total time: 29.64 minutes
total words: 2685
total time: 7.07 minutes
total words: 578
[Milva McDonald]: Welcome to the Medford Charter Study Committee for June 20th, 2024. We are expecting a few more people, but we do have a quorum so we can get started. So first order of business is the minutes from last week. Does anyone have a chance to look at them?
[Andreottola]: I make a motion we accept the minutes. Second.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, all in favor?
[Andreottola]: Aye.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, great. All right, so Basically, what we have left to do is to go through some issues in Article 9. And I'm just going to review the plan. I know I've already said it. And then once we go through those, we will be giving all our materials to the Collins Center, and we will not meet in July. And then we'll reconvene in August, by which time, hopefully, people will have been able to review the draft that we got from the Collins Center. And, you know, they may have questions for us. They're going to be, they'll be with us for those meetings. And then we'll finalize that and go ahead. But the final report committee will be meeting. And we'll talk about that a little bit at the end.
[Andreottola]: do we know when in august it will be i'm planning on being out of the country for a while so okay well but i'd like to is it the beginning of the month the end of the month or the first thursday and not that's when we usually meet the first thursday first thursday in august okay i'll try to get on but i'm ready
[Milva McDonald]: I'm sorry, you would like to be great. So I'll check in with that I sent out a doodle poll and I'll send it to you too. Okay, so the first so we have, I think, maybe the easiest thing to do is to just share the document. Right. And the first item in Article 9 that we're going to look at is the possible addition of a section on public comment. So Eunice added something from the Fall River Charter, which actually is one of the charters that the Collins Center provided, because when I asked them about this. So I put the feedback from the Collins Center in brown and And the reason I left that part in blue, Eunice, is because the Collins Center sent us such examples from other charters, and they did send us Fall River, but they didn't, that part wasn't in what they sent us, so. Okay. So, whoops, sorry. Make it bigger, too, please. Yes, I will. So, have people had a chance to look at these and, and think about. So basically, the Collins Center said it's not common, but there are charters that do add something about this. And this is specifically about public comment from multi-member boards. And the Collins Center encourages us to allow multi-member boards to have flexibility around how and when they receive feedback from the public. So the examples are Fall River, Do people look at these? Then we had Amherst and Dedham. Do people have a chance to look at them? Yes.
[Ron Giovino]: Fall River does say City Council and School District.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. Because like I said, that wasn't what the call-in center provided, but that was something that Eunice had. Was that in the Fall River chart? You broke up a little. Can anybody understand Eunice?
[Unidentified]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Eunice Browne]: You're breaking up, Eunice. Copy and pasted. We just heard crap. Now we can hear you, Jenna. Can you hear me? Yeah. Now we can. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, so that came right from the fall river charter copied and pasted and. I'm particularly partial to this one because it addresses the city council and the school committee and the multi-member bodies. And the other reason I'm particularly partial to it is because it says public comment shall not be limited to items on the agenda for any regular meeting, provided that the issues or concerns raised are within the jurisdiction of the particular body, basically. So like the city council does, you can speak on an agenda item, and then they have public participation at the end, where you can get up and speak about whatever's on your mind, as long as it's within their jurisdiction. For other reasons, the other bodies, well, the school committee at least, the multi-member bodies, I think, obviously, I think you have to talk about what the focus of that body is. I know we've had discussion about this, you know, at length, but the fact that this is in a city charter, that's a common center worked with, you know, it speaks to me that this is something that, you know, is. is quite doable for our charter. And as I've said time and time again, talking about valuing public participation and valuing the public without having to go through writing up a presentation and getting it approved and a whole bunch of hoops to just speak on a topic that's important to you in front of the body that has authority to deal with it. So this is a section in the Fall River Charter under section 9 that we've been currently talking about. So that's where I am on this. Thanks.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. Thank you. Maury? Are you muted? Yeah, now you're on.
[Maury Carroll]: Not anymore. I couldn't agree with anything. more strongly with having this included into our charter. The way Right now, without rules or regulations from both the city council, school committee, and then any other committees that they're coming in and that the people that are in control are just dictating how it should be. We need to establish the roles of how these meetings should be. So I'm going to move the forward. I'm going to move forward to even just accept the Far River document into our chatter, and I'm going to move that forward.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. I just want to hear from Paulette first, and then we also have some other people that want to comment. Paulette?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, this is definitely a problematic one for me because I certainly understand where Eunice is coming from.
[Maury Carroll]: That's fine because you're a member of the school committee or a former member of the school committee and all that.
[David Zabner]: Maury, it's really rude to interrupt other people. That's really not acceptable.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I didn't get to say what I was going to say. The problem is, if you've got a public meeting and let's say it's a school committee meeting, and how do you keep your meeting from being hijinked week after week? How do you make sure that people are prepared to answer comments You know, it's just, there's a practicality that this is tough. And again, I have sympathies towards understanding where Eunice is coming from. But at the same time, I'm thinking, oh, my God, how does this really work? You know, there used to be what we referred to the game as gotcha. Somebody would come down and all of a sudden throw something out. And, you know, that was... very, you know, cause great, great upset. And people weren't prepared for it necessarily, because, you know, it could be anything. And, you know, it's sort of like, we want people to be able to speak, but at the same time, Does this demand an answer? Does this always make someone look stupid? I don't know. I'd like to hear what other people say, but I am, there are some practical concerns from my time being in the position where, you know, people came up to speak, which, you know, I can understand why you don't want this. So either let me hear what other people say, and I'm trying to figure out the wording that makes it better.
[Milva McDonald]: We're going to go to Ron and then David. Then when all the committee members have spoken, we'll turn to the member of the public, Ron and then David.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, thanks. So, Paulette, to your point, the thing I like about this is it doesn't set the rules. It tells them to set their own rules. So, like the city council now does a two-hour discussion, and after two hours, the per-person minutes go down. This could be, this does not regulate as, you know, first of all, public comment is public comment. It does not demand a response. You know, we take in public comment, good or bad, even what we do here. It's, you know, if we want to respond, we can respond. But if it's a trick question or something we have to get back to them on, I don't think that mandates an answer. And thirdly, you know, any group could set the public. public speaking to 30 seconds, if you want. We're not telling them what the rules are. We're just saying there needs to be rules and the public needs some access. And what those rules are will be dictated by each individual group. So that's why I like this one is because it doesn't regulate. You've got five minutes, three minutes. It kind of says, hey, this is important. Public needs to be involved in these public meetings and set your own rules to make that sure that happens the best way you know how.
[Milva McDonald]: Um, okay, thank you.
[David Zabner]: Yeah, I mean, I, I feel the same way as wrong. Um, I, I completely understand that's discomfort. I've been. At those meetings where somebody attempts to derail the meeting. Um, but I feel like this is very reasonable and saying, basically, you have to provide some amount of time. But it can be a minute, it can be an hour, it can be a day. You know, you can set whatever time limits you want on the speakers. You can decide if they can speak multiple times during the public comment or not, right? Like, there's a lot of flexibility that this leaves. And I think it's, yeah, I find this to be a fairly reasonable approach. The one thing I might change is, like, I don't know that every multiple member body Needs to be able to set these times, but I also don't know that we need to go through and make exceptions. For example, I don't know why our committee would have an agenda item for public comment. I don't think it would hurt anything. I wouldn't find it super necessary. It doesn't seem to be happening. But all in all, I'm comfortable with this. And yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, thank you. Maury and then Paulette.
