed's not here, but I believe he had a question about that. And I think, if I'm recalling correctly, he said that he thought it was okay to leave it in. So.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: I think some of the yellow came from me. I don't know, maybe we don't have time to go through it, so.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, this is the time to make any proposals. Okay, then can we go back to section 2-6? Okay, this was a question about the school committee salary. Okay, 2-6, access to information.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, I'm just kind of reading my notes from my desktop over here. My note in the side there, where the word says the city council may require any city officer, member of city agency, or a city employee to appear before it to give such information as the city council may require. My first thought on that, I don't know if this covers being able to summon members from multi-member boards. And if it covers compelling the superintendent to come before them, and in both cases, I think it should.
[Milva McDonald]: To me, it does, but I don't.
[Eunice Browne]: It wasn't clear to me. So I don't know if it needs to be spelled out more or if everybody's happy with it.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, we have city officer, member of a city agency or city employee. To me, that includes those people.
[Eunice Browne]: So that members of, you know, like, you know, if the city council wanted to, you know, summon somebody from the historical commission or the liquor commission or, or whomever, or the bicycle commission that would cover that.
[Jean Zotter]: I think they're all city officers. Cause they're pointing.
[Eunice Browne]: That's how I read it. Okay. And then going back to notice. I mean, the City Council may require to appear before there's not less than 10 days. Okay, wait a minute.
[Milva McDonald]: Are we still on 2-6?
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. Okay. The notice part. The City Council shall give notice to any person of the City Council no less than 10 days. My thought would be to be a bit more specific. preparing a death at, well, let's see, no less than 10 days. Um, so that would mean more than 10 days. Um, I would prefer, uh, either seven days or five days to account for, uh, if something came up at a Tuesday meeting, Tuesday committee of the whole meeting, um, they would want to be able to summons, you know, the chief of staff or the mayor or whomever the following Tuesday. With the way it's written now, it appears that because they meet biweekly, they wouldn't. Well, let's see. I think shortening the period of time, that way then that gets the individual being requested in front of the body sooner. So that would be my preference.
[Milva McDonald]: So you're proposing that we shorten the 10 days?
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yes. And I have a question. Is that 10 business days or five business days?
[Milva McDonald]: That's a good question. And I think we've determined is that it'll be defined when we make our definitions. so that we don't have to say it every time. I'm not sure which it would be, to be honest.
[Eunice Browne]: I think we could write something in here, even getting more clear, is for the individual being requested to come before them, either the next meeting of that committee,
[Phyllis Morrison]: I think that's too short a notice, Eunice, five days. What if the person's not in town? And we have to have some reason of reasonability about this. I get your point where you don't want it to go on. I honestly do.
[Eunice Browne]: You know, what about saying the next regularly scheduled meeting of. And if it's the insert the city council, or the next regular regularly scheduled committee of the whole, or the next regularly scheduled meeting of the. I don't know administration and finance committee.
[Maria D'Orsi]: In my work, there are situations when we plan for people to come months ahead of a board meeting or a certain meeting. So it may not be the exact next meeting when you need somebody. I'm sorry, Aubrey, can you repeat that? Oh, yeah, sorry. In my current position, we ask people to come months ahead to a specific board meeting. It may not be the next board meeting. So I would not say a specific meeting time.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Ron, you have your hand up.
[Ron Giovino]: I understand what Eunice is trying to do there, but, you know, there is, you know, I think 10 days is reasonable, but I also think that the question is really not if the City Council asked a specific person. I think it's the sense that, you know, I think the process is They ask a question of the mayor's office and they determine who the department head or the person who's responsible. I think we're missing some of the detail to, you know, describing who is actually the person. I mean, we may think it's traffic, but it could be parks. I mean, we just don't I guess I don't understand why we're gonna name names of people as opposed to how it's done now, which is the mayor sends whoever she wants to represent that issue.
[Milva McDonald]: Why don't they create different names? Oh, you're saying because it says notice to any person.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, I mean, it says earlier that it may require any city officer or member of a city agency or city employee. So, I mean, They can't just call anybody. It's someone who is one of those people. That's how I read it.
