total time: 42.38 minutes
total words: 3883
total time: 3.47 minutes
total words: 338
[Milva McDonald]: Hi, everyone. Welcome to the June 13th, 2024 meeting of the Medford Charter Study Committee. Okay. So I want to try to get through everything tonight. So the first thing on our agenda is the minutes from June 6th. Did everyone have a chance to look at them? Are we good with those?
[Ron Giovino]: Nova, I don't know if I mentioned this before, but you probably have access to the artificial intelligence secretary that takes notes of meetings.
[Milva McDonald]: Oh, I never even thought about doing that.
[Ron Giovino]: I've actually used them for meetings. And surprisingly, the things that it writes are very accurate. You just go in and edit to clean them up. But it may be something to try out.
[Milva McDonald]: Thanks for that tip. I may do that.
[Ron Giovino]: We're almost done. It's very impressive. I just learned about it. I wasn't hiding.
[Maury Carroll]: Can I ask a question? I'm trying to get into my iPad and I can't. I don't have the meeting ID number anywhere. I'm on my phone. Can someone give me the meeting ID number or forward it to me or whatever?
[Milva McDonald]: Is there someone who can do that quickly and text it to Maury? I can do that, Milva. Thank you so much. The minutes. I'm abstaining, I wasn't there, but. Does someone want to move? Okay, second?
[Ron Giovino]: Second.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, so minutes are approved.
[Ron Giovino]: Okay. Paul, it's here.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, so we have a lot of issues to go through. So we'll start, we'll just go through the agenda. Um, we'll go through that they're in the order that they are on the agenda. First was the residency requirement for multi-member bodies. So that was something that somebody, does someone want to say something?
[Eunice Browne]: Um, yeah, I noticed looking to article 9 and I'm kind of the 1 that's responsible for a lot of this stuff. I noticed that we have 2 section 2. I think in our copy, 9-1 is charter changes, 9-2 is severability, and then we have another 9-2, which should probably become 9-3 and then continue sequentially. I don't want to change.
[Milva McDonald]: The, the article that you've got article nine and that we're not, that's not a draft that we were going to use for our charter. It's basically was just sort of an example draft of things that go in article nine so that we can make the decisions about it. And the Collins center will draft that and fix all that stuff. Um, so in terms of the residency requirement, so, um, What I did get a lot of notes from the call center this week on these questions and they said that it's not uncommon for there to be residency requirements. I know last week when we talked about it. There were certain concerns like what if somebody who needed to be on a body, wasn't a resident, like the chief of police, for instance, or the building commissioner. And Collins Center gave some example language that they felt would address those issues. Did anyone have a chance to look at it? They basically gave us an example from Fall River, an example from Northampton, and an example from Amesbury.
[Eunice Browne]: I like the one from Amesbury. I agree.
[Ron Giovino]: I thought Ainsbury was the fairest and it does allow for those exceptions that we talked about as well. So I like the Ainsbury choice.
[Milva McDonald]: Did everybody look at them? Okay. I actually don't know if I have them to call up right now. If anybody, because I actually can't call up a Word doc on my laptop, but we won't get into that.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, let me see if I can find it and I can find it.
[Milva McDonald]: But everybody theoretically looked at these, right? Yes. So the one from Amesbury says that all appointed multi-member body members shall be residents of the city, but that that requirement can be waived by majority vote of the city council upon recommendation of the mayor. So let's say the mayor, who is the appointing authority anyway, wants to waive that requirement. the mayor has to go to the city council and they have to vote on it. The mayor sets out the reasons why the waiver is in the best interest of the city. Does that make sense?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: It does make sense.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, I just put it in the chat. There was the question of, do we want to put a residency requirement in? If we do, we have different examples, and it seems like the third example, the Amesbury example, is the one that people like. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: The one thing that I liked strongly is if multi-member bodies are not necessarily always appointed by the mayor. So it may be the appointing authority that has the right to waive is my only thought. So you're saying instead of just being, you know, the city council comes up with a review board of whatever. And there's somebody leaves the city, it makes sense to me that the city council has the right to waive that because they're the creating source. That's the only thing that.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, so the only boards that the mayor doesn't appoint are ones that are written into the ordinance or from mass journal law, right? I mean, because the mayor has the power to appoint. That's what the mayor has now, and that's what we have in our charter, in our draft charter.
[Ron Giovino]: So school committee and city council cannot establish a multi-member board?
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, I don't, I don't think so.
[Ron Giovino]: I mean, if that's the case, then that answers that question.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, there are, I think there might be some boards where like the city council appoints some people and the mayor appoints others, but those are the ones that are, um, created by ordinance or mass general law or something? I don't know.
[Eunice Browne]: Eunice, go ahead. I mean, I think that what we're saying here, and particularly since we're using, is it Amesbury? Amesbury, whoever, that we said is pretty fair. It gives the out, certainly for the situations such as the chief of police or building guy, building commissioner, things like that, gives an out for that. But it would also give an out for, like I think Anthony may have been saying last week, the Board of Health for a doctor or something like that or other cases. I think basically in my mind, uh, except where required by law, like, I think it's the zoning board of appeals, um, or the community development board. I, I can't remember which, um, the state, um, appoint somebody, uh, they're a Medford resident, but say to state does the appointing. I think using the one that this sample that we have here, I think pretty much spells it out. Whether any, any, Multimember board, um, it should. Be a Medford resident unless there's. A very valid reason for it not to be. You know, whether it be a case of, you know, the police chief on the human rights commission or whatever. Or. And he's on there by virtue of his role in the city and he isn't required to live in the city versus somebody else's expertise. We might tap for whatever reason and it gives the mayor the opportunity to do that. I think whether it be a case of particular expertise or your stature or role in the community or the community garden commission or the bicycle commission or whatever, Everybody should be a member of the city unless there's a really good reason not to be. And I think that encapsulates it.
[Milva McDonald]: Any other comments or discussion on this point?
[Andreottola]: I just like to say, as long as there's some way for there to be an exemption, you know, special circumstance, I think it's, I can, I can agree with like to say, you know, we wanted to, uh, ask a Tufts professor that works in Medford, but isn't a method resident to be on, you know, a specific board or commission for, you know, for their expertise. I think as long as the mayor can kind of, uh, somehow, uh, appeal the, uh, I'm sorry, the things coming through, I'm getting some interference, but I'm okay with it. I'm sorry, I'm breaking up.
[Ron Giovino]: No, but if you let me share, I can put it on the screen so people can see.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. We can do that. I'm not, do people need to see it right now? Jean was just sharing in the chat what are the 2-9 section that we wrote, which gives the mayor the authority to appoint the multi-member bodies and gives the city council the confirmation, the power to reject, say. Do we want to move ahead with the Amesbury language, or what do people think?
[Eunice Browne]: I move to add a section on residency and use the Amesbury language. OK.
[Ron Giovino]: Second. Second.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. OK, let's do a roll call. Ron? Yes. Jean?
[Jean Zotter]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Danielle?
[Danielle Balocca]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice? Yes. Paulette?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Phyllis? Are you not sure? Right. Okay. So Maury?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Aubrey? Yes. Anthony?
[Andreottola]: I'm sorry, I'm breaking up again. Yes, if you can hear me.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, great. And I'm voting yes. Did I get everybody? I think I did. Okay, awesome. So that is what did you vote on? We voted on adding a residency requirement for multi member bodies. So what we just voted was to add a residency requirement, but put language in that includes a waiver so that it could be waived with the mayor can take a waiver request to the city council to waive the residency requirement. So it's not impossible that someone from outside the city could be on one of those boards, but there has to be a reason for it. Yeah, okay. I agree with that. Okay. OK, great. So Eunice, what was your question on the rules and regulations?
[Eunice Browne]: It was more of a kind of bringing the section into the 21st century. Let me see if I can. put it in the chat. How it reads, and I'll put it in the chat in a minute. Is this what you mean here? Wait a minute. I'm bouncing between a couple of different things. What I just put on the screen? No, I cleaned it up a little bit. Apologies. Let me see what it reads is. Now, I can't find it. A copy of all rules and regulations adopted by a city agency shall be published on the agency's designated page on the city website and placed on file in the office of the city clerk to be made available for review by any person who requests such information at a reasonable time, unless an emergency exists as determined by the mayor. No rule or regulation adopted by a city agency shall become effective less than five days following the date it's filed. So it more or less just sort of brings it into the 21st century. Instead of being placed on file in the office of the city clerk, it's, you know, or we can add that piece too, but that you know, each agency has a space on the city website as they basically do now, and any rules and regulations would be a part of their home on the city website, if that all makes sense.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Eunice Browne]: Let me put it in the chat.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Then I will share a little bit from my conversation with the Collins Center about this. So their recommendation was not to be that specific because the public engagement changes. And so, you know, let's say a charter review every 10 years, the means for public engagement change. So they recommended just putting in language that was more general, like through all available means, or you could say through electronic means or something like that.