[Maury Carroll]: I'm going to reiterate just what David said and what Ron said, so we don't have to be a dead horse here. This is an important thing for the public comment, to have it in our charter so that the individual bodies can't change it, that the public always has a speaking thing. what a member of the city council may say or what a member of the school committee may say, but it's more important for the charter to be setting how it should be handled than the individual bodies. And that's, well, frankly, it's going on today in our city, but that's not what we're here for. But I'm in favor of exactly what David and Ron said.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Paula. So I don't want anybody to misunderstand that the school committee has, as part of its agenda, has and has always had a place for public comment. It has asked people if they're going to present to the superintendent's office on the Wednesday prior to the meeting, the topic they wish to speak on. And so this says that they can't do that, that the school committee could no longer require that, and that anybody could come and speak on anything at any time during the public comment period. Is that what everybody's thinking?
[Andreottola]: Could I ask someone to read it? Because I don't have the ability to read it.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, I will read it. The city council, the school committee, and all multiple member bodies shall develop and adopt rules or a policy addressing public comment. The rules or policy shall require that public comment periods appear on meeting agendas for all regular and special meetings. Public comment shall not be limited to items on the agenda for any regular meeting, provided the issues or concerns raised are within the jurisdiction of the city council school committee or any multiple member body respectively. Public comment at any special meeting shall be limited to items on the meeting agenda. There is another paragraph, but Eunice, when you were breaking up, I didn't get the answer whether this blue part actually is from the Fall River Charter.
[Eunice Browne]: I'll tell you in a minute.
[David Zabner]: Okay. Paulette, the thing I would add is I don't even personally read this as saying that the school committee couldn't require people to register a week in advance to speak during public comment period and say what they're going to talk about. It just says that it can be, you know, it, you could, I think the city, the school committee or the school city council could absolutely require that. Right? It doesn't it doesn't say you have to allow. Whoever shows up to speak, which maybe that was the intention, but that's not what it says.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I think it's a matter of interpretation. Because if you interpret it that way, then what the school committee does now is just fine. And I think that Eunice is trying to say, says it's not. And I'm trying to find the balance between yes, we need to allow people to speak, but at the same time, keep the integrity of the meeting and not play the game of gotcha.
[Andreottola]: There was one thing just that I noticed in that segment that you read is that there's one sentence that would, I think if it was omitted, would make it palatable to everyone. The sentence where they could talk about anything rather than, you know, what's on, you know, the agenda. I would be supportive of that if that sentence just was taken up. You just don't want someone coming into a meeting about bicycles and start talking about mushrooms. We don't want to create a circus, but we want people to be able to speak on what's going on at a particular meeting.
[Milva McDonald]: I'll just read that sentence again. Public comment should not be limited to items on the agenda for any regular meeting provided the issues or concerns raised are within the jurisdiction of the body. It has to be relevant to the body.
[Andreottola]: to the body, but not to the topic of the meeting. So if the school committee is talking about, you know, recess, somebody can come in and start talking about, you know, we need more art in the school.
[David Zabner]: I think that's a positive of it, actually. I think that if you're an activist who feels that you're Your view is being ignored, but it's never being spoken about in committee. I think that's exactly the goal of this is if you want to go to every city council meeting and say. I think we need a new rule regarding mushrooms. Like, that's exactly what it's allowing and I think that that's a good thing. Council is free to keep ignoring you, but that's I think that's what it's setting up.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you, David. So we have a bunch of committee members want to speak and I do want to make sure we hear from our member of the public as well. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: I just want to quickly, to Paulette's point, I think it's not one or the other. I think it's both. I think the process of where you have to be verified and vetted before you get to speak is different from what we're, in addition to a 20-minute window at the end of the meeting where public gets to speak. It's not a, it's an opportunity for the public to speak on any other subject that is in the jurisdiction of that committee that you're in front of. So this is, This to me is you can have any rule you want set up the same way, but in a school committee environment, you would then add 30 minutes at the end of a meeting where people can get up and do a two-minute speech. Without any interaction necessarily, it just gives you the chance to give a public a speak. And so I think you can have them both here. And I think that that's what this language is referring to.
[Milva McDonald]: All right. Thank you. Phyllis?
[Phyllis Morrison]: My concern is the same sentence that Anthony had. I think that the public should not be limited to items on the agenda for any Iranian provided the issue is concerned. I mean, my fear is that that may, well, people are saying that would give people a voice. I think sometimes this just takes things on a road that you can't get back from at a meeting. And I think that's a problem. because sometimes you do lose the focus of what it is. There can be tangents and there can be talk-offs and things like that. I think it's very bulky the way it's written anyhow. That's just my humble opinion. Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: Eunice. Melvin, to answer your question, the part in blue also came from Fall River as well. Okay. Talking about You know, public comment shall not be limited to items on the agenda for any regular meeting, provided it, you know, is, um, you know, within their jurisdiction. So, you know, like Paulette said, there is, you know, within school committee, um, you know, you can, you know, write up your presentation and submit it. And therefore then you're on the agenda. Um, or somebody else, I can't remember which one of us said, you know, Well, you can e-mail the week before or the day before or something and say that you want to talk about the math curriculum. Well, now you're on the agenda. But what this says is that it's not limited to either. Like Ron just said, if you want to put public comment at the beginning or the end or the middle, wherever, you know, the body has dealt with their agenda of all the other things.
[Milva McDonald]: You're breaking up again a little bit.
[Eunice Browne]: Let's say you want to talk. I've got a lot of trouble down here. I guess. You know, if you want to talk about the math curriculum to the school committee, then you should be able to do that. If you want to talk about trash pickup in front of the city council, and it wasn't on the agenda, you should be able to do that. You know, as Ron said, then they can, you know, say, you know, thank you and we will, you know, put it on next week's agenda and we can discuss it in depth. But at least now they're aware of the problem. So, you know, it's the piece about, you know, shall not be limited to the items on the agenda as long as it's within that body's jurisdiction is the piece that I feel the most strongly about. that needs to remain, because if any other way that you do it, writing up a presentation or letting them know, you know, days ahead, that puts you on the agenda.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: It's the- It doesn't, Eunice, can I correct you? If you put, it doesn't necessarily, if you, you still come under public participation. But, but you clearly just want people to be able to speak on anything at any time.
[Eunice Browne]: Within the jurisdiction of that particular body. Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. Okay, more did you have a quick comment and then we're going to go to Matthew.
[Maury Carroll]: Yeah, I do. I kind of use Paulette's term of gotcha, but I'm going to spin that to the constituency. I really don't care behind the rail how they feel if We got you. No, we don't have you. They're asking legitimate questions. They have legitimate concerns. But the way is—and all that's going on is our present city council and school committee. They're dictating the policy and the procedures of how anybody approaches this. this body, and it's all wrong. So I think it's so important for it to be involved in the charter that the charter sets the rules. The individual bodies or elected members to it don't set the rules. And if you don't like being questioned, then don't run for the position. But the way it's set up right now and the tendencies of city government here is that they're the dictator. The public comment has no emphasis at all on what their concerns are. It's either their way or the highway. So I'd like to, you don't have to follow somebody else's city's agenda, we can create our own here. I think we're smarter and better than that. So what we should take is the good things from other cities and towns that we see and then indoctrinate it into a Medford concept so that other cities and towns don't have to look at Fall River or Melrose or anything. Maybe they'll look at Medford for a change. Thank you.