[Eunice Browne]: This is definitely an improvement over the fact that there's nothing there now because the city council can request You know, whomever, you know, to come before them to discuss whatever and unless the it's usually department heads. So, you know. the Department of Public Works or parking or whomever, unless the department head is directed by the mayor or chief of staff to show up, the city council, they don't have to answer to the city council. So this is clearly a big improvement, but I just want to make sure that they're showing up in a timely manner.
[Milva McDonald]: So do you want to put a time less than 10 days on the table?
[Eunice Browne]: Well, I hear what my colleagues on here are saying, where it may be difficult to schedule.
[Danielle Balocca]: Is it worth knowing? Does the person need to be on the agenda? Is there an issue of time with getting something on an agenda?
[Milva McDonald]: It would have to be on the agenda, I would imagine. But this is just about giving notice. This just says that they have to give the person at least 10 days notice.
[Danielle Balocca]: Yeah. I guess I'm wondering if the amount of time needs to coincide with like, yeah, I guess the agenda.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't think they have to. The agenda has to be posted, I think, 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Is there a difference between an emergency meeting and a regular meeting?
[Milva McDonald]: I think that there were provisions for emergencies in here.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So if it's an emergency meeting, you know, I don't think it's an emergency meeting. Okay, if it's not an emergency meeting, then the time frame is reasonable.
[Milva McDonald]: All right, so Eunice, go back to you. Do you want to make that proposal or do you want to be okay? Are you okay with leaving it at 10 days?
[Eunice Browne]: Now, listening to my friends, I'm okay with leaving it. I see the value in it. Okay, great. I just had two other things that I wanted to jump to, section 3.3. I don't have an answer for it, unfortunately, but I think it deserves being tossed out there. Maybe it requires more thought, or maybe it's mass general law, I don't know. But we just had a whole debacle about the fire chief and civil service issues and things like that. And I didn't know if something needed to be addressed in this section. And maybe this, maybe it requires some, I don't know, research from civil service, I guess, about what the mayor can and can't do, but.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't, it says, for whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided, well, by this charter. But I don't, there's got to be something that, I don't know, I can't see it in there. I don't think that the charter can override something that's in law. So tell me exactly what you think this should include. that it doesn't?
[Eunice Browne]: That's fine. The way it stands is no other method of selection is, I just don't understand how the mayor attempted, you know, the mayor tried to appoint somebody without going through civil service a couple of months ago.
[Andreottola]: So just to clarify, that was that was an interim appointment that was not to point the fire chief. There's a lot of confusion about that. And, you know, I don't think it was a debacle in the sense that it was kind of transparent. It was out, and it was discussed in the city council, and lawyers were involved. That's what happens in government. Things like that occur. Sometimes things have to change, sometimes they don't, but sometimes, you know, you see how the sausage is being made. And so I don't think, I think the process worked the way it was supposed to. And, you know, it played out in public and people got to, you know, who was for it, who was against it, who was angry, and it got worked out legally. So I think the process, Although it wasn't pretty, it served its purpose and it probably should stay that way.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thanks. Francis.
[Frances Nwajei]: Just providing clarification, civil service is a set process. If there is a situation where an interim needs to be made, that does not follow the set civil service process. So that is where there was confusion, because we all know that certain positions are civil service positions. We're used to seeing the civil service process being utilized when there are vacancies. But this is one of those situations where I would say felt under like an emergency category. I don't know how they phrase that in civil service. So there are other things that are done as a result.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, and I don't think this charter would take any positions out of civil service that are in civil service.
[Eunice Browne]: No, definitely shouldn't. Okay. Anything else? And just one more. I seem to have lost it on my screen here, but I think if you scroll down, keep going. In the mayor section? Temporary appointments. I think it was back up there. There's been some occasions over the past couple of years. Where we've lost some department heads in the city and. There's been hiring of an interim department head. That has. You know, served the position is serving the position here in Medford and serving the same position in another municipality. And I know it's caused some angst from the city council. And so my question is, and thought is. Should vacancies, especially for department heads, be filled with interims serving the same role in another municipality? And my thought is that that might be serving conflict of interest.