[Eunice Browne]: Um, well, that was that was that was their feedback. Are we talking about the same thing? Section 93 rules and regulations?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, well, we were talking about basically any they were talking about any mention of. putting requirements in the charter to put materials on the city website or, you know, in specific areas on the city website, because the means for public engagement can change over the period between charter meetings.
[Eunice Browne]: That was just their feedback. Okay. I see what you're saying. The piece that I had an issue with was the placed on file in the office and available for reviews. That means if you want something, you have to go in and ask the city clerk as opposed to bringing up city website and lo and behold.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, so, and as I said, this is, you know, all I'm doing for Article 9 is telling the Holland Center what we want in it, and that they're going to put standard language in, and theoretically, they would use updated language, but we could say to them, we want this section to reflect the importance of materials being available to the public, you know, as specifically as possible, or something like that.
[Eunice Browne]: You know, electronic means part.
[Andreottola]: I just does that make sense? Yeah, it does. But 1 thing that worries me is that when you, if you put something like that in the chat of that specific, then you also like. Are you making it accessible to all? Like, are you putting it on the website? No, the website isn't necessarily accessible to all people. You know what I mean? But language or people, you know, blind people or people whose language is other than English or you need to have things translated. If you make it that specific, you know, how to, you know, what laws kind of guide that, you know, the, this, you know, our webpage isn't necessarily ADA, like ADA compatible and stuff. So, just something to think about.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Thank you. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: You know, to get a couple of things to Anthony's point, I think it says in there to be on file at the city clerk's office. So I believe that the city clerk has a process in place for making sure that the media is available to everybody, whether impaired or doesn't speak the language, they would have to do that. So I'm not I'm not. I think it covers that the other piece is I think we're talking about, we are talking about what Eunice is saying and what the Collins Center wrote was also about rules for public participation, too. So.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, that's a different issue.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah. And the third thing is we have somebody who wants to comment on this subject. Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. So we usually take public comment at the end, but I'm fine with taking it now. So is everyone? Yeah. Okay. I think Matthew wanted to speak. You have to unmute. Yeah, we can hear you. Wait, you're breaking up. Can you hear me? We can hear you, but you're breaking up.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, you're breaking up.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. He's going to put it in the chat, I think he said. Okay, so do we have any more discussion on this? Do we have a resolution? Well, does anybody have one? I mean, what I was going to say was the move to ask the Collins Center to include language that ensures information is shared through all available means and just sort of stress the importance of that.
[SPEAKER_10]: Melva, I don't know if you saw Matthew's newest comment.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, I'm about to look at that. Anyway, so that was my suggestion. I don't know what he wants us to consider before the vote. We'll wait. So just to rephrase, I would move that we ask the call-in center to include language that ensures that information is shared through all available means with the public, shared with the public, all available means. Does anybody want to second that?
[Eunice Browne]: I second it. Yeah. Okay. But now, what is it that Matt wants?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. I know.
[Eunice Browne]: He wants us to- I think he's probably typing, so give him a second maybe to see if there's something that- Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Right. Without request. Yeah. Okay. So if we were going to include that, we're moving to ask the Council to include language that ensures info is shared with the public through all available means.
[Andreottola]: Are we placing a time limit on that? Was there a five day something that someone said?
[Eunice Browne]: No, there's, I think there's. It said at the end, unless an emergency exists as determined by the mayor, no rule or regulation adopted by a city agency shall become effective less than five days following the date it is filed. So that's a little bit, it's sort of a secondary part to having information, there's two parts to this. It's having information available to the public, easily accessible for anybody that would want it. Then unless an emergency exists, no rule or regulation adopted by an agency shall become effective less than five days following the date it's filed.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Can we take that piece separately?
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Frances, did you want to say something?
[Frances Nwajei]: Frances? She's muted. I don't think she knows she's muted. She just unmuted. Please ensure that you have clarification with regards to what kind of information is available. If somebody requests an ASL interpreter, if somebody requests large print, if somebody requests the use of an outside vendor, that information is not going to be available immediately. it might not even be available at all. Case in point, the Pride Festival, six week leeway to the MCDHH right on up until Tuesday. So just be careful, you know, just a point of caution in terms of your wording, right? Somebody could say, I'm going to need a blah, blah, blah language translator. That's not something that happens in a house. So I think you just have to provide clarification for that. I think also, additionally, the expectations have to be clear, walking into a city clerk's office and saying, hey, I need this not going to happen right away, depending on what it is. Now, if you're walking in and you're looking for the. The things that are going to be discussed at, let's say, a city council meeting on that night, you're going to find them on the counter because they're all printed. But if you're talking about something that was previous, that's going to require time for people to do the search. So to keep those things in mind, and also, you know, folks needing to know where to go on the website to acquire, you know, to acquire information, right? Some commissions drop in the draft notes as they're done, and other commissions wait until those notes are converted to minutes.
[Jean Zotter]: Okay, thank you. Jean? I just want to clarify for everyone that this is just about the rules and regulations that the city promulgates. So it's ordinances, policies from city agencies. It doesn't include minutes. This is just relevant to at least by the heading in the text. That's what it pertains to.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, thank you for that. Ron and then Eunice, and then we're going to vote.
[Ron Giovino]: So my comment was that Frances is certainly the expert in this regard in terms of what the law says in terms of accessibility to the documents. And I think she explained it very well that if you request it, you have to wait the legitimate amount of time for it to be translated or produced in a media that's easy. I'm addressing Matthew's comment there. So I think that It's not likely that we would translate every document and put it on the website, but there is a process in place by law that have to provide. Is that correct, Francis?
[Frances Nwajei]: Yes, there certainly is a process in place, and there are different steps to that process. So, for example, things that get, let's say, something is passed, right? City clerk's office is right down the hall. Boom, that's done, that's stamped, that's filed away. But may take longer to get uploaded, right? Because getting uploaded is out of my hands. It now requires two other people to become involved. Does that help? And then in regards to ordinances, I mean, sometimes, unfortunately, people mistake being invited to help craft ordinances as, okay, they're done, and now that ordinance is now in effect. And don't realize that just because you're part of helping to draft an ordinance, it does not mean that when you're done drafting it, that that ordinance is in effect. And I say that With regards to a draft ordinance that was created that. I wasn't aware of and most members think that that is how we're moving forward and it involves other parties for it to become legitimate. I would just, you know, again, I would just caution you by law. We are required to provide access to this information. I would just be careful of saying how and what time you're going to provide that access because no 1 person controls the incoming request all the way to the end.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. So the motion is, it's about rules and regulations, as Gene pointed out, and it's basically we're just asking the Collins Center when they draft this to make sure that they include language to ensure that the information is shared through, with the public through all available means, not, you know, and they will, I'm sure, I trust that they will phrase it appropriately. So, can we vote?
[Eunice Browne]: I just want to clarify that what Gina said is correct. I think we've convoluted a few different topics in this discussion. This is only about city agency rules and regulations at the moment. I think having the accessibility is certainly important. I hear what Francis is saying that you can't just walk into the office, And, you know, the clerk's office and expect to be handed something, you know, especially if you're, you know. Looking for it in, you know, another language or another. But then to address what our member of the public, Matthew, has said, I think what he's referring to, or I know what he's referring to, I see, is meeting minutes and so forth. And I think that needs to be addressed too, but I think that falls over where we go to the multi-member body parts. I think that we can address that when we get to that section so that people can get the minutes and agendas and things that they're interested in as well. But like Jean said, what we're dealing with here and now in this board is just the rules and regulations of the city agency.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. We have the motion on the table and I will go around Anthony.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Paulette.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Aubrey. Yes. Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Jean. Yes. Phyllis. Yes. Eunice. Yes. Danielle. Yes. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. And I'm also yes. Okay, awesome so we want to address part 2 of that where I think it was the 5 day window units right that. Can you just read can you read that out again?
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. Unless an emergency exists as determined by the mayor, no rule or regulation adopted by a city agency shall become effective less than five days following the date it is also so filed. So, did I?
[Milva McDonald]: So you're saying you, I mean, do you want to make a motion for that?
[Eunice Browne]: I mean, it was, Yeah, I mean, it's in the sample as well. I'm making a motion to keep that language.
[Milva McDonald]: Anybody want a second? Second. Okay. Ron.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: It should say business days though.
[Maury Carroll]: I was going to say that, yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: I think that that's part of the definitions that the Collins Center will work through when they create our draft. They'll work on the A's problem. Okay. Danielle?
[Jean Zotter]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Jean?
[Jean Zotter]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice? Yes. Aubrey? Yes. Maury, did I get you? Sorry, I've lost track of my windows.