[Milva McDonald]: Thanks, Maury. OK, Matthew.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: Yes, very good. So first, I want to, you know, thank the commission for the last meeting when I was on the subway, and I could not be heard and you all provided it had a very lamentable outcome. But that that's a different thing. But I, I really, really respect what Paulette said, I think, perhaps more than everybody here, Paulette has years of experience of what can happen. And I definitely, with Maury saying that our elected officials are acting as dictators, I think that's extremely problematic. And that's something that people should reflect on. Is being on a charter study committee really the right place for you if you believe that the elected officials are dictators, and if you see yourself having a particular position in which you want to counter them? But as far as this text right here, I have an issue. One is I think that a lot of times we defer to organizations like the Collins Center and we see them as putting a lot of thought into this and a lot of insight when they guide other cities. However, a lot of the times I feel that there is a tendency to kind of want to do CYA or cover your butt. where they're writing a few statements in a way in which they want to say, don't err too much on either side. And they're writing these things to the effect of, I think they believe that these things will be read in good faith by reasonable people. And I think that many of our experiences shows that that's not necessarily the case, that a lot of times people are very angry. Perhaps they think the city councilors are dictators, or perhaps they're residents that are opposed to what the city council is advocating for. They will try to cite rules very cynically. And in this particular case, there's a loophole that's being created. And that is the second part of this clause. Public comment shall not be limited to items on the agenda for any regular meeting, provided the issues or concerns raised are within the jurisdiction of the city council, et cetera. So within the jurisdiction is creating a loophole, or it's creating an opportunity for people to, as people were saying earlier, gotcha, to say this particular thing that is being discussed It's outside of the jurisdiction. If that's not clear, there's many times where people say this City Council is talking about stuff that is outside of Medford. This ceasefire resolution, it's not within their jurisdiction. I don't know if that's clear, but I also believe that the City Council does take liberties to talk about things that are not necessarily within their jurisdiction, for instance, is if anybody is in attendance, public comment or city Councilors, they want to wish somebody a happy birthday. They want to honor somebody who passed away or had an 80th birthday. Is that really within the jurisdiction of the body? And I think that by leaving in this within the jurisdiction, you're creating these kinds of opportunities that different individuals can capitalize and weaponize in order to say that the body is in violation in order to shut people down. And I really hope that that's considered.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. I just want to say my reading of this doesn't limit anything that the actual body talks about, but it limits, it's talking about public comment, but I see what you're saying that it could still be. lifted.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: I want to say that's very understood. However, the way when these loopholes are left in, you may say that, and I read it as only for public comment, but there will be cases that are provided in which anybody talking about anything, they'll say, look, look, look, it's without the jurisdiction. And that is an argument that people have been making for years when they're opposed to anything that Councilors they don't like or advocating for. It's outside of your jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with Medford. But I understand.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Paulette. Right, so one of the clauses that I would be tempted to add would be, and one of the concerns that I have, shall be limited to items on the meeting agenda and be in accordance with understanding issues of confidentiality and legal negotiations. So here's the thing, a parent is angry about something that's happened at school, right? And they're gonna come down and they're gonna start throwing, you know, discussing it in public. And they may not be aware of all, I mean, you know, student information is private. And there's a lot of rules around that privacy. And now all of a sudden you've got someone in the public making a statement and naming names and in a public forum. That can be difficult in the same way. Employees have rights. Now someone comes down and complains about an employee in public. And there's the school committee members have to follow and know all of those things. I mean, we can't just go out and say, there's times when we'd very much like to say much more than we're able to say. So I think some sort of clause like that, if you support this, I think some sort of clause like that should be added.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you, Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: I agree with Paul, and I think a simple statement of all comments are within the privacy guidelines of the Massachusetts state general laws. I think that covers it. I agree with you, Paul, at 100%. I just want to... I agree with that also. I think that should be added, that guides, that protects everybody.
[Eunice Browne]: Personnel and privacy guidelines or confidentiality issues.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, confidentiality, privacy issues for the Massachusetts General Laws. And I'm sure that somewhere in the Mass General Laws there is that clause, but I think it should be in this section as well, just as a reminder. But I just want to get back quickly to this point. We're not taking the power away from these committees to set these agendas, to set the rules. We're not saying it must be two minutes. We're saying you set the rules the way you want to set the rules. But you have to address the rules, and you have to publish the rules. That's all we're saying. We're not saying, well, this guy has to talk about this, and if it's a good topic, he gets to talk five minutes more. It's not. It's about each individual group setting the guidelines. So that's why I think this is a great compromise. But certainly, I would add the general laws piece just to protect exactly what Paulette said.
[Andreottola]: I'd like to add something to that. I'm sorry, but just to allow people to talk about anything is just asking to bring chaos to our committees. If it would be limited to what's on the agenda, I think it's valid and we should adopt it, but to just allow time for people who maybe want to run for office to stand up and just control a body to have access to the community. over and over and it's written in the charter so they have they have the right to do it and you know and it's free speech if people want to you know talk about some an employee or uh or something they experienced in the city there's there's no mass law that prohibits them from from talking uh you know there's they don't they're not bound by confidentiality if you can't talk you can't talk about personnel issues it's against the law Who can't? The public? Of course they can.
[Ron Giovino]: It cannot be part of a public meeting, period. Cannot.
[Andreottola]: Well, you're saying they can talk about anything.
[Ron Giovino]: No, no, you didn't hear me, Anthony.
[Andreottola]: If I want to talk about the trash man in front of my house, I can do it. There is no law.
[Ron Giovino]: Anthony, I said the comments should be in line with the privacy and confidentiality laws of the Massachusetts general laws. That's what I said. I also said that This is what democracy is, giving somebody a minute to say, gee, is there any way we can get the barrels done out of Hickey Park? You know, why can't I walk up and say that? I'm not saying take over the meeting. I'm not saying, you know, we're assuming these are negative things. What if somebody wants to come out and say, you know, we're interested in helping out and doing something more? How can we get involved? Is there a way we can form a group to address this issue? You know, I think we're just talking, you know, public opinion can be positive. So, I mean, I can't believe that we want to block. a 30 minute piece of an end of a meeting where anybody can say whatever they want with no response necessary. Just, hey, you want to say what you want? We hear you. And that's it. But to say that you can talk about an employee in a situation, it's 100% against the law for a public meeting.
[Phyllis Morrison]: And I also think that, Melva, can I just say this?
[Unidentified]: Yes, go ahead.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I think that one of the key words, too, is that issues or concerns raised within the jurisdiction Whatever the body was, the city council, the school committee, they would have to say that is not within our jurisdiction. We cannot discuss that here. And I think that's on each of the different committees, but I think that's another safeguard also, in addition to the confidentiality rules that we have to follow.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. Daveed?
[David Zabner]: Yeah, I mean, I just wanted to briefly, like, Ron, I agree with what you're saying. I think the sentence you want to add is unnecessary, but also not harmful. And the thing that 1 of the things that makes me comfortable with this is that, like. It seems to me to leave a lot of power in the hands of the committee, the council, whatever. To set the rules to cut people off. to, you know, if there's somebody who they want to ban from speaking, I don't even see this as denying that, right? If somebody's showing up every week and screaming bloody murder, right, like, I don't see any part of this that says, hey, we're going to say that David can't speak anymore because he just swears at city councilors for two minutes during his time. So that's a thing that makes me really comfortable with this language.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Thank you. So I want to just start to close that we've had a really good discussion, but I want to make sure that we get to everything else on the agenda. So I want to get final quick comments on this. And then Maury did make a motion to vote on it. So Paulette.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Sorry, I didn't have lower my hand.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: No, I'm all good if Ron or the feed want to make an amendment to this. But to me, we should move forward with it.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. Matthew, did you have another comment? And I have seconded it.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: Oh, yeah, I just want to make very clear that the both the open meeting law and Robert's rules of order give the presiding officer all of the rights completely to shut down anybody who's disturbing the discussion.