[Milva McDonald]: And so, you know, perhaps... So you're proposing that somewhere we put in... Think about where you want to put that. And while you're doing that, Frances is raising her hand.
[Frances Nwajei]: So there are conflict of interest laws that guide that. And you would have to contact David, I can't remember his last name at the State Ethics Commission. But my understanding and recollection is that as long as the information is declared, you can work for two separate municipalities in similar roles, but the information has to be declared. Does that make sense?
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, sure, it absolutely does. Thank you. I guess then the question leads to, just because you can, does it mean you should?
[Milva McDonald]: So then do you want to propose that we put that that can't be, I mean, this person would only be serving for no more than 180 days. So that's a half a year.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Can I say something? Yeah. I'm interested. I'm sorry, Jean had her hand up. Jean had her hand up. Sorry, Jean. Jean, go ahead.
[Jean Zotter]: I would have concerns about limiting, making restrictions just because it's hard to hire sometimes. And this is a temporary position. Are we making it harder for the city to function if we make that kind of restriction? Because I could see if it was a permanent, but then I think conflict of interest rules, or even just how can you work full-time at two places. But for temporary, I could see it might make sense if we can't. I know we have trouble hiring.
[Milva McDonald]: True. OK. Anthony?
[Andreottola]: Yeah, I kind of agree with Gene. Just like in the adventure stage, someone from the highway department, the guy that was in charge of plowing the roads, left. And we were facing a blizzard. And the only person that could help out was the highway guy from Malden. That's where, you know, something like this would come into play, where, you know, people have a certain expertise that we don't have available to us in Medford, or we probably wouldn't reach out to someone in another community unless it was kind of, we were in a pinch. So I wouldn't want to tie anybody's hand, say, no, no, we can't, you know, ask that guy because, you know, the charter says, says we can't even though we need them desperately. So that's my take on it.
[Milva McDonald]: Thanks, Anthony. Phyllis, I'm sorry if I. Oh, no, that's OK. I'm just looking at the yellow. I'm looking at the yellow hands. So go ahead.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah, I was supposed to put my hands. No, I completely agree with Gene and with Anthony. We might harm ourselves more than anything else if we leave some of these positions empty. I think Anthony brings up a great point, if we have a blizzard. And I get Eunice's point, but because this is temporary, you know, I don't think I think we have to stay open to the option that we at least have someone in that position, even temporarily, rather than leaving it empty.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so, Eunice, do you want to bring it up to a vote?
[Eunice Browne]: No, I think I appreciate hearing from the others. And I can see the point now. So Thank you.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Great. All right. Do we have any other proposals on this text? Can we vote to accept it? Obviously, the Collins Center is going to look at it and give us clarification on highlighted parts and flag anything maybe that we should re-look at. But can we vote to say this is ready to send in draft form to the Collins Center?
[Andreottola]: and make motion to send it in draft form to the policy.
[Milva McDonald]: I second. Okay. Okay, let's vote. Anthony? Yes. Phyllis? Yes. Jean? Yes. Aubrey? Yes. Ron?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice? Yes. Who haven't I gotten? Paulette? Yes. Danielle? Yes. And I'm yes. Is that everybody? Are we 10 now? I thought we were nine. Yep. Yes. Yes. Okay. So that's awesome. Congratulations. Yay. All right. Now, I want to move on and hand it over to the school committee subcommittee.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Great. So Aubrey's going to bring it up.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, can you make me co-host, please? Yes, I will.