[Maury Carroll]: I'm a yes vote.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Paulette, did I get you? Yes. You didn't get me and I'm a yes, Phyllis. Okay. Anthony, I don't think I got Anthony.
[Andreottola]: I don't understand the ramifications of the five days, so I'll just abstain.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. I feel like I missed one person. Did I? I got everybody? Okay, Maury voted. Okay, and I'll vote yes. Okay, awesome. What's next? Oh, the ordinances, periodic review of ordinances. So as you can see, the Collins Center said that ordinance reviews are, they're getting more common. It's becoming a standard feature of a modern charter. They're usually done every five years. And they gave us three examples. And the language is a little different in each one. So did people have a chance to look at them? I did. Let's see. Where are they? Let's see if I don't have them for the screen. I think that they all said five years, right? But, you know, the first one, the East Hampton one said the city council may provide. So that seemed like it sort of left it open. And they didn't all require the formation of a committee, right, East Hampton. had the review just conducted under the supervision of city attorney, or if the city council so directs by special counsel appointed for that purpose. But the other two, I think, had the formation of a special committee. Yeah, Winthrop and Northampton. Does anybody have any thoughts about the different versions or how you... Do you want me to try to share my screen, Melva?
[Maury Carroll]: If you have them up, that'd be great. Uh, can I hop in here for a 2nd? Yeah, I like the 5 years. I kind of like a committee. Maybe it doesn't have to be a 1215 or 22 person committee might be a committee made up of representative of the mayor's office or the city in a city council representative and even a school committee representative and maybe. three people from the public that are interested. I'd like to see a committee made up in general of people that are within City Hall and outside of City Hall to review this the proper way.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Thanks. Jean, I think we had actually language from the call-in center that had three different versions of it. Ron?
[SPEAKER_10]: Did you want to find out the language if you allow me to share my screen? Okay.
[Ron Giovino]: I will.
[Unidentified]: I was just going to ask.
[Ron Giovino]: Okay. I'll just say that I thought that the Northampton was most precise, and the only issue I have is that we're a city without a city solicitor, so we may have to want to change that length.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Any, let's see. Yeah, here we go. I agree with you, Ron. That was my pick, too, of the three. I liked the Northampton. Did anybody have any thoughts about the others? Here's the Northampton language. So not later than July 1st at five-year intervals, the mayor and city council shall provide for a review to be made of some or all of the ordinances of the city to prepare a proposed revision or break codification of them. It shall be made by a special committee to be established by ordinance. So this puts the particulars of the formation in the hands of the city government to establish by ordinance. but it does stipulate that they're all voters and it says a couple of other details. Dean.
[Jean Zotter]: This process, they make recommendations which can or cannot be acted on by city council. Yes. That's what I understand. I just wanted to.
[Milva McDonald]: And it also, you know, it gives flexibility because it says some or all of the ordinances because, you know, obviously a complete review of all the ordinances every five years would be.
[Jean Zotter]: And some of them are specialized and people may need to have some training or something to understand how they haven't, what kind of impact they would have.
[Milva McDonald]: Right. So this, and, and this particular language leaves it sort of up to the city government, how to structure the committee. Um, Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: That's kind of like my point. I was trying to take it completely out of the hands of city government to say, okay, these are the parameters you have to work on to, to, for the revision of the charter or how we want to do it and so forth within the five years, so that it's not in the hands of one individual or one segment of the government is in control of it. You've got parameters you have to work under. So you're okay with this language then? No, I'd like to see some sort of a structure, like I said. Okay, one person from the mayor's office, one person from the council, one person from the city, from school committee, and a couple, two or three residents. So it's well-rounded.
[Milva McDonald]: Like we did for the charter.
[Maury Carroll]: Exactly.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: Um, Eunice. You know, I, I like this to a point. It says, you know, the review should be made by a special committee to be established by ordinance. The committee is going to be established by ordinance. Who is it that creates the ordinances? The city council. The city council then, if we went this direction, would then get to decide how the committee is structured. I agree with Maury. I like this in general, but I agree with Maury that I think that I would like to see us, provide some structure, as he so eloquently said, of who should be on that committee. So that there is some decent representation from an appointee by the mayor, appointees by the council and the school committee. residents as well for input. And then the only other piece that I would add, let's see, the review of the copy where it says at the end, copies of any recommendations shall be made to the public at a cost not to exceed the actual cost of reproduction. Again, wanting to bring that into the 21st century, My language that I would like to add to that would be that the mayor shall establish a page on the city website for the ordinance review committee. Any recommendations shall be made available on the designated page on the city website, as well as made available in hard copy form at a cost not to exceed the actual cost of the reproduction. A little bit similar to what we were just talking about a few minutes ago with whatever provisions that we have to make in terms of things being available in any particular means so that a resident can easily access it. Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Aubrey?
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, I like unison's recommendation to change some of this language, but I would make it just a tiny bit broader and just say, um, these recommendations shall be made freely and easily available to the public and understand it.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay.
[Andreottola]: I'd like to jam in if I could. You know, we're talking about ordinances and, you know, the city council is, you know, that's what they're elected. to do the legislative part of the city government. And I really, I kind of like the phrasing that it will be established by the city council. This is really, you know, their territory. And I think it's wise to leave it up to the legislative branch to, you know, to come up with something by ordinance. uh, that would work for them and for the city because, you know, this is really, you know, their job. This is what they're elected to do. I don't know if, uh, you know, the school committee, uh, really has a lot of, uh, input into ordinances, nor should the mayor. I think that's why we have it, you know, separated. And just about the, we don't have a solicitor. We do. We hire a law firm to act as our solicitor, like many of the communities in Massachusetts. So when they say legal counsel, you know, whatever group of practice we employ, access our solicitor you know it may not be an individual person it has people with all different types of expertise and and uh you know they i'm sure they can uh Oversee something like this what I'm concerned about is is the cost of of this, you know, like, is this something that is, you know, can this be costly to the community? Like, how many legal hour? How many how much attorney time with something like this? involved you know it's it's in the modern charters that we know like is this you know uh you know a couple hours of legal work or is it you know weeks and weeks of uh you know hundreds of dollar an hour attorney costs that's just my my feedback okay thank you um ron
[Ron Giovino]: A couple of things. First off, I don't really care what the cost is to do this. It's something that needs to be done. And I think what we're forgetting is that the charter review is a process that goes all the way up to the state house. This process ends at the desk of the city council. They're the only ones who can change an ordinance. The way I see this, it's a review of what either are laws that have been on the books forever and have no significance anymore, or laws that need to be updated, or laws that need to be eliminated or tweaked. And you can't do that without a lawyer. And the only point I made about the city solicitor is, to change the verbiage to say, you know, it needs to be supervised by the city solicitor or their designee. Whoever that agent is, whoever we hire as our city solicitor, it just updates that. So it doesn't have to be the city solicitor. Hopefully that the cost of something like this process will force the city to to get a city solicitor, which would be on the payroll doing this. But you can't do this without a city solicitor. You can't do it without that. But it's important to note that the process is just like us, but the buck stops right at the desk of the city council. They're the only ones who can touch an ordinance.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. Maury, did you want to speak?
[Maury Carroll]: Yeah, well, Ron kind of stole my thunder because everything he just said was where I was going. I hear what Anthony is saying, but what we're asking for as a review every five years, it still has to go to the to the city council for approval and whatever the means are after that. And obviously, legal is a big part of it. And as Ron exactly said, it really doesn't matter how much it costs. You know, things have to be done a certain way. And certain things, you know, City has other ways of making up or trying to find money. So certainly this is a very important thing on how the government is to run and what changes, what tweaks have to be made. Because as we all know, a lot of things change in five years. So that's kind of where I'm going with this. Thank you.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. Thank you. Jean?
[Jean Zotter]: I like the Northampton. Language because it does say some or all of the ordinances to do all of the ordinances every five years would be A serious undertaking, especially if they've already You know, maybe just redone the zoning laws. They wouldn't need to to redo that piece. So I like giving that flexibility to city council exactly, okay, so
[Milva McDonald]: Where we are is we've had several members like Northampton, but there's some question about the structure of the committee. Did I see, Ron, your hand up again? No. Maury's, no? Okay. So, I mean, does somebody want to move that we accept this language pretty much as is, or do we want to talk about changing the committee and putting more sort of specific guidelines on it in this section.
[Ron Giovino]: Can we just, is it possible to change the verbiage on the city solicitor and just add or I don't know, I don't know what the exact words are, but just to me, it's just, well, I think what we can do is make a note.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, go ahead. make a note to the call-in center, you know, just keep in mind when you're drafting this charter that we don't currently have a city solicitor. So, see, yeah, legal counsel. It could just say legal counsel.
[Ron Giovino]: The reason why that's important, too, is because there's talk about the city council getting their own solicitor, and it would have to be the city solicitor, not the city council solicitor, I think, that supervises this.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, I mean, they had a charter amendment that they tried to pass, but we didn't put that in our draft charter. We just put that they could hire staff, but we didn't.