[Ron Giovino]: Thank you. Just before we take the vote, I do want to have that addition of the Massachusetts state laws in there as well.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. I will work that in, but I just want to just quickly make sure everybody look at the other two. This is definitely the Fall River one is the one that people want to vote on. Did everyone look at the other two examples? Yes. The other two examples don't mention city council and school committee. So, okay. So I don't hear any comments. So we're going to stick with this. The only thing I want to say, well, I want to say a couple of things. One thing I want to say is I think we, and I don't think this will be a big issue, but we just took us last week. And one thing I had talked to the call center about was to be careful about using specific language that could box us in. So city website, I think, but we talked about last week that they're going to change that language so that it's, adaptable to whatever potential form of communication might be around in eight years, say, before the next charter review. So I'm just going to suggest when we submit it to the Collins Center that they just make that consistent. The only other thing I'm going to throw out, and I don't think it's a big deal because I think the Collins Center will flag it if it really is a conflict, but I don't think it is. We did the initiative petition, which lets people put an item on the agenda, and it sort of limits their ability to put the same item on multiple times. So I don't think it's a conflict, but I'm also not going to worry about it because I think the Collins Center will tell us if it is. Okay, so the motion as I see it on the table is to accept the Fall River language with the addition of a clause ensuring that all comments comply with Mass General Law privacy and confidentiality guidelines. And again, you know, the call-in center will be responsible for adding that and they'll tell us if it's, you know, they'll have a comment about it if they think it's not needed or if whatever. Anyway, so that's the motion. We have a second, so we're going to vote. Rob.
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice. Yes. Phyllis. Yes. Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: David.
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Paulette. No. I got Maury. I know. Anthony.
[Andreottola]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Did I get everybody? Rob. I got Ron, I think. Did I get you, Ron?
[Ron Giovino]: Just you, Milva.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, just me. I feel like I'm going to abstain because I feel like I got to think about it more, so I'm abstaining. I'm copping out. Come on, Milva. I'm sorry.
[Eunice Browne]: Actually, Melba. Melba, come on. Okay.
[Maury Carroll]: It's nice in the deep end of the water.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: It passes no matter what, so it's just fine.
[Milva McDonald]: It does pass. The motion passes.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Great. Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Now, the next item is an addition on conflict of interest. and a lot of other things. So when I spoke with the Collins Center, they pointed out that this particular section is usually limited to this very simple language. All city employees shall be considered municipal employees under Chapter 26, 268A of the general laws and shall comply with the state conflict of interest laws. So while that's standard, there are some communities that add another layer. The reason that most don't is because most of these things are covered in state law. And they recommend that if we do add another layer and extra provisions, that we should ensure that none of the provisions conflict with state law. So this is, again, from Fall River, right? And it's pretty long. Did everyone look at it? Actually, should we go part by part? The first part is the conflict of interest, David.
[David Zabner]: I mean, honestly, like I gave these a quick scan and they seem complicated and they seem likely if especially if state law changes to start, you know, to fall out of compliance with state law or to contradict it, like, I think we're probably, I would be comfortable not including any of this and just kind of letting state law be the guide. I don't know that, like, this seems like a place where we should allow for the flexibility of state law and kind of not stick our noses. Seems more likely to me to cause pain than some positive outcome, unless there's something specific that is happening in the city that we want to prevent going forward that isn't covered by state law.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. Anybody else?
[Ron Giovino]: I agree 100% with what David just said. I mean, I think that this is a higher level of concern that I would want to make sure the Massachusetts General Law is what we are hearing. I can't see what the exception would be to the Mass General Laws that we would want to put in here that would make sense.
[Milva McDonald]: One might be the, I think the financial statement, like right now, it's not, I don't think everybody's required to submit a financial statement, I believe. Are we talking about the ethics part? Yeah, that's ethics, I guess.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, this is a pretty long- Are you talking about campaign finance?
[Milva McDonald]: No, no.
[Eunice Browne]: I, I under some of this stuff and from fall river. There was the conflict of interest section that had. I think three different sections. Then from Framingham's charter, there was a section on prohibition against self-dealing, which was just a sentence or so long right there. Then Framingham also had an ethics reporting requirement, which is quite lengthy. as well, a couple of pages. Yeah, two pages worth, I suppose. And yeah, that's where the financial interest statement comes in. Right. I get that there would be probably some pushback on this, but it intrigues me that both Fall River and Framingham incorporate these things into their charter, and that the Collins Center worked with both of these communities.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, just say that just because the Collins Center makes recommendations, but just because they work with the charter, it doesn't mean that they just help. Um, and they might've said, well, we recommend this. And then the municipality said, well, we're doing this anyway.
[Eunice Browne]: But, um, but yeah, I think, you know, I, I see where the conflict of interest stuff, you know, would be, could be superseded with a mass general law. Um, you know, the ethics part is something that I think I would really like to see in there. Um, you know, so that it's clear that there's no, and it's not just campaign finance, it's indicating that nobody has any financial interest in any particular dealings, the department heads and so forth, the mayor, the Councilors, school committee, superintendent, et cetera, et cetera. to file an ethics reporting. But I think we're kind of talking about a couple of different things here. If we just want to go back to the conflict of interest part. Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, that's what we have to decide is how to deal. Should we just go one by one and start with the... The conflict of interest section, basically, just to be clear, that first section, the letter A section is standard language, and I think that would have just been put into the charter by the Collins Center. And the other part is in addition, but it's, I mean, you know, most of this is covered in state law. I wonder if some of that
[Eunice Browne]: I don't know when Fall River either wrote its charter or maybe had a review. I wonder if some of that is a result of the mess that was Fall River. Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: There was a big mess there, definitely.
[Eunice Browne]: I wonder if this was the answer to that. Yeah. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen here or any community.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So your elected officials are required to take an ethics review, and they have to pass the test. It's an hour or something. It goes through all of the conflict of interest and ethics and whatever, and everyone has to have it on file within a certain time period.
[Eunice Browne]: Is that the same thing that we all did?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes. Yeah. So I guess, I mean, everybody's required to do that so that they're aware of the potential conflicts. We're not talking about this. I just wanna be clear that you're not talking about whether someone can work for the DPW and be an elected official, right? That's not what you're talking about at all.
[Eunice Browne]: Again, I think you're talking about a couple of different things. If you're talking about the conflict of interest, it's what it states there. than if we're getting to what Framingham is talking about, which is the prohibition against self-dealing, which I guess is similar to the conflict of interest. No candidate for public office, elected public official, division head, or department director, so that would be like the head of the DPW, shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in any contract made by the municipality. Um, so that and the conflict of interest seem to kind of go hand in hand. Yes. The ethics reporting requirement, um, uh, every candidate, and this is candidates, um, you know, so if you're just planning on running for office and filing to be a candidate, so it's candidates or once you're seated, um, shall file a statement of financial interest for the preceding calendar year with the city clerk. And it goes on and on and on. So I think we're talking about a couple of different things.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, let's start with the conflict of interest section. Ron, did you have a comment about that?