[Milva McDonald]: So tell me if that allows you to share. Yes.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So many of the subcommittee members are here, of course. For those of you who didn't sit in our deliberations, we went through a whole lot of different options. And there was a lot of compromise. you know, hopefully there were some paragraphs now that will need to be aligned with other stuff that we do. But to start out, fundamentally, most importantly, we said that the school committee shall consist of seven members who will be elected as follows. For the purpose of the school committee election, four combined wards will be created from the eight wards of the city. From each combined ward, one candidate will be elected by the voters of that combined ward. In addition, two candidates will be selected at large by the voters of all four combined wards. And I did attach at the end of this document a addendum. Ron had written the elections committee to find out if we could, in fact, combine wards. And for the purposes of creating school committee voting districts, we can do that. There is a long reason for why we did that rather than having just ward, voting by wards. We're very concerned about the fact that the school committee is a little bit different than the city council, and that, you know, there's not always people who are interested in running for school committee, and they certainly might not be evenly proportioned across the city. But at the same time, we were very cognizant of understanding that there seemed to be a move. There were both in Lowell and then recently in Worcester, court cases, which basically said, you need to have ward representation. So this was the way that those two communities, again, much larger than us, those two cities have worked it out. And we felt it was the best possible way. Aubrey, could you go back to the top, please?
[Milva McDonald]: I just want to make one comment about that. I don't know if you saw the feedback from the call center that came in today.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I did see it, but I haven't been able to really.
[Milva McDonald]: We'll have to say in the charter how the wards, which wards are combined. Can't just say four combined wards.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right. I don't think for the presentation tonight, that was our... Right.
[Milva McDonald]: But I'm just saying we will have to decide on that or figure that out as part of it if the committee just agrees to go ahead and do it.
[Ron Giovino]: Right. I think the Secretary of State's office is the one who finalizes those things, too.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't think so in this case.
[Ron Giovino]: To validate the numbers?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, maybe... I thought they would. I don't know that they would, I don't know that they would validate the numbers. I don't know. I know that in Lowell and in Worcester, they hired a consultant to combine the wards, but they also had the concern of the lawsuits alleging that they were violating the Voting Rights Act, that they were considered as well as population.
[Ron Giovino]: Do you think the Collins Center wants us to put that in our presentation about the charter, so we have to work on that?
[Milva McDonald]: They're saying if the whole committee says, yeah, we want to do this, we will have to decide how the wards are going to be broken up. Got it. Or combined.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So to the whole committee, it would be easier to just say one from every ward. There's no doubt about that. or all members are at large. And there are arguments pro and con, which we argued lengthily, at great length. And again, where these combined words are something that is now being done for the purposes of school committee. We also, after great debate, did concur that the mayor would continue to be service chair, as outlined in 4-2. The term of office, again, after great debate, we kept it to two years, which is going to not necessarily make anybody happy. There was a uniform opinion across the board that everybody we talked to said, gee, if only we could do three years. I mean, there was a lot of support for three years. And at this point, we don't really know how to do that. I think that that needs to be a separate discovery. You know, one of the very difficult things about this is sort of saying we haven't heard anybody feeling like, let's change our voters to spring. like all the towns, because in towns, it's much easier to achieve the goal of a three-year term. But we don't feel like there's the will. Without that, it feels like real experiment to do it. So we stuck with the two years. And there's many reasons why the two years is not good, but that's what we stuck with. We did feel overall, we heard that four years felt just too long. So we heard a lot of that. So anyway, that's where it's at. Eligibility. If I think a school committee member shall at the time of election be a Medford voter or resident, I don't know. If a school committee member moves from Medford during the term, I think this is pretty standard. The office shall immediately be deemed vacant. For ward eligibility, we do have a school committee candidate shall be at the time of election to be a Medford voter and shall have resided in the ward they wish to represent for one year prior to submitting nomination papers for the office of school committee. And again, it doesn't have to be that date. But trying to make a distinction is if someone wants to represent a certain ward, shouldn't they have lived in that ward for some period of time? Now, there was a debate about that. And we may ultimately come back to that to be in line with the city council people. But that's how we've written it at this time. Do we have questions or should I just keep on moving?
[Danielle Balocca]: Is that a hand? Maybe it's a question, but the saying Medford voter versus Medford resident is that is it required that your voter to run for resident is fine.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, we can check. We can change the vote resident. It's. I've done it a couple times, so just feel free to to end up in the top. Aubrey, thank you.