[Ron Giovino]: No, I understand. I'm just saying when we're no longer around, I just think it's important that it's the city solicitor, not the city council solicitor.
[Danielle Balocca]: Danielle. Yeah, I agree that the language about, you know, not reviewing all ordinances every 5 years is important. I wonder about like. So I guess my worry is like, are there ordinances that aren't going to be reviewed for like several cycles? And if there's like, we want to say that ordinances like, sorry, I don't know how exactly to word this, but I guess I'm thinking about if there's an ordinance that isn't reviewed for 25 years, like, is that a problem? Because like, it doesn't make it to that review for several cycles. Should there be like any language around how often like ordinance, like single ordinances should be reviewed? Does that make sense what I'm saying?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, I hear what you're saying. I mean, currently the way the North Hamilton language is written, it seems to me that it gives the mayor and the city council the leeway to decide which ordinances that they want to review, right? But you're saying can we say that, can we add that, let's say, providing that every ordinance is reviewed at least every X number of years.
[Danielle Balocca]: That's the point that I'm trying to make. Is that important to include something like that?
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. That's what I was thinking too. Any ordinance that hasn't been reviewed in at least 10 years, Um, should should undergo. A review, I mean, I, I think. You know, like Maury said, he's got a good point there that, you know, a lot can change in 5 years. Certainly, but I think. Any any ordinance that hasn't seen a review. In the last decade, um, certainly needs a look. To see if it's. As Ron said, still relevant. The example that I gave last week because our ordinances haven't been reviewed in heaven knows how long, and that's what the city council evidently is attempting to do during this two-year term. You can't park your horse and buggy in front of the post office. It's something that needs a review.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So the thing is, if you're saying every 10 years, that's two review cycles. So you're really saying half the ordinances should be reviewed at one point and the other half.
[Milva McDonald]: That's a good point.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I mean, do you want to say three-year cycles, though 15 years sounds like a long time? But two-year cycles really means half and half.
[Milva McDonald]: So, right, so you're saying if we decided to add a line saying that no ordinance should go longer than 10 years without being reviewed, and that, could that be burdensome? That's a big review every five years, right?
[Danielle Balocca]: Yeah. I think it could be different, though. Like, because if an ordinance is created in the middle of that five years of being reviewed, like, that's going to, that could be three cycles of.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, that's true. Aubrey?
[SPEAKER_10]: I, I don't think I would prefer not to have specific language, but I understand the sentiment. Mostly it's because I think that, um, what is a review? Because I can put eyes on every ordinance and say, I reviewed all of them, but here are three that I'm suggesting to change. Yeah. And then I can say that I reviewed all of them, but I really haven't. So I think that the question of what is a review. is important here, and I would not include specific language about how many need to be reviewed.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. Jean?
[Jean Zotter]: Yeah, I'm with Aubrey. I mean, we have 94 chapters. In our ordinances, I mean, it's just a lot of pages. And I think if we want to put a year date on it, then I would say more like 25 years every 25 years, there should be a comprehensive review because 10 years really isn't. that long for things to be enacted and implemented. That would just be my, it's a lot, there's a lot of ordinances. So it's just, I guess maybe think about what we're trying to accomplish with all this work. And I think we're trying to get rid of things that don't make sense anymore or that need to be updated, but maybe 25 years is better. I don't know. That's my concern.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I think we've been, since we started this process, the Cullin Center has always cautioned us to be too detailed, not to be too detailed with these changes and let the people decide how that works. So I agree with Aubrey that We should not have those kind of details. Secondly, to everybody else's point, you know, who's ever talked about it? Who's ever talked about an ordinance review? I think that if we implement this process, I mean, you can change an ordinance tomorrow if you want, if it's bad. We don't need a review team to do that. I think what we create here is a change in the fabric of how we look at ordinances so that people will be able to, over the five years before the next review, there'll be a list of ordinances requested that we want to look at. And people will start looking at ordinances in a different way. So I think the more, for lack of a better word, vague is the best way to go. And I think that's what the Collins Center has said to us since we started this.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. Maury, did you have another comment?
[Maury Carroll]: Yeah, I just wanted to hop in a little bit. I'm going to say this and kind of pick up. like almost a compromise point from what everyone's saying, what Gene is and Aubrey, that within 15 years that maybe all ordinances should be looked at. They could be just rubber stamped and moved on. And I understand, Gene, what you're saying, how many pages and ordinances there are there. But I think the main thing on a review of the ordinance is, again, I'm going to go back to, is the structure of who's looking at this. And, you know, as long as it isn't just all, you know, the left hand controlling it, that there's a left hand, a right hand in the middle, all involved in this to look at it sensibly and not biased, you can blow right through all this stuff. We're doing all the hard work now, and things are going to change from year to year to look at it. But I'd say all audiences within the 15-year period should be just looked at, not every year and so forth. But that's my point.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Eunice.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I feel as strongly as Maury does that we need to have some structure of who would be on this committee. I think having anything in here. I think reviewing ordinances to me is just. general, you know, wise house governmental housekeeping, you know, much like you, you know, clean your furnace every year or get, you got us cleaned. It's, it's good housekeeping. And so I think, you know, I could go either way on the vagueness or the not vagueness of it, you know, an ordinance that, you know, if this went into effect and, you know, uh, the committee starts looking at ordinances two years from now, they may not need to give too much attention to an ordinance that was established a year or so ago, but an ordinance that was 15 years ago will require a good look. And I think leaving it up to you know, the group, the committee to determine which ordinances need that look, um, might be wise, but I'm right on board with Maury that the, the structure of the committee has to be legislated within this.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Thanks. Danielle.
[Danielle Balocca]: Yeah, just to like kind of add or restate, I think I'm, I think I agree with her with more units are saying about like, It just being that no ordinance should be not reviewed for like, you know, after 25 years or shouldn't go more than like 20 or 25 years without being reviewed. I think because I do wonder like how if there are ordinances that maybe like benefit different bodies differently, if they would sort of be like less likely to be reviewed. And that and also like, you know, that idea of having an unbiased group of people reviewing it. I think that that's really important. But so, yeah, I don't know. I think I I still do think the idea of making like maybe just one line about no ordinance should go more than X amount of times without being X amount of years without being reviewed would be useful. But I also can see the disagreement, too.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so we've talked a lot. First, I just want to say timekeeping-wise, we have one more hour left. If we can get through everything on the agenda, we won't have to meet next week, and I'm still hopeful. I just want to have that in everybody's mind. I feel like there's three parts to this. There's the timing of the review, which I haven't heard a lot of disagreement about every five years, as long as we use the language, some or all. The other piece is the composition of the committee, whether it should be just left to ordinance or whether we should specify. And the other piece is, should there be a line added that says every ordinance should be reviewed within at least every X number of years? So let's take them one by one. So for the five-year review, Do we want to vote on that and say, like, I'll just make a motion that we have an ordinance review every five years?
[Maury Carroll]: I'll make a motion that we have an ordinance review every five years.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. Second. OK. So all right. Eunice? Yes. Maury?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Ron?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Danielle?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Jean?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Paulette?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Aubrey? Yes. Is Phyllis out there? Yes, I second the motion.
[Unidentified]: Yes, I am.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes. Okay. I can't see everybody. I can't see the boxes now because of the screen share. So Phyllis, did you vote yes? Okay, and I'll vote yes. So awesome. We've got that piece done. What about the composition of the committee? I mean, I guess- I'll make a motion.
[Maury Carroll]: Okay. That the composition of this review committee would consist of a member from the mayor's office, member of the city council, member of the school committee, in four members of the community at large.
[Andreottola]: I'd like to say something before we end that.
[Milva McDonald]: I just want to get it down right. When you say a city councilor or appointed by?
[Maury Carroll]: No, I'd rather see a city councilor myself.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, and same with school committee?
[Maury Carroll]: Committee, that's correct. And someone from the mayor's office, appointed from the mayor's office, that's in the mayor's office.
[Danielle Balocca]: And do we want to be consistent with the, instead of like members at large, like residents or voters?
[Maury Carroll]: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, you're right, Danielle. Yeah, sure.
[Milva McDonald]: And for voters, okay. Anthony, you had a comment?
[Andreottola]: Yes, the only comment I really want to make is that, you know, we talked a lot, you know, over this past year about balance of power and ordinances are clearly, you know, within the realm of city council. That's their main, their main job in the city. And I think if we are going to do a review of ordinances, it really should be left up to the city council to draft an ordinance of who's going to be on the committee, when it's going to meet, how it's going to function. because it's in their realm of authority. They're about ordinances. The mayor is the executive. Let's keep it separate the way it's supposed to be. And the city council, it'll be their responsibility to get the people on this committee to do this work. And it'll change. It's not this city council that's sitting right now. We don't even know who'll be on the city council, who'll be available, you know, how much community participation there'll be. Let the people who are elected to deal with ordinances, you know, make sure that there's a review process. We enshrined it in the charter, they have to do it. And they have to figure it out.