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I think to Paulette's point, I mean, it's not about somebody pulling two salaries, but I think it has to do with, you know, this level of ethics and conflict of interest is really, you know, adjudicated at the state level in the Secretary of State's office, I believe. So that's another reason why I think we should not be fooling around with it. I think it's more appropriate that, you know, the reporting gets done locally, I'm sure, but, you know, the jurisdiction for these resolutions, I don't believe is at the city hall. I think it's at the state house. So I think that's something to consider, too, when we're starting to craft a whole, unless we're adding something I can't see what we would add without knowing the full detail of the Mass General Laws. But, you know, to me, it's conflict of interest means the DPW, the housing, the building department board, one of the people wants to build in addition to his house, and obviously he has to recuse himself. It's kind of obvious. And if that didn't happen, I'm sure they'd go, you know, report it to the state for resolution. Thank you.
[David Zabner]: Yeah, I mean, I guess maybe I'm repeating myself, but, like. Everything I read here, more or less, I agree with and support. And I also don't think that it has that our charter is necessarily the right place to put it. I don't know that we have the. Yeah, I think the state should rule these things. And I just can't imagine this going particularly well. The other thing I'll say is I worry a little bit, especially since we talked months ago about how hard it was to recruit people to run for, for example, school committee. And I'm afraid to put anything more difficult there. So, you know, there's a piece, like I said, I think all of these things are good. I really am a fan of transparency. There's a world where if I thought this was straightforward and it would go really well, where I would absolutely vote for it, I'm not convinced that given the complexities of state law and all that, that this is a reasonable thing for us to do.
[Milva McDonald]: Great, thank you. Okay, Matthew.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: Well, I'm really, really glad that this is brought up because I do know of people at City Hall that do have conflicts of interest. It's not like particularly with money, but they are people that will oversee, who decide who gets on commissions, who will not appoint people at commissions if they think that they'll be kind of advocates and in their hair and get in the way of you know, what they envision. Like, I applied for a commission last year, and the liaison told me over the telephone that I was not selected because that liaison wanted to get grants. And it's not quite the same thing as money, but by appointing NATO commission, that would get in the way of their particular personal drive and stuff, which isn't something commission decided on. It was something liaison wanted. And so I think that this is kind of touching on that. And if David is saying this is not particular, this should be addressed somewhere else when liaisons take advantage of their power to engage in these things, then where does it get addressed? I mean, is that, I guess that's beyond this kind of group to consider, but that kind of, there are department liaisons who will control kind of commissions, not this one, not most of them, but some of them in a way. So the commission is hampered. And basically, it's just completely in absolute deference to the liaison who see themselves as directors, and chairs and presidents. So maybe, maybe, maybe this group can do nothing about it. But that is something that we should do about and the question is, where can that be done?
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you, David.
[David Zabner]: Just a quick response to that the way multi member boards and commissions work and we talked about this in section 3, I think. Is that they are up to. No, you're right.
[Milva McDonald]: I think it was.
[David Zabner]: The liaison is acting on behalf of the mayor. The mayor has full appointment power. We're leaving the mayor with full appointment power. I think if you disagree with those kinds of decisions, the person to take it up with is either the city council or the mayor.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: I understand how it operates, but that's not what's actually in the ordinance. The ordinances do not say the selections will be made by the liaisons. The liaisons are provided to provide staff support and to make sure the commission can do all of this work.
[David Zabner]: That's not in any of the ordinance. The mayor is allowed to give their power to whoever they want, more or less. But that's not in there.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: I understand all of those. The mayor is allowed to make the appointments. However, the decision is rested in the liaison's hands. It's not rest. And the question is, when liaisons personally make decisions based on how they think would personally affect them and their prerogatives, then is there a place to address it? I don't need to understand how the appointments work. The question is, is there any way to address those kinds of things when liaisons are putting their personal interests above. basically the commissions themselves.
[Ron Giovino]: Just a point of information, Melvin. I think we're talking about a specific issue. I understand Matthew's frustration there, but I don't think this is the committee that's going to be able to resolve who gets chosen the multi-member boards.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah. I can see Matthew's point about this. But I think Matthew, I think you should have brought that back to the mayor's attention. I know you might be smirking, but at least you would have a record that you did that. I mean, that's where when we give up that way, and we don't share our frustrations, we see how something hasn't worked. then it doesn't matter, any law we have will not be effective. I mean, you're saying, if I'm hearing you correctly, that a liaison made a decision based on the liaison's personal gain for something from it. I would have been all over that and been right back to the mayor, and I think that was your recourse. I don't think this is something that belongs here.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: I appreciate what you're saying, but some of us do not talk to the mayor because we know that there could be comments, this and that, and there could be mild retaliation. That's just something that a lot of people in particular are aware of.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I have to say as a member of this group, I have heard a lot about people talking about retaliation and this and that, and maybe I'm out of touch, but I don't know that that's, you know, I'm sorry for your experience, but I will say that there is, you have a way to address that. And if you chose not to, then, you know, I think you should do that. Retaliation for what, how would that be? And I'm just going to stop right there, but I do think there was a recourse for what happened for you.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. And now I want to hear from Maury and then we're going to
[Maury Carroll]: Well, I'm just gonna say in response to that, fellas, I agree with you 100%. Maybe this isn't the forum that Matthew wants to air his grievances on, but we're here trying to establish a direction for our city in the next five, 10 years, 20 years, wherever we're going here. So any individual, independent grievance that you may have has no bearing on what we're trying to do here. So I'll leave it at that.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. So I guess I think that, you know, the charter, we've talked about this in the past, it tends to We want it to be meaningful, but we also want to be careful about too many specifics because the charter is set in stone and it's hard to change. I guess I'm just going to make a motion that we adopt the language under A and not the rest of it under conflict of interest.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I second that motion.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. If you want to include the rest of it, you vote no, basically. Okay. Maury.
[David Zabner]: Can I make a quick question before we do that? Sure. Why would we include the section under A? Is that like standard language across all charters? Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. It just says there's conflicts, you know, there's conflict of interest law and you have to follow it basically. You follow state law.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. So that covers then the first sentence basically covers everything under it? Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. So it would not include everything else, but we'll do it section by section. But this is under this. We're only including A. If you agree with that, you vote yes. OK. So Maury. Yes. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: David. Yes. Eunice. Yes. Paulette. Yes. Anthony.
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Did I get Phyllis? No, but yes for me. Okay. I'm yes. That's that. Now, we move on to we've got these other sections, prohibition against self-dealing, and then the ethics reporting requirement. I think that was, and there's another section.
[Eunice Browne]: Property.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, but I'm just looking at the conflict of interest stuff. There's also this section about public contracts. So this is pretty much, it's included in the conflict of interest section. So these would be extra layers. We've had a discussion. Does anybody want to make a motion on any of these?
[Eunice Browne]: Regarding the ethics part, I think it's important to have something in there, you know, as part of our values, certainly. I think maybe we can reword it to, you know, to answer, I think it was maybe Anthony, somebody's question, point of, you know, we have a hard time finding candidates for, you know, our different bodies. you know, maybe instead of every candidate, maybe everyone who is elected. So that way people know that if somebody wants to run for, if this is in the charter and somebody wants to run for office and they may have, something questionable ethics wise they know they don't have to submit anything as a candidate but they know that once they if they were to be elected by the residents then they will need to file this statement. So it might be- A financial interest. A financial interest. So if somebody is wanting to run for office and has something questionable, then they know that, well, I have to file this financial statement. So maybe I better not run for office.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. I mean, this also includes, I think, even more division heads, but anyway, so that, so that's that. And that's a very specific requirement that that language is requiring electeds to file, regularly file a financial statement, a statement of financial interest.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So I don't exactly know what that means. What does that mean? Whether I have financial interest, so I'm on the school committee, or I've been elected to the school committee, that I have no interest in a textbook company? Is that under conflict of interest?