[Ron Giovino]: Gene, can I just interrupt? Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
[Jean Zotter]: Can you say more about your decision to leave the mayor as chair?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So that was a very complex discussion. Ultimately, we had talked to all three mayors. All three mayors thought it was a very key part of their job as the mayor, that the largest proportion of the budget is the school committee, and that it gave them a real understanding of all the school committee issues. It also was, as we talked about it, if you're going for the voting by ward, you've got, it's the mayor who's voted by all of the population. And, you know, again, I felt strongly as someone who had been on the school committee that it was very, very valuable to have the mayor. So with other people, ultimately, you know, this went back and forth and back and forth. you know, with some people disagreeing and, um, you know, this is where we landed. Okay.
[Maria D'Orsi]: And I add something that I learned during the process was that the mayor's vote counts the same as everybody else's vote. And also as chair, their job is to, um, put together the agenda and maybe be less involved in some of the conversations that have that happened during the meeting.
[Jean Zotter]: Okay. And what did this, because you interviewed the school committee members, what did they, did they weigh in on that?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Oh, it was very split. There were some committee members who really didn't want the mayor as chair, and there were some who really did want the mayor's chair. It's very split. And with all of this, I mean, that's one of the things that I found is whoever you talk to, it was the next opinion. And if there was, if there was more of uniformity of our agreement, but there wasn't. And we're doing the best we can. And in the, you know, it's very interesting to get the mayor's feedback and where they had come from and sort of saying is that they were the ones who were elected by everybody. And we are going to award, you know, representation.
[Eunice Browne]: So I don't know if any of the members of the committee want to speak to it, but I think what swayed me, I was in the, I don't think the mayor should be chair camp, but I think after hearing from, you know, through Paulette, hearing from Mayor McGlynn, Mayor Burke, and Mayor Lungo-Koehn, as to the value that all three of them put on their role, where they said that they were in front of the community, required to be in front of the community every other Monday, that was sacred to them. And that, as she said, the school committee is the largest portion of the budget and that, The mayor. doesn't speak as much. And if he or she does speak, they always speak last after they've heard from all of their colleagues. So they have a good sense of the issues and concerns and so forth. So that's what swayed me, the value that the three mayors that we've had, you know, in throughout most of my life, the value that they put on it that put me in the, you know, it's a good idea camp.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And what was so interesting about that was, however different they were, there was a consensus. And we weren't talking at the same time. I was talking to them individually. So that, I think, was one of the reasons. You know, a lot of people had talked about about power. We're giving them too much power. And then sort of saying is, boy, you want that mayor to know your school issues and understand your school issues and what it means to those kids, to each and every one. And there is no better way than being present at the meetings. So anyway, that's that's where we we landed. And I should say throughout this, the one thing about our subcommittee is there was a lot of movement. And sometimes I feel, just my little editorial, you know, there's not a lot now of coming together. And in this subcommittee, we really worked to try and figure those things out. Ron and then Danielle?
[Phyllis Morrison]: Ron? Ron, you're muted.
[Ron Giovino]: My 1st comment is to. No, but do you think we should be going through this section by section gaining agreement and then. Make it easier to do the whole document, or do you want to just fly through it?
[Milva McDonald]: That's a good question. I thought you guys would give a presentation and then people would sort of study it. And then at the next meeting, we would vote on things.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, that's fine. I just didn't know. I don't want to just go back and forth. And that's fine. I get it.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah. Is that what you thought, Paula? Yes. I thought that I was just sort of giving an overview of the most important parts. That's fine.
[Ron Giovino]: That's fine. Okay. To the other question, I just want to say that, yes, Paula's right in terms of we came in with preconceived notions, of course, but the public participation was huge in a lot of this decision-making process. The three interviews with the mayors was important. We did interview the mayor of Malden, who did not think he had to be the chair of the committee. And I deferred a lot, to be honest with you, to Paulette, who lived the life that we're trying to make easier. So she was very strong in her opinion, and I support her 100%. Danielle?