[Maury Carroll]: Anthony, we're not taking that away from the city council by this. City council is going to have the last say in this. No, we've been trying to get this. All of this is a review of the work, basically, of what we're doing five years from now. No, no.
[Milva McDonald]: So wait a minute, guys. It's no, it's not the charter, it's the ordinances. I actually, I agree with Anthony on this because I do feel like it's in the wheelhouse of the city council, but we're gonna vote. But first Paulette and then Ron.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I was just going to say I have sort of mixed feelings about the school committee inclusion only because the school committee, you know, people have a lot of their own things, meetings to go to and whatever. So it's a fair uplift. On the other hand, if we are inclusive and want to say, hey, for the good of the city, we want to have a variety of people looking at these ordinances, it makes sense. But I am, you know, I'm a little torn on this one. But whatever.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I don't think any government officials should be on this committee. I don't think the city council should have a member on this board that eventually is going to present to that city councilor to decide. So I'm about, you know, citizen-led, supervised by the city council, the city solicitor. I mean, I can't see if you put, same reason why there's no city councilors on this board. I mean, it just doesn't make sense to me that they would be deciding what goes in front of their board. It seems like a conflict to me. So I would move that no government official is on that committee.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Wait a minute. So that means Maury would have to amend his motion, I think.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah. Well, I mean, I'm just stating what I, you know.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. Okay. Maury, did you want to speak?
[Maury Carroll]: I'm going to leave my motion the way it is. I understand what everybody else is saying. The reason I'm including the school committee and a member of the city council on this review committee is These are the people, hopefully, that are in the know on the day-to-day operations, week-to-week operations of the inner workings of the city. They have the best knowledge of what's going on. It's going to have to go back in front of a city solicitor or some legal committee, then it has to be voted on by the city council, because they are, as Anthony is saying, they are the legislature party of the city. But I think a member that deals with it a lot more on a daily basis than John Q Public is good input, as long as the input is being real and authentic.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, thanks. Aubrey?
[SPEAKER_10]: I'll be on broken record here that I'm optimistic about the future and the people who will be in place then to make these decisions. And I do agree with Morrie that these feel Highly technical and that the people appointed should have some specific knowledge about ordinances and some. Just the things involved in this decision, I think I would like to move to people with. The knowledge, the deep knowledge to be able to make those decisions.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. I think that's a really good point. I think even the city council sometimes especially needs legal guidance when they're writing ordinances. It's their job to legislate, but they need guidance too. Did the motion get seconded? What is the motion? Well, Jean, can I just have Jean's comment and then I'll reread the motion as I have it recorded.
[Jean Zotter]: That was my question is, is it to replace language in the Northampton version?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, it would be instead of having the review committee established by ordinance, it would be The motion is that the review committee is made up of one member appointed from the mayor's office, one city councilor, one school committee member, and four voters.
[Danielle Balocca]: So that's the motion. Who's deciding who those people like? Is it is the mayor? Is it like other?
[Milva McDonald]: That's a good point, Maury. It has to say who's appointing the voters.
[Maury Carroll]: I would say it would have to be like our body that the mayor would have to be able to have the final say on the on the because we're giving the mayor the strength on everything else we're doing as far as committees, basically. Unless somebody else has a better suggestion of who should be the person that decides on who the at large, you know, junkie public should be on this committee. I mean, I'm open to everything. I just, you know, I just like to see it. spread out through the entire time.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Well, let's vote on it and see where it's at. And then if we have to finesse who appoints the four voters, we will. Okay. So Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice. Yes. Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Danielle. Yes. Gene. No. Aubrey. No. Phyllis?
[Unidentified]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Paulette? Yes. And who didn't I get?
[Maury Carroll]: Anthony.
[Andreottola]: Anthony.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony.
[Maury Carroll]: No. Don't they like you tonight?
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony's no. And I'm also no. The motion does not carry. So now we're back to still the question of how the committee would be, I mean, whether we want to say it's going to be established by ordinance or some other way.
[Andreottola]: I'd just like to say, let's just let the city council do their job. Let them find the people. by ordinance, let them figure it out, you know, they're going to have to kind of work with, you know, work with the committee, you know, that brings up, you know, any specific issue in an ordinance, you know. We have ordinances that God knows must have been beyond the books for, you know, 50 years, and they're dormant, and they really, you know, do they, need to be reviewed often? I don't know. Let the city council figure it out. I think they're trying to do it right now. That depends on what you want to say.
[Milva McDonald]: Do you want to make a motion that we keep the Northampton language?
[Andreottola]: Yes. It sounds reasonable. I think if we're going to have a review, I think they came up with a reasonable plan.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: No, just quickly, I mean, I think, you know, you need to review however we structure it. My fear is having one body that's in, you know, Usually one body that's elected has a controlling interest, whether it be Democrat, Republican, or whatever you want to call. And they're going to control the people that you're putting in a review. That's why, how do you offset that?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, I hear you. I guess my view is that I see this particular review as actually almost like a support for the city council because the city council is the legislative body. They get elected by the people. The ordinances are their wheelhouse. And this is a sort of a way to support them in their work of managing the ordinances. That's just my interpretation of this.
[Maury Carroll]: Or how about this, just controlling their interests, and maybe not what the entire city is going, and the other side of the electorate doesn't even have a voice, because they're not the ones that are electing. to the left or to the right. And that's why I like independent and I like one group, not necessarily against another group, but as checks and balances.
[Milva McDonald]: I hear you. That makes sense. Aubrey.
[SPEAKER_10]: I think there's going to have to be some level of trust involved in this because I could I could create a committee and say review all of these and then they come back to me with no recommendations for changes. Like a review does not mean that there are going to be changes. And so I think that we have to trust whoever is going to be on this committee to make good decisions. And we can't put that into a charter.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, good point. Thank you. So, um, we want to, I want to hear from Eunice and Jean and Ron, but I just also want to just point out that, uh, if we really would be awesome, if, um, uh, we, uh, could finish our work tonight.
[Eunice Browne]: Um, Eunice, you know, I agree with what Maury is saying about checks and balances, um, and having, you know, citizens on there. And I agree wholeheartedly. The reality is though, that, um, whoever's doing the appointing here of these, you know, and this goes for the multi-member bodies and so forth as well, is that whatever, you know, piece of the electorate is the dominant power at any given time is likely to appoint residents or members of whatever body, um, you know, to their, to whatever board it is. So, you know, the checks and balances, I wholeheartedly agree with, I just think that whoever is the dominant, you know, group that's in power, whether it be a slate or whoever, at any given time, they're going to be, you know, appointing, you know, if we told them that they could have, you know, that there could be 10 residents on here, then whoever is, you know, in power is going to likely appoint 10 people that are, you know, like-minded to that dominant body. You know, that's gonna be the case in any... I think, I have to say this, I agree with Aubrey, that we have to have some level of trust.
[Ron Giovino]: I mean, there's gonna be- Just point of information, point of information, Melva. We voted that down. Right now we have no motion on the floor. So I'd like to motion that we accept the Northampton version of this rule and take a vote. And we've already had the discussion on that one. So I'm just looking to keep it moving. So I'm moving that we use the Northampton version.
[Danielle Balocca]: Okay. There was a third piece though we were talking about. Which piece? About whether an ordinance should go more than a certain amount of time without being reviewed.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, let's take that next, but to see, because that would be an addition. So right now we're just going to vote on whether we want to accept the language about the, um, from the North Hampton charter about this committee.
[Andreottola]: I want a second Ron's motion.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Anthony.
[Andreottola]: I'll vote. Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Ron.
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice. Yes. Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Phyllis. Yes. Aubrey. You're muted, Aubrey. Yes. Danielle.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Paulette. Yes. Uh, I'm missing one person. Yes. Okay. And I will also vote. Yes. Okay. Awesome. Um, so now, um, The third piece about adding language. So Danielle, do you want to make a motion about that, about adding language that every ordinance shall be, I would say like no ordinance shell.
[Danielle Balocca]: Go more than 25 years without being reviewed. Okay.
[Ron Giovino]: Can I just ask a question, Danielle? When you say be reviewed, do you mean like there's a stamp of approval or do you think it's just like, well, we read it?
[Danielle Balocca]: I mean, whatever it means in this whole section.
[Ron Giovino]: No, no, that's why it's confusing. I hear what you're trying to do. I really do. It's just I don't know how you... Okay, I reviewed this.
[Danielle Balocca]: Okay. I mean, that's the same language that's used for the whole section.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Now I hear you.
[Danielle Balocca]: I support you.