[David Zabner]: I think, Paulette, what you would be required to do is basically provide a list of companies you're invested in, probably a complete list. That's what a statement of financial interest tends to be. I've only ever had to do that for one job, but basically I had to find every company I own a stock in. If I went in with my brother and we bought a beach house together in Florida, I have a financial interest there, that has to be listed there. Can I ask, who would they
[Andreottola]: report it to? Do we have a department that would, like, do you report it to the mayor, to the law firm, or to the city council?
[Milva McDonald]: City clerk. City clerk.
[Andreottola]: Who has no power to do anything about it? Well, then they would be public record.
[David Zabner]: Yeah. Then a citizen or journalist could look it up and check if you own a 30% stock in the company that collects the trash.
[Eunice Browne]: Or if you're, you know, voting on a, you know, housing development in the city, you know, and you're voting favorably, um, you know, you're an investor in, you know, uh, you know, Brown's development, you know, Brown's housing development, um, and you're, you know, voting to allow a 500 unit, you know,
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Building, but that's covered by conflict of interest. So, what you're saying is by doing this financial that. Somebody might pick up might pick up that there's a conflict.
[Eunice Browne]: Um, well, it has a lot to do with optics too.
[David Zabner]: Yeah, it's a transparency requirement.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. How does it? Um, yeah, go ahead. You know what? Yeah.
[David Zabner]: Yeah, so I have I have 2 ideas that I think are worth maybe thinking about 1. I think, like, this type of thing is super important. I think to do it would be really valuable. I think transparency wise, it's huge to do something like this. That being said, I think it's also a really big, complicated step. And so the 2 ideas I have are 1, a version of this that just says. The city council will, you know. Decide some type of ethics reporting requirement for this list of groups. And give them the flexibility to decide what those ethics reporting requirements look like. Is something I'd be really comfortable with. The other thing I would be super comfortable with is like. A subcommittee just for this or a meeting just for this where we take some time and. Try and figure out what's reasonable here. Because this is definitely. This is one of those things where, like, it means that to run for any of these offices or to be, you know, an employee at the top level of the city means really kind of showing people your underwear, which is a big thing to add. But at the same time, in terms of, like, preventing ethical lapses and preventing grift, there isn't much that's better than this kind of transparency. I think it's super important and could be a really, really good thing to do. Thank you. Those are my two ideas, specific meeting or subcommittee or just giving the city council a lot of flexibility here.
[Milva McDonald]: You did remind me of something that the Collins Center said that is that these issues are often covered in ordinances, so they could be covered in it. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I think we're at a slight disadvantage here, not understanding the state general laws as well as we should in this regard. I'm moved that we get the call and center opinion on this. To me, it seems like all these violations, all these transparency issues get resolved in the Secretary of State's office. And it just seems to me that we're creating a whole new line that's only going to be once it goes to be washed by the legal people at the statehouse. It's just going to be either matching what's already there or they'll fix it. So it does match. So I think we just. Instead of rewriting every word here, I mean, I get it. I understand it. But, you know, I find it hard to believe that I've lived in the city for 60 years and there's no ethics rule and there's no conflict of interest rule. There is. There has to be. So, I would just like to know what that is.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, there definitely are, but I think, and that is what the Callen Center conveyed that most of this is covered in state law, but this financial statement, for instance, is another layer. That's not required in state law that every, you know, whatever elected or every department head or whatever fills out a financial state interest of, But yeah, you know what I'm saying? That's hot. Okay, Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: I'm gonna agree with David here. I think we should do a little bit of a subcommittee to take a look at this a little stronger and see how we want method to be. I hear what Ron's saying and all that, but I would move to set up a subcommittee on this subject.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Eunice.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, that's that I think that's the direction that I would be going with to a subcommittee to touch on this and maybe, you know, sorry to backtrack on the other 2 pieces, you know, maybe, maybe not. But. I think I would like to hear what the call and center has to say about this. As I said, they worked with framing him. So. What, you know, what transpired there and I didn't have a chance to, but I'd be happy to take a dive into framing him. I think they, as a matter of fact, I was going to bring it up later. They have a pretty neat section on their website about their charter. So I wouldn't mind taking a deep dive over there and seeing if I could figure out, maybe I can, maybe I can't, how they arrived at putting this in there and why. Okay. Go ahead.
[Andreottola]: I'd like to say, I'd like to just kind of agree with Ron and that we should really just follow the state law because, I mean, you know, and I'm not just saying this just for time. I don't think it's necessary. We've survived the past, you know, 100 years in Medford without having this incorporated in our charter. just to, you know, add verbiage that has to comply with state law is not necessary. I think if you're going to start going into subcommittees and trying to, you know, really fine tune something that we don't have the manpower in the city to even kind of take on something like this, because they're just going to refer it to the state. I agree with Ron 100% on this. I'd like to, I don't know if there's a motion on the floor, but I'd like to just make a motion that we adopt, you know, the, the state, the beginning and just leave it, leave it alone and, and move on because we're just adding stuff that has to comply with state law and Why not just get rid of state law?
[Milva McDonald]: So we have a couple of motions or ideas on the table. We have one, form a subcommittee to take a deep dive into this. Two, just not include any of this and just keep the section we have about state law. And three, include something that this would be decided by ordinance. So I guess if we do make a subcommittee, are we specifically talking about a subcommittee on the ethics reporting requirement, which is essentially the financial statement?
[David Zabner]: Yeah, that's the part that I was talking about. I think the rest of it is, I assume, very well covered by state law. Yes. But the ethics reporting requirement is something that would go above and beyond. Yes, it would. I think it could be huge.
[Milva McDonald]: And it could be huge. And Daveed, like the analogy that you used about, you know, your underwear. I mean, it is definitely intrusive. There's no question about it.
[David Zabner]: No, super intrusive.
[Milva McDonald]: It doesn't mean it's not a good idea, but it is. It's pretty big thing. Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: I'll second the V's motion. That's right, I think we should go with this.
[Milva McDonald]: With forming a subcommittee?
[Maury Carroll]: Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so just to be clear about, we're still going to go ahead with our plan, which is handing everything to the Collins Center, but we're just going to say that there's still some decisions to be made on ethics reporting requirement, and we'll add in whatever we decide later. So the motion on the floor is to form a subcommittee to research and ethics reporting requirement in the form of a financial statement. Can I just put it that way?
[Ron Giovino]: I think that sounds great. Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Ron Giovino]: Is that the limit of the subcommittee?
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, that's the limit of the subcommittee, you know, but the language here is actually not limited to elected officials.
[David Zabner]: So that's something I think, you know, that would, which I think, I think if we include it, it should not be limited to elected officials, right? If we're going to do this kind of thing, I think it's maybe even more important to know what the superintendent is investing in then. a city council or a school committee member.
[Ron Giovino]: Are you saying multi... Are you saying committee should have to supply that information too?
[David Zabner]: No, no, no. This would be electeds and municipal officers, people who can make decisions about where money goes.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. That would be, you know, the only people that would... you'd have any legitimate basis for asking for this information.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, so... So, so your superintendent who is comes negotiates the contract with the school committee for their position. Now, there's a mandatory clause that says this.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, if we include it. Yeah, I don't know.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I mean, again, I think that some people would say, what the heck? Why should I work there?
[David Zabner]: No, no, I think that's super reasonable. I think it's something that's just worth discussion in a subcommittee, right? Like, I can see both sides of the argument so well that even I can't imagine answering this question right now, which is why I think a subcommittee is a good idea.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, that's fine. Sorry. So the motion is not to have this. It's to have a subcommittee to look at it. Okay, so Eunice. Yes. David.