[Danielle Balocca]: Yeah, I'm just going to ask on the question about the mayor being the chair, what our survey said of the public, or like where that figured in?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I think that it was pretty mixed. One of the difficulties that I have with that is that you ask people, like, I mean, I remember when we were at the wonderful Rights Pond event, and you were kind of asking people some of these questions, and they were thinking about these things off the top of their head. While it was very useful to get as much feedback as possible, you know, there's, dare I say, many people who've never watched a school committee meeting. So, you know, it's sort of like, ugh. I don't know, I found it difficult to tell because obviously we wanted to take into account the public's opinions as much as possible. And I think in terms of moving towards the wards, we did. That was a big, I mean, because certainly for me, I had started out being completely at large and I certainly moved on that along the way. Anthony?
[Andreottola]: I thank you all for the work you did on this committee. I think you had a very challenging task. I just want a couple of things. As a parent who had children in Method Public Schools, I understand the importance of having a strong school committee. And I think the presence of the mayor being on the school committee, for me, historically, when I had some issues or challenging questions, I was on the phone with the mayor. I feel that it's important for residents who have an issue with the schools to be able to reach their mayor and have their mayor intervene for them if something is needs to be addressed. And just one other thing about the mayor being on the school committee, given what we're facing with the opportunity of building a new high school for the future kids in Medford, the mayor's being part of the school committee and working together with the school committee is gonna be key to making that a reality. And that's a task that And I remember hearing somewhere that, you know, part of the reason that we got our elementary schools and were able to be so successful was that, you know, Mayor McGlynn was, you know, part of the school committee and really kind of was able to put all the pieces together and get everybody on board. And I think it's going to be important for the mayor to have that opportunity to kind of work with the school committee folks to have that vision become a reality because I think you know, the kids need it, you know. And it's not so much the politics of school committee, it's, you know, the results. We need some results. And I think it's important to hold the mayor accountable. And that's a good way, like, to judge a mayor on, you know, should you vote to re-elect your mayors? You know, how did they perform on the school committee? You know, what did they do for the kids? And I think... Go ahead.
[Ron Giovino]: I'm sorry. I ramble with them out. No, no, I hear what you're saying. I just want to be clear that at no time I don't think in this subcommittee do we think the mayor should not be on the school committee. It was more about the chairperson. It was more about, you know, that role. But to answer Danielle's question, there were a lot of survey results that were against the mayor being the chairperson and a lot of interviews and feedback that we got that were very, very powerful feedback that they thought that the job is better served by a different school committee. So there were definitely, it wasn't like a landslide victory that we said the mayor should be chairman. I just want to make that point.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: OK, so I'm going to go on, I think, just so we can get through this because we're time is fleeting. By the way, one question is we've traditionally in Medford always called the secretary secretary while clerk was shown in different documents. And so the question ultimately was, do we go with what's traditional in Medford secretary or is there a preference for clerk? I don't, you know, I don't know. Um, for the school committee organization, we had the mayor shall service chair of the school committee, and then the language about, you know, when they should take their positions. And then the school committee members shall choose from amongst themselves a vice chair and a secretary who will each serve for one year. The person, the position should rotate amongst members with no members serving more than one consecutive year in the role for which they have been selected for by their peers. And that is something which I did speak to very specifically as from my time. I think that the idea is not to then create a mini person in charge. I think that you learn as you're a school committee member how to do that role, and it's important for it to rotate amongst members. So we put that in. The chair shall prepare the agenda. There was a lot of concern that this gave the mayor too much work. But but what and we we interviewed both Dr. The president, Superintendent Maurice Edouard Vincent and former Superintendent Roy Belson. And, you know, the superintendent's office and the superintendent puts the agenda together and runs it by the mayor. there is a process within the school committee, within their own rules, of making sure that they can put something on the agenda. That the chair presides at all regular meetings, it regulates its proceedings, decides on all questions of order, and it doesn't say, by the way, that we run our meetings by Robert's rules of order. And I wondered for both the city council, whether at some point we ought to be making that clear, but that's how meetings are run. The chair shall appoint all members of the school committee to the various subcommittees. I did add the clause after seeking their individual