[Maury Carroll]: I agree fully with Dan. I'd like to tighten it up a little bit. I'd like to go to 15 years. I'd like to make an amendment to that. No audience should go beyond 15 years without at least being looked at, so forth, whatever the group thinks. 25 years, I'm in no growth.
[Milva McDonald]: How do you feel about that, Danielle?
[Maury Carroll]: I'll be with you, Maury. I still live in the city, Anthony, you know?
[Milva McDonald]: Danielle? How do you feel about 15 years? OK, Paulette?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, I was going to say 20, but 15 is OK with me.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, can we split the difference and go 20?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Sure.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. So the motion on the floor is no ordinance shall go more than 20 years without being reviewed. Did we get a second?
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Danielle. Yes. Anthony.
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Ron.
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Phyllis. Yes. Aubrey. No, but I like the spirit. Jean. Yes. Paulette.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: One person I'm missing. Me. Eunice. Eunice, thank you. Yes. Yes, okay.
[Ron Giovino]: I want to say Milva's done an incredible job of missing a different person each time, so that's very good.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you, Ron.
[Maury Carroll]: That's why she should pick the committees.
[Milva McDonald]: It takes talent. Okay, we're going on. So we've done the ordinance review. Yay. Can I just add 1 thing?
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, here we go. Sorry, going back to similar to what we were talking about a while ago. My language was the mayor shall establish a page on the city website for the ordinance review committee. Any recommendations shall be made available on the designated page on the city website as well as made available in hard copy form at a cost not to exceed the actual cost of the reproduction. Can we add that in?
[Milva McDonald]: Can we just say, tell the call-in center that we want this section to reflect- Electronic means, yeah. Okay. Same thing we're saying for the other one? Yes. Okay. Okay. We're in the 21st century. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Now, next on the agenda, but we may have already covered it. Was there anything about multi-member bodies other than the residency? Oh, yeah.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay. Oh, no. Sorry. What I ended up doing was I spent, I don't know, a weekend ago or something going through a couple of dozen other charters and whatever general provisions or whatever section we're in now. I plucked out some things that I thought were helpful and relevant to us here in Medford. The uniform procedures governing multi member bodies under the. Meeting section. Let's see, we find in. And it's somewhat similar to what I've been saying. I have a few things under the multi-member body section, and I'm sorry to bore you all to tears. and I'll pop this in chat as well, but the mayor shall designate a page on the city website for each board or commission. All meeting notices and agendas shall be posted there as well as to the city calendar in accordance with mass open meeting law. Medford Community Media shall be notified of all meetings. Meetings shall be televised live pending availability at MCM. All meetings shall be recorded and uploaded to MCM for replay. All minutes shall be approved and posted no later than 60 days after the meeting.
[Milva McDonald]: So we run into the same problem again. We don't know if Metro community media is going to exist for the next 10 years. You know, it might change. It might be something else. We don't know what new electronic things going to come down the pike that maybe a website isn't a thing anymore. And I think that's what So I guess what I'm going to ask about this is, can we do what we're doing with all the other sections and just let the call-in center use language that won't sort of tie us into something that might not exist during the tenure of the charter?
[Eunice Browne]: Yes, but a little bit different in this way in addition to ensuring that, you know, meeting notices and agendas go up on the website in the city calendar. And I'm not quite sure how to put it, but. whatever means there is, and you can finesse this maybe for Collins Center, Milva, whatever means there are of broadcasting, I guess, would be the word that I would want. Whatever means of broadcasting a meeting would be All meetings should be either live broadcast or recorded for replay.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. So what I would like to do is just tell when we submit our draft charter and the parts of the charter that the Collins Center is going to write that we include, we want language in there to ensure that these meetings are publicized by all means available, and that they're broadcast by all means available, and that they're shared by all means available, and let them come up with the language? Does that sound? Yeah, I'm amenable to that. We're going to talk about it again because we're going to get the draft charter back from the call-in center. Then when we get it back from the call-in center, they're going to be with us for the last three meetings. So there'll be a chance to talk about it again.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay. And then I think the last piece, and I think, um, uh, Matthew, I think has left us. Um, uh, but, uh, he had a note in the chat that I guess he wasn't too pleased with how things went about the minutes. Um, but that I would, um, you know, Uh, and I've, I've come across this to looking for minutes from some bodies is that, you know, they don't seem to be. You know, avail made available, so I think that having something. In there that indicates that all minutes must be approved and posted. And I just, I picked no later than 60 days.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm pretty sure, isn't that an open meeting? I mean, I thought that that was outside the charter requirement.
[Andreottola]: Now, whether. It is a state law, you know, the open meeting law and all the groups and committees are already supposed to be doing that.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. And they're not. Right. So that's, I don't think we can control that. Okay. But Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: Now, I was just going to say what Anthony said. That's state law. And if you've got one person out of 60,000 people in the city that's a little bit upset how it goes, that is what it is.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. So let's let the call-in center put that language in. And as I said, Eunice, we'll be able to address it again with them present. And we can work through it if we need to. Does that make sense? Does that sound good?
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, and then we covered the residency, and then I just had one other section that I found somewhere. I can't remember where. No, why?
[Maury Carroll]: Because you don't have it. Move on.
[Eunice Browne]: Thanks, Maury. It says notice to mayor, a multi-member body may, by majority vote, send a notice to the mayor if the extended absence of one or more members is impeding the ability of such body to maintain a quorum, fulfill its responsibilities, or otherwise preventing the body from taking action in a timely manner. That then puts a stop to cases where you know, there may be members that are not, you know, get appointed to a body and aren't showing up. Um, you know, I know that that came up quite recently in another body and, uh, you know, uh, okay. So do you want to make a motion to add that, uh, make a motion to add that? And I will, um, uh, get you the language of the second.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Do people need to see the language before they vote on it? Jean.
[Jean Zotter]: I feel like this was already covered, but I just want to check and make sure it's not in Section 2 or wherever we talk about multi-member bodies.
[Milva McDonald]: It's possible, but I don't recall this in particular being there, but if you want to look, you can.
[Eunice Browne]: I will try to look that up. I just added it to the chat, Jean.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't see it. Oh, there we go. So that's what's on the table. And do we have a second?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I'll second it.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Um, okay. Let's vote. Uh, Eunice? Uh, yes. Uh, Paulette? Yes. Uh, Ron?
[Ron Giovino]: Uh, no.
[Milva McDonald]: Uh, Aubrey?
[SPEAKER_10]: Let me come back. I'm still reading it.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Um, Jean?
[Jean Zotter]: Uh, Yes, I guess.
[Milva McDonald]: Maury. Yes. Anthony.
[Andreottola]: I haven't had a chance to read it, so I'll abstain.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Who did I miss? I got Ron. Danielle. And somebody else different. Danielle says yes. And you didn't get me, Milva. And Phyllis? I'm abstaining. Okay. And Aubrey? Is still reading?
[SPEAKER_10]: I think I just don't understand what send a notice would do.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Eunice Browne]: I'm going to vote no. I mean, basically telling the mayor that, hey, we've got a member that's not shown up for the last four meetings.
[Milva McDonald]: That's what it sounds like to me.
[Eunice Browne]: We can't make a quorum because.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't see why they couldn't do that already. That's how I read it. It's just saying that they can send a notice to the mayor about this. It doesn't say anything is going to be done about it.
[Maury Carroll]: Well, true. Good point. It doesn't say someone's going to be taken off of it either. It's just saying, how are you going to handle it? I mean, I've missed two or three meetings over the last two or three months, but- You're out, Maury. You're out. You're out. I'm gone. I'm gone. So Aubrey- I can't be here for the rest of my life.
[Milva McDonald]: Aubrey's a no. Okay. So we have five yes, three no, two abstain, so the motion passes. Okay. That was all from multi-member bodies. Were we going to do anything about the periodic review of the need for multi-member bodies? Yeah, that would be another because you wanted to add that. I think there was a note from the Collins Center on that, and the Collins Center felt that they thought that you wouldn't necessarily need it if we were doing an ordinance review, but they also had a suggestion. which was not about putting something in the charter, right? Yeah, it was about, I think, bringing it to the city council. I can't seem to find in front of me their note, but I believe it was to make a recommendation that I couldn't get papers, that the city clerk, right? Put it in the chat. I put it in the chat. Thank you. Thank you, Jean. OK, so let's look at it. If I can scroll down to the last chat. Here we go. recommend that a city official like the city clerk produce an annual report to the city council regarding the need and operation of all currently existing multi-member bodies. So we could do something like that. Or if you want Eunice to make a motion about adding this section to the charter about having a review of the need for multi-member bodies, you can do that. Jean.
[Jean Zotter]: Is this addressing a problem we have? Do we have multi member bodies that exist that we don't need or that aren't meeting?