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Maury. Yes. Ron.
[Andreottola]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony. No. Phyllis. No. Who didn't I get? Paulette. Paulette, thank you.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, I was okay if there are people who want to be on the subcommittee. I thought we were trying to finish tonight, so I didn't anticipate another subcommittee. Yeah. in truth.
[Eunice Browne]: It's okay if we have it. I just think this is too important not to.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I'll vote yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. I'm voting no, which means it's a tie. It's a tie and I think tie usually, what does a tie go to? I should know this.
[Andreottola]: A tie doesn't pass. to the runner?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, that's fine. But given that there is interest, and there are people there, I assume, are willing to serve on this subcommittee? Yes. I mean, we don't, you know, we're not, we're an ad hoc committee. So we're not like required to follow Robert's rules.
[Ron Giovino]: I'm willing to, I'm willing to change my vote if this has nothing to do with the process that we're going to undergo to finalize this document. I don't want to, I don't want the subcommittee to hold up. Where we're at to get this charter to the, to the city.
[Milva McDonald]: This is what would happen on the subcommittee would meet and there would be a deadline of. Our August meeting and the subcommittee would then. make a recommendation that we would vote on. I think we would have to limit the discussion because our plan for August is to go through the final charter. This subcommittee would be extremely focused. It would be just about this. I would have them aim for a very succinct, Um, Recommendation that just covered the absolutely relevant points that we could then vote on. Does that make sense?
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, and I think it can be done in a couple of meetings. Max 3, probably 2.
[Maury Carroll]: I think, yeah, probably to if we have 1 meeting to talk about 1 meeting and if we all agree on everything, we all in the same direction.
[David Zabner]: But I think we might want to talk to some elected. We might want to talk to some experts in between a meeting and a 2nd meeting. Because, for example, if we go to the school committee and every single person says, if I had to do this, I wouldn't run.
[Maury Carroll]: That might be a pretty convincing argument against it. David, wake up and spell the coffee. This is, in quotation marks, expert on your local politics.
[Ron Giovino]: Well, that would be for the subcommittee to decide. Again, I just want this vote to say that it's not going to interrupt the schedule of the charter as we've established it up until this point.
[Milva McDonald]: It's not, that's what I'm saying. It would be like maybe a 10 to 15 minute presentation slash vote at our August meeting. Can we do that? Yeah. Okay, who wants to be on the subcommittee?
[Maury Carroll]: I'll be in.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so we've got Maury, Eunice. Yep. Did I see Daveed?
[David Zabner]: Yep, you saw me.
[Milva McDonald]: And did I see anybody else? Okay. I'll be on it because I'm on every subcommittee. I mean, yeah, I'll just like, you know, okay. So who, um, does anybody want to be in charge of setting up a meeting for that? I can do that. I can do that. Okay. So Eunice, you'll, Eunice will send out dates to set up a meeting. Okay. Okay. That's basically that section about financial interest. The last piece is, are you counting the WALFAM section as part of the?
[Eunice Browne]: I suppose that could go with ethics.
[David Zabner]: I personally wasn't. That seems like it's more connected to the bit we said we didn't want.
[Milva McDonald]: That's part of state law. So far, just to be clear from this section, under the conflict of interest, we're including the standard language which just says that about municipal employees and that they're beholden to follow mass general laws. And then we are going to have a subcommittee look at the possible extra layer of financial statements. That's my understanding. Okay, good. Now, the property. Eunice, do you want to just give some background about what you're thinking about on this?
[Eunice Browne]: I mean, I pulled this from Framingham. In Waltham, I guess, well, there's a couple of different ones. There's the naming of property, which came out of Framingham. And then there's the purchase or taking land of land, which came out of Waltham. So they're two different things. Okay. Property is just that. I mean, let's say we have a, uh, new fire headquarters, you know, coming down the pike in a couple of years. Um, you know, this would be, you know, uh, real and personal property shall only be dedicated or named by majority vote of the full council upon a recommendation of the mayor, except in the case of school property, which, you know, is under school committee, um, jurisdiction. Um, I know that the naming of school property part, I believe, and Paulette will correct me if I'm wrong, but that comes under mass state law, I believe. Does the naming of city property come under any sort of state law and then I think that there was some talk a while back, maybe it was when we were going through the Columbus Mississippi mess, that there was talk about at one point naming of, I don't know if it was city property in general or just school property. At one point, there was some sort of, maybe it was a gentleman's agreement or something, that it had to be named after somebody who was no longer alive. I don't know how much of this could go into a piece of the charter, but knowing that I believe there's something on the books regarding the school committee and what they are and are not allowed to do, It made sense to have something mirroring that for city property.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, the school committee, you're saying comes from state law, right? I think so, Paulette.
[Ron Giovino]: 100 percent.
[Milva McDonald]: 100 percent is state law. My feeling about this is that this is the kind of thing that could be in an ordinance. In what? In an ordinance. But I don't know how others feel.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I think it needs to be addressed, but not in this format.
[Ron Giovino]: Listen, nobody on this call appreciates this law more than I do. But being on that committee and learning that law needs to be changed. But this isn't the venue. The charter is not the place to do this, in my opinion.
[Milva McDonald]: Anybody have any other thoughts about this naming of city property?
[David Zabner]: Yeah. To me, it just doesn't feel, and I know that there's some history to naming things, but it doesn't seem important enough to go in the charter to me.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay. Maury. We just named the library. We did. Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: Ron, I'm curious, where do you think this should go, then, if it's not in the chart?
[Ron Giovino]: Well, like Milva said, it should be by ordinance, because there's definitely something wrong with it. Because a little kid goes to a Little League baseball game at Columbus Park at Mississippi Tech School. So that tells you that there's a disjoint somewhere. But to me, it's just a... It's in the state law. It's clearly deep in the state law. And if we're going to ask the city council to approve what we write, I just, you know, I just don't think it's worth the, it needs to be done on a much different basis to force a. Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: So do we, does anybody want to make a motion about this? Are we, I mean, we've had some discussion. Does anybody feel strongly about including it and they want to make a motion or.
[Andreottola]: I'd like to make a motion that we before before making motion, I just want to say 1 thing that, you know, just in naming things, you know. Just, you know, and Eunice brought up the library, you know, the Bloomberg Library. There was a sizable contribution made to gain, put that name on the library. And hopefully, you know, that, you know, there are other opportunities for, you know, naming things in a way that brings some money into the school system. So I would like to leave it up to the City Council just for that fact because they can be kind of some blurry stuff that if we put it in the chat, they may not They might miss an opportunity to kind of, you know, maybe have a Bloomberg high or something, you know, to that effect, you know, so let's leave it up to the body. So, you know, there might be an opportunity for the city to to gain. the kids to gain, and I know there's history and people feel strongly about the school naming and things like that, but it doesn't need to be in the charter. If there needs to be arguments or debate, let it be. Let the city council and the school committee listen to the people. It's what they get paid for.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay.
[Andreottola]: So what I feel- They're not to exclude it.
[Milva McDonald]: So you want, okay, so you want to make a motion to exclude this section?
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Somebody want to second? I'll second it. How's that? Okay. Okay. Anthony?
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Ron?
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Maury?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Daveed?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Phyllis? Yes. Paulette? Yes. I think that's it and I'm voting.
[Eunice Browne]: I brought these things forward for discussion. Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Awesome. We're going to move on now to the purchase or taking of land. Do you want to talk about why you think this is a good idea for the charter?