input regarding interest in availability, because I always thought it was important that we got asked The chair will have the same powers to vote upon measures coming before the school committee as any other member. The vice chair presides in the absence of the chair, and the secretary both records the votes taken at a regular school committee meeting. I should say there's also professional backup, but the secretary is the one who calls the rolls. And in Medford, the secretary is responsible for overseeing and approving the bills of the school department. At some point, the school committee could form a subcommittee expressly for reviewing the bills. That is not how we do it right now. It has been discussed over time. So at this right now, the secretary is the designated person. And it's a very important role. At school committee meetings, when the bills are presented, school committee members ask questions. And very often when I was a secretary or someone else was the secretary, they would say, what about this expenditure? And you would have actually seen the bill And you would have, as the secretary, have a chance to ask questions about it. By the way, the sign-off also is the finance person and the superintendent of schools also review the bills. So that's how we do it now. Limitations. No member shall hold any other city office. No former member of the school committee shall hold any compensated appointed city office. until at least one year after the date of the member service on the school committee. This is pretty standard language. There was in the different ones, charters that we looked at this whole thing about, however, if someone has vacated a position in order to serve as a member of the school committee, they may return to the same office. of city employment held at the time the position was vacated. And Ron, you will remember we discussed this and I put in the clause, if it has remained vacant. because we were worried about that. That is not something we wrote. We can go to the Collins and say, why is it in all these other charters? But it was consistently in other charters. And I don't know whether that's just because someone put it in and then someone else copied it and someone else copied it. So, but that's how we wrote it here. Compensation, we just said that, you know, I wanted to make sure we didn't work out terminology on this because it should be consistent with everyone else. Section 4-5, powers and duties. The first part of this was taken from the school committee powers and duties, which is outlined on their website. This is standard put together by the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. The Collins Center did say it was more detailed than other charters. I don't know how I feel about that because I'm not sure that we should be trying to make it less detailed, but I'll go back and review those comments. I did want to make sure that we put the sentence in because I think it's a good reminder to any elected official that by yourself, you're nothing, except if you're the mayor. But a voting majority of the school committee shall exercise the following powers and perform the following duties. And no individual member is empowered to act unless by vote of the school committee. And to me, that's an extremely important reminder to those elected to the school committee that you are part of city government and by yourself, you do not have a power. You're not, as a school committee, you're not supposed to go to a department head and ask questions and boss them around, whatever. So anyway. Of the powers and duties, selection, evaluation, and removal of a superintendent is key. Making policy is key. And putting together the operating budget for the school system is key. So those are really outlined in the first A, B, and C. And I'm going to leave the fine print for people to read. Filling of vacancies. try to be as consistent as what I've heard other language to be in descending, if it's an at large, it's in descending order of votes received by the candidate. And if the person is eligible and willing to serve, and the city clerk shall certify this. If it's, oh, sorry, that was the award was in one. And then two is at large. And then three says, in the event that there is no ward candidate available to fill the vacated seat, a school committee member serving as an at-large member and who resides in the vacated ward may choose to fill the ward position provided they reside in the ward. Now, that is something we didn't discuss, guys, who were on this. My thinking about, we were trying to think about it, and I said, look, I have to play with the language, An at-large campaign is harder. Maybe somebody would rather be a ward representative, but there's been somebody in that seat, so they ran as at-large. If it became vacant, maybe they would want to shift over, and that would give a larger pool of candidates available potentially as at-large. So again, you can agree or disagree. I was just trying to figure out language that made sense. that was logically sound from what we were saying. Filling of vacancies by school committee. I don't think there's anything different. Oh, the only thing is I had mentioned earlier, a person serving as a school committee member under this section shall not be entitled to have the words candidate for reelection printed against the person's name ballot, unless the vacancy occurred in the first year of the two year term. I don't even know if that's legal. Again, it went back to my kind of sort of saying, wait a second, this person is gonna do all the work and be appointed and then, To me, it felt kind of sort of kicked in the teeth that they were going to be not considered for re-election. But there may be a reason for that. And I'm hoping the Collins Center will clarify and tell me.