[Eunice Browne]: I think I was I was looking actually at the. uh, listing of our current boards and commissions. I think we have a couple on there that seem to be a bit questionable. Um, and then there were a few that were on there that I've seen on there before that seemed to have disappeared. So maybe they've disbanded. I, I think that, um, Marilonga Kern has, you know, one of her missions, um, it seems over the last, you know, few years has been to, you know, take a look at the multi-member bodies, take a look at the boards and clean things up. So it appears that she's done some of that, but she's not going to be the mayor forever. But I think, yeah, I would be okay with how much Tim would recommend a designated city clerk maybe to produce an annual report. Yeah, I would be okay with what the Collins Center recommends, presuming the clerk will go through and boards that seem to be meeting on a regular basis should obviously serve a purpose. If there's a board there that the last time they met was 18 months ago, They don't seem to serve the purpose any longer. So I think as long as there's something, again, as I said, you know, about other stuff, it's housekeeping. And I think that if there's some form of housekeeping in there, I think that's okay. So I would be okay with what the call and sender says.
[Milva McDonald]: Jean, do you have another comment?
[Jean Zotter]: Well, I, I think we're, we do need housekeeping I just, and full disclosure the city clerks my neighbor. And I just know how. I just don't want to create a lot of bureaucracy for people that if it's not needed I just worry about putting a lot more work on people. And so I wonder if it could be a regular review with unstated or does it have to be annual report to the city council? Can it be bi-annual or something so that we're, I just don't want to create a lot of busy work for people if it isn't, I see what you're saying, Eunice. I'm not saying it's not important. I just. Okay, Ron, did you have a comment?
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, just quickly, the first part of where they say that no charter has this is interesting, but the other thing too is- Well, they said they couldn't find one. No, no, I get it.
[Eunice Browne]: This actually came out of Fall River, I believe.
[Ron Giovino]: My real point is the report gets printed out by the city clerk, then what happens? This only says make a report.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, that's right.
[Ron Giovino]: That's my point.
[Milva McDonald]: Where do we want to go with this?
[Eunice Browne]: An annual report to the city council regarding the need and operation in order to determine if there are any boards that should be disbanded.
[Andreottola]: Well, I understand that. But they don't have the authority to do that. Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: So I guess what we're talking about now is something put in the final report, not the actual draft charter. So if we're deciding that we don't want to put this in the charter and we'll enable something for the final report, then we don't have to go through the nitpicking of it right now. We can do that at another meeting. Does that make sense? If that's what we're deciding, that we're going to do that. We're going to put something, we're going to put a recommendation in the final report.
[Eunice Browne]: I'm okay with that.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. And then we'll finagle that, the details of it down the road. Okay. Um, is that it for multi-member bodies? Uh, yeah. Okay. Now you said had something in oaths or affirmations.
[Eunice Browne]: Uh, it was just a minor change. Um, uh, The way our, in the first couple of sentences, the way that reads, a mayor-elect, the city council members-elect, and school committee members-elect shall, on the first Monday after the first Tuesday in January of each even-numbered year, meet and swear the faithfully discharged. Our current charter reads, there shall be a mayor elected by and for the, and this goes for the other bodies as well, shall hold office for the term of two years from the first Monday of January following his election. So not the first Monday after the first Tuesday.
[Milva McDonald]: Again, I'll just say that this was just an example for us to see what's in this section. If this is mostly standard language and the call-in center will draft it, and the call-in center, one of the things that they're going to do when they draft the charter is make sure the language is all consistent. So when we get the actual complete lead a draft charter from the call and center. If there's still a conflict, then can we deal with it then? Yes.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, awesome. OK, the public comment.
[Eunice Browne]: Addition of section on public comment. I think Ron had something under the limitation in office all day.
[Milva McDonald]: You want to do that next? OK, so again, this is just an example charter that we used. And Ron had flagged this because he wanted to discuss this waiver option, which I am told by the call-in center is actually not common. So apparently Melrose does it, but it's not common. They theorize that one of the reasons for including the waiver would be just to not limit because it's hard sometimes to get people and this could maybe address that, but it is not a common provision. They probably would not have included it if we were just saying draft that with standard language. But now that we are actually looking at an example that has it in it, the question arises, do we want that in there or not? Ron does not want it, correct?
[Ron Giovino]: Well, can I just say a couple of words on this? Yeah, go ahead. These are employees. These are not board members.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Ron Giovino]: First, number one. Number two is either you have the rule or you don't. But you don't have the rule and one person can change the rule just by a wish. So there has to be something that says, The rule is you can't hold two employment positions in the city. Now, if you think there should be exceptions to that, then the mayor can go to the city council and get approval. But there's no balance here. The balance is, well, I'm going to give you, you can be the parking person, you could be the, I just have to fill it up. This is nothing about the rules. So it's either you have this rule or you have a way of going around it. And I just think it's very, very too much power in one way.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: You're on mute. The history is once upon a time, Bill Brady, who worked for the DPW, ran for school committee, was elected to school committee. At that point, he had to quit his DPW job in order to continue. I think that the reason to have it is because otherwise, I'm mayor, and I'm, you know, I'm being, negative at this point and certainly not thinking about any particular mayor, but a mayor could then get employees to run for school committee and city council and perhaps have greater power. So you're saying that's a reason not to have the waiver? Right. Oh, it's a reason not to have the waiver.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So Does anybody see a reason to have the waiver?
[Andreottola]: Is this, I'm sorry, we're not having the opportunity to see it. Is this elected office and the job or is it just two jobs? Any two city jobs?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, it says one city office or position of employment. So it could be a city office, which I interpret to be an elected office or a position of employment. So the limitation on office holding is standard in the charter. What is not standard is a waiver, but we happen to be looking at a charter that includes it.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I would vote no. I would not want to have the waiver.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, do we want to, um, does someone want to make a motion on this waiver?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I'll make a motion that we not include the waiver.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, does somebody want a second?
[Ron Giovino]: I second.
[Milva McDonald]: Uh, okay. I have a question. Yep, go ahead, Aubrey.
[SPEAKER_10]: Just thinking, are there part-time city office and positions of employment where this would, where two of them would equal one full-time?
[Milva McDonald]: That's a good question. Yeah, that could be impacted.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Could you say that again?
[SPEAKER_10]: I was thinking about if not all rules are full-time rules, so somebody could be in two part-time roles, or much less than part-time roles.
[Andreottola]: See, that's what I'm not sure. If it's two jobs, like employment, like can you be a DPW worker and a facilities person, say, at the high school, two part-time jobs, I think that we should allow that. But if it's being on the school committee and being the head of the DPW, we shouldn't. That's a no-go. But to have two part-time jobs working for the same city, I think should be, people should have the opportunity if they want to do something like that.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: But when it says one city office, That's what I mean.
[Andreottola]: What does office mean? Is it elected office?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: That implies to me that this is about an elected office.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, I think that is what it implies. So I think the thing that Aubrey brings up is a good point, but how is it usual for somebody to work at two part-time jobs for the same city?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I don't think that this has anything to do with two part-time jobs. I think this has to do with being an elected member to the city council. And can you also be a DPW worker?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, it says no person shall simultaneously hold more than one city office or position of employment. So to me, it says you can only hold one position of employment. Right? Ron?
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I think everybody's making really good points. I think it's more of getting two paychecks for two different jobs no matter how many hours. I just want to be clear. I'm not against the waiver. I'm against one person being able to say what the waiver is without having to give a reason just documented. That's what I'm strongly against. I mean, if we find that somebody's, you know, doing two jobs and there's a justified reason for a waiver, it just can't be one person saying, well, yeah, sure, you got it.
[Milva McDonald]: You can be the- So how do you think the waiver should be implemented?
[Ron Giovino]: Well, personally, I think it should be one, but I think that I'm open to the waiver should be a vote of the city council on a resolution from the mayor.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so this section may be waived by the mayor,
[Ron Giovino]: blah, blah, blah, subject to a two-thirds vote of the city council.
[Andreottola]: I'd just like to say one thing, please.
[Milva McDonald]: Francis also made a point that some of this would be governed by ethics laws and ethics.
[Andreottola]: Just to the point, and maybe someone knows this or not, but do not some of our teachers also work in after-school programs? And wouldn't that be two different jobs?
[Milva McDonald]: Maybe.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, that could be a problem.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I don't think that that's the intent of this, though.
[Andreottola]: It's not, but we've got to make sure that we don't accidentally do that.
[Milva McDonald]: But it's limitation on office holding is the section.
[Andreottola]: It says or.
[Milva McDonald]: No, but they said it's it's section 911 limitation on office holding. So that is the intent. So I think that's so you can't work for the DPW and gene the on the school committee.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, that's correct.
[Jean Zotter]: Can we make clear what our intent is for this with the call in center and asked him to craft it a little better?