[Danielle Balocca]: But that doesn't mean they can't be re-elected, right? It's just saying that they aren't being re-elected.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right. But what it tells the voter is that they've already served in the position. And that's the whole thing because when you go to the polls, now there will be some people who will say, I don't want to vote for anybody who's already been there. I'm only going to vote for new people. Okay. On the other hand, there will also be people going to the polls who saying, well, I want my, you know, I'm going to keep with people who've, who've already been doing the role because, because they've gained a certain amount of education or whatever. So. you know, usually if you get to put candidate for reelection, that's seen as a positive by a candidate. And so I was just wondering about, well, you know, someone who fills just, you know, they come in and, you know, they fill it, you know, how does, what's fair?
[Milva McDonald]: So, To me, it's more a question of accuracy, because they haven't been elected, so they can't be re-elected.
[Danielle Balocca]: Is there a different word you could use, like current member or something, like on the ballot, so that it's not saying that they are elected, but that they are currently on the ballot?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right, so I think that's a great alternative. I just haven't come up with the wording yet.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so let's, I'm sorry to cut you off, but we have three minutes and I want to have time for public participation. So thank you. This is awesome. And what I would like to do is, I mean, we still, we didn't get to articles seven, eight, and six. So we're going to look at those at the next meeting, but we may do the school committee piece first. What I would like to do is, I don't know if the subcommittee is planning to meet again, but what I would do is maybe send this document and maybe share what the Collins Center said, and then we can do the same process where people can study that and make proposals, and then we can try to agree on things. Does that sound reasonable?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I need to take some time to see what the Collins Center said.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, that's why I didn't know if you guys were going to meet again and consider that and then submit a new document, but it's up to you.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: We're not sure yet. How are we? No, we're not. Not sure. We just got the call-in center thing, just came in 4.30 this afternoon.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, we're not sure yet. So we do have a meeting in two weeks. So, you know, just if you could decide within like, you know, seven or eight days, then we can, you know, give the committee time, whatever, whatever document they're going to get to have to look at, we'll give them.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: The problem is I can't necessarily do a meeting in between. Sorry, I keep on changing your name because I've got another friend. I'll send out what Milda sent to me to you guys. Okay, good.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. Then ultimately, we'll send that and the document to the committee. Aubrey, what were you going to say?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Just a clarifying question about when we are reading this document, we should be reading it, What are we voting in sections?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, what we've been doing, I mean, we could do that. We could go through section by section, or we could just say that if anybody, what I've been doing, which is if you have a proposal, bring it. So if somebody doesn't want to do the composition, for instance, that you guys recommended, they would say, I propose that we have an all at large school committee, and then we would discuss that and vote on it. But if nobody has an issue with it and they're fine with it, then nobody's going to bring up a proposal. Does that make sense?
[Andreottola]: Melva, can you pass that call-in center document to everyone so we all have a chance to read it? Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Before the next meeting, everybody will get the Article 4 in the call-in center's comments.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Melva, I don't have all of that, so could you send it out to everybody? I don't have her.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, what I would like you guys to do is share the Google Doc of Article 4, and then I'll send the Collins Center.
[Maria D'Orsi]: It's in our Google Drive.
[Milva McDonald]: And I don't know, because I didn't create it, so I don't know if I can share it with everybody. But I think I can, since it was shared with me, right?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yeah, it's in subcommittees, Article 4.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I'll share all that. OK. Aubrey, if I sent you the Collins Center one, could you then put it in our Google Drive?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, I'll do that now. Okay, do we have any members of the public that would like to speak? Okay, so we have two meetings in May and we have a lot to get through, but once we get through article four, I am hoping the other articles won't take as long, but we'll see. All right, does anyone want to make a motion to adjourn?
[Phyllis Morrison]: I make a motion that we adjourn the meeting.
[Milva McDonald]: Second.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Second.
[Milva McDonald]: Did you want to say something, Aubrey?
[Maria D'Orsi]: No, you were just... No, I'm sorry. I didn't want to stop you, Jim, and go ahead and hold it. But do we have to do anything with the subcommittee that was voted on earlier tonight?
[Milva McDonald]: We tabled that for next meeting, so we'll revisit it. All right. Good night, everybody.
|
total time: 32.15 minutes total words: 2845 |
total time: 30.11 minutes total words: 1708 |
||