[Milva McDonald]: Like I said, I'm pretty sure they would just leave the first sentence. That's the standard because they said the waiver is unusual. I do think Paulette is right that the intent of this is just to say that there's a limitation on office holding that you can't. I think that the stuff that we're talking about wouldn't really apply. That's what I think.
[Jean Zotter]: Yeah, I agree, given the heading.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. So Ron, if we're talking only about office holding, do you still think that it's okay for there to be a waiver?
[Ron Giovino]: I think a waiver, to me, a waiver is an exceptional scenario. There may be a reason why somebody deserves a waiver. It just can't be one person saying it. So I'm trying to be open to the folks who want to talk about waivers. and say, if you're going to have a waiver, you've got to really go through these steps to get me a waiver. I mean, I don't know what the scenario is. I think sentence one tells the story. I just think when you dilute it by saying the mayor has the right to waive that, it's like, why put the law in at all?
[Milva McDonald]: So I just want to go back to a motion that Paulette made not to give the mayor, not to include the waiver, the waiver power for the mayor, regardless of how it's applied. Are you still okay with that motion, Paula?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I am. Again, when it happened in real time, and I got along very well with Bill Brady over the years, even though we were very different people, but it would have put me in the position of if the mayor could make this waiver and subject to two-thirds vote of the city council. Let's say it was city council having to decide against someone who was elected, It gets, it could get really tricky.
[Ron Giovino]: And especially because the waiver could be for city council.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right? So, I just kind of think that it. You know, was it difficult? Bill decided to give up his job and be on the city, on the school committee. People know it going in. It does mean that, you know, someone who works for the city isn't an elected official of the city. But I think that's, you know, in terms of conflict of interest, I think that's, being a, depending on what their role is, but being someone who's on the, it could certainly bring up a conflict of interest.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So I'm going to hear from Maury and Aubrey and then we're going to vote.
[Maury Carroll]: I'm going to second Paulette's motion.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Great. Aubrey.
[SPEAKER_10]: Just sharing that if we're limited to office holding, then everything I've said, I don't have a problem with this.
[Milva McDonald]: The motion on the table is to not give the mayor any waiver power on the limitation on office holding. Paulette? Yes. Aubrey?
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Ron?
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice? Yes. Jean? Yes. Danielle? Yes. Phyllis?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Who did I forget this time? Me. Eunice? No. No, I voted. Maury. Maury. Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. I'm also yes. Awesome. All right. We have 10 minutes. I know we're not going to make it through. What I'm going to ask is, are people available to meet us next week?
[Maury Carroll]: I can't. I'm going to try to be. You know how my schedule has been the last couple of months.
[Milva McDonald]: Can I have a show of hands? Who's a yes for next week?
[Unidentified]: Are we talking next Thursday?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Maury Carroll]: I'm going to try. I'm going to try. I can't guarantee it.
[Milva McDonald]: So if, so I think we'll have a quorum. So even if you're maybe, are you got, are the rest of you definites?
[Eunice Browne]: I'll probably be down the Cape. I've never tried to Zoom at our Cape place, but assuming that I don't have technological difficulties. If it works for Ron in Brewster, it should work for me in New Seabury.
[Milva McDonald]: The rest of what we have to talk about is the addition of a section on public comment, the addition of a section on conflict of interest, ethics, etc, the addition of a section on property, And then just a little bit of a wrap up on talking about, I guess maybe I'll ask people now since most everybody's here. So far for the final report committee, it's me and Gene and maybe Phyllis. Does anybody else?
[Ron Giovino]: Can you explain the expectation of that committee and the timeline?
[Milva McDonald]: That's okay. So what we would do is we would meet, I don't know how many times, we're just going to have to see In July and August, but my aim would be to try to finish the final report. By the end of August, and I don't, you know, I thought whoever we have that's working on it at the 1st meeting. We would talk about how we wanted to structure it. So, I mean, I'm. I'm fine with writing, maybe somebody else is. But I thought what first we would do is, you know, we have some examples of final reports, decide sort of what we're going to include in it and how we're going to do it. So I'm sorry I'm not giving you a very clear answer. But basically, I guess the short answer is whoever is involved is going to decide at the first meeting how to divvy up the work. But it's going to involve figuring out how to structure it and writing. So you could be involved in it and you may or may not do writing. If that's not something you want to do, you could do something else. But I don't know. I'm sorry.
[Maury Carroll]: Melva?
[Milva McDonald]: Yes.
[Maury Carroll]: Monday's I'm off. I have a window in the afternoons every day at 3.30 till like 5, 5.30.
[Milva McDonald]: So you're saying if you were available, you would be willing to work?
[Maury Carroll]: I'd be happy to help and be part of it.
[Milva McDonald]: OK.
[Maury Carroll]: So the first thing I'm going to do. I'm restricted on my times, as you well know. Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: The first thing I'm going to do when I know who's interested is send out a Google, a Google, a Doodle poll or just to try to see. Yeah. So, and then we'll meet and we'll talk about how we're going to put this together. And then when we finish, because we are going to finish, we're going to be ready in October, we're going to, we send it, we give this to the mayor. And then it's the mayor's job to figure out how we present it to the, how it's presented to the city council. But my assumption, I think there's a good chance she will include us in that process.
[Maury Carroll]: I'm sure.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, so so, in terms of timeline, so here we are at the 13th of June, we're going to meet again next week and wrap this up and then the writing committee is going to get to work.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, so what's going to happen is when we wrap this up, I'm going to take all the sections we've drafted and all the decisions that we've made and put them in a document and give them to the call-in center. And I'm probably going to ask for one person. I don't know, Aubrey, because you keep really good notes in the Google Docs. And would you be willing to look at the document that I put together Before I give it to the call-in center, just to say, oh, we talked about this or we voted on it. I'd be happy to approve. Thank you. I've told the call-in center that I would provide that for them by the end of the month and they said three weeks. Let's just say maybe they'll take a month. Theoretically, by the end of July, everybody, we would have a draft charter from the Collins Center. And then I would send that to everybody. And then our committee won't meet in July. But you will be given the draft charter to read and prepare. And then in August and September, we will meet with the Collins Center and go over what they have come up with. If we have any questions on sections, we'll be able to ask them about it. If they see anything in there that they think they should flag and say, well, is this what you meant to say here or whatever, we'll be able to work on that with them for two meetings and then Meanwhile, the final report is separate from that. So that'll be the draft charter, and then there'll be the final report. And that will be worked on by the final report committee. So the final report committee will be working on that while the Collins Center is completing the draft. Does that make sense?
[Jean Zotter]: Do you have the meeting dates in August? I know that's a big vacation.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, I would say our usual date, the first Thursday, or we could do a doodle poll, because I know people are, you know, and that might, if we met later in August, that might give people more, a little more time to read the draft charter too. Do people want to just say the first Thursday in August, or do we want to just do a doodle poll and
[Maury Carroll]: see i'd like to wait and see when we get the draft charter from the collins center i mean okay i don't get it until like maybe it's a morning or maybe it's you know we can all get together in the morning from whatever 9 to 12 or whatever i mean okay so in august is august 1st
[Milva McDonald]: It's August 1st. OK. So here's what we're going to do. We're going to meet next week. We're going to wrap this. I'm going to create the document, send it to the Collins Center. Aubrey's going to proof it for me. And then Maury, Gene, me, and Phyllis, so far, are on the final report committee. And then I will send out a doodle poll to those people, and we'll get together and talk about creating the final report. I'll be in. And everybody will have a break in July. And then we'll have a push. We'll have a big push. We'll have a lot to do in August and September, but we're going to be done by October, so.
[Ron Giovino]: Will there be ice cream at the August meetings?
[Milva McDonald]: You know, that's a good question. Maybe.
[Ron Giovino]: I'll join. I'll join your committee if there's going to be ice cream.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, I don't know if they're virtual. They're virtual, so yeah, it's going to be virtual ice cream. Ice cream in your freezer?
[Maury Carroll]: In my house, jump in the pool, sit at the bar.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, we could have a social, we could have an ice cream social, but we can't talk to our council.
[Eunice Browne]: And then what is our target date to present to the city council?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, I don't know, because that will be up to the mayor. You know, because we're submitting our final report and our draft charter to the mayor, and then it's kind of in the mayor's hands how, where to go from there. But I'm thinking it's going to, I mean, I'm assuming it will go. I mean, we're shooting for October. So, I mean, that's when we're going to give it to the mayor. And I don't think it would take much longer after that. That's my guess. All right. Does that sound good?
[Maury Carroll]: Sounds good. I'll make a motion to adjourn.
[Milva McDonald]: All right. Do we have public comment? Yeah, let's see if we have any public comment. Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak? Okay so Maury made a motion to adjourn. Second. Great and all in favor okay I will send you all an agenda for next week and we will wrap. Thank you. Good night everyone.
|
total time: 42.38 minutes total words: 3883 |
total time: 3.47 minutes total words: 338 |
||