[Eunice Browne]: No particular reason other than that, you know, I found it in another charter in Waltham specifically. And so clearly it had some meaning to that community. And it seemed like something that, you know, should probably end as you seem to say, you know, that it's come up in some other charters as well. that it was worthy of some discussion. I think that there may have been some talk about taking up some land for, I don't know, maybe it was parking lots or something like that, or something else that the city was going to use, or maybe it's our own land, I don't remember. but it seemed to be something that could easily come up and was worth having a discussion about.
[Milva McDonald]: One thing, I think this was the language that I gave to the Collins Center and they actually had an issue with it because of the language which is outlined in these comments. They also gave these examples. And one of the things that I thought is interesting to note is that we actually, it's in Mass General Law for Planned Parenthood, so we technically have this provision. And so I feel, you know, there's definitely Mass General Law about this. So. What about eminent domain? Does that apply here for anything? I think it does.
[Ron Giovino]: That's how they're taking it by eminent domain.
[Phyllis Morrison]: It's not a it's eminent domain, but is that a process or an action that any municipality or city town anyone can take.
[Ron Giovino]: No, it's just so, since I'm on here, I mean, I think we stick to the Massachusetts general law here. The court system, the process, it's not a city hall issue. This one really isn't. I mean, it's talking about taking your home to drive a highway through. These are massive court situations that you're not going to rely on. You know, this mass general law is very explicit. It tells you exactly how to do it. I don't know why, you know, Peabody probably had some construction stuff, major highway stuff going on at the time. I don't know. But to me, this is like, this doesn't happen when the city clerks send you a letter, say, well, your house has been sold for $250,000. This is a major, that's why I'm leaning strongly towards the mass general laws on this one.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Anybody else? I'm good with that.
[Andreottola]: I'd like to make a motion that we stick to this mass law and... Seconded.
[Milva McDonald]: So basically, the motion is that we do not include a section about taking of land by city. That's essentially it, right?
[Andreottola]: Right. Correct.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Okay, Anthony?
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: David?
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice? Yes. Ron?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Maury?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Phyllis? Yes. Paulette? Yes. And I'll go yes. Okay, awesome. Okay, so those were the outstanding issues on the list. Does anybody have any other outstanding issues that we need? I mean, we do have one, which is the financial statements, but does anybody have any other outstanding issues that we should look at before we are ready to hand things over to the call center?
[Eunice Browne]: Quick question, did we ever get, I know we talked about this, Section 8 maybe was public engagement. We had wanted some more specificity from the Collins Center about where the free petition and referendums were used, like some examples. Did we ever get that?
[Milva McDonald]: I'm not sure, I'm not, I mean, you know, we already went through that and we voted on that section. So whatever we got was brought up in a meeting. If it wasn't brought up in a meeting, we didn't get it. Maybe I'm just misremembering. But just remember, I mean, we are gonna get a draft charter from the Collins Center and we're all gonna have the opportunity to read it and then we're all gonna discuss it. So this is, you know, there's, there's going to be chances to discuss things that come up for you. That's all I'm saying. David?
[David Zabner]: Oh, I just wanted to say I think you're all outstanding.
[Milva McDonald]: Oh, thanks, David. All right. Awesome.
[Phyllis Morrison]: And I wanted to thank Matthew for all of his information in the chat. That was good information, Matthew. Thank you.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, so I'm just going to take a moment to talk about the final report committee. It's Jean, Maury, me, Phyllis, potentially, and Daveed. So I did have a doodle poll, and I'll just tell you the three times that work for Phyllis and you. I'm basically checking with Phyllis and Daveed. June 25th, which is this Tuesday, or June 26th from 2.30 to 4.00. And I don't know if day ever works for you, Phyllis.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Tuesday, Monday and Tuesday of next week are no good. Wednesday, I probably could do it. We have some interviews going on in school, so I know there's definitely some on Tuesday. I'm not sure about Wednesday yet, Milva. That's why I didn't respond. I was going to try to see if they had any more scheduled.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. What about you, David? Are daytimes out for you?
[David Zabner]: Those both work to me. My summer is very free.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so I'm going to I'm actually going to schedule that I'll send out an agenda. I mean, our first meeting is going to basically be just to make a plan. About is that going to be Melba Wednesday from 230 to 4. so if you can't come. You think you can come? I'm going to try to make sure I don't have anything scheduled for them. The other date that was available was Sunday the 30th from 630 to 8. So, all right, so we'll do Wednesday the 26th from 234 and then we'll see where we go from there. I mean, basically, we're going to be making a plan. We're going to be. figuring out sort of how we're going to structure it. Maybe people will volunteer to write certain sections. I don't know. We'll figure it out. But that's what our meeting is going to be about. OK. And as I said, we're not meeting in July. And we will meet the first Thursday in August. I don't have the date handy, but it's our usual. And you will have. assuming the call-in center is turnaround is as quick as they told me it is, you will all have had some time with the draft charter. So that will be your July homework to read the draft charter and come prepared to go over it with the call-in center in August. And hopefully, we'll have a good start on a final report.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Okay?
[Milva McDonald]: Sounds like a plan. The first Thursday in August is August 1st. It is. Okay. Thank you. Next meeting, August 1st, with the Collins Center. And if for some reason they can't come, I'll let you know, but I don't think that's gonna happen. All right, Matthew, you have comments?
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: Yeah, so I just, before everything is sent to the call-in center, sometimes when I watch these meetings, I'm just kind of interested in knowing what is the current state of the draft that you're preparing to send. And I guess, I know you're constantly, you all are constantly revising it every week or every other week, particularly the question of the referenda were mentioned and there was uncertainty to what degree that was discussed. If I email you, Milva, would that, would I be able to get like a current copy and we could see if there's any language concerning referenda?
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, that is Article 8. And there's a lot in that article, initiative petitions, all kinds of things, recalls, et cetera. But yeah, I can send you what we have that we voted on. And again, so we have several articles that we have drafted. Those are all going to go to the Collins Center. So what the Collins Center will be doing is just sort of looking for consistency of language. We kept talking about when it says certain number of days, what does that mean? Well, there's going to be that whole definition section, so that'll be what they're going to do for us. Then they're going to actually draft Articles 5, 9, and 10, but we actually did vote on some of the language in Article 9, but they'll plug in whatever standard language. So they'll be looking for consistency of language. If they have questions about what we meant, they'll ask us. If they see something that they think will maybe cause an issue, they'll tell us. Like, for instance, we didn't end up voting on using that language from WALF-AM about the taking of land, but they felt that it could actually disadvantage the city, and we pointed that out. So if they see something like that, they'll point it out to us, and then it will be up to us whether we want to consider what they, you know,
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: I understand they will advise and they'll find any kind of things that need to be cleaned up. But as far as the current draft for acquiring, I can just email you and see how everything's working. Okay, very good.
[Ron Giovino]: All the documents are public, so you can just send the link over, right?
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: They're on the website, but they're constantly being revised, right?
[Ron Giovino]: I mean, at least they're live documents.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm not sure the actual drafts are on the, in our committee materials on the website because they're, they're not, they're not our final draft. So, you know, how many do we want floating around say, but I'm perfectly comfortable sharing article eight with you if you just email me and I'll, and I will write very big letters on top that it's in draft form.
[Matthew Page-Lieberman]: Thank you everybody for this meeting. I really appreciate all the work that everybody's doing.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Thank you for your leadership.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, I think I agree with David. I think you're all awesome. And this has been really a pleasure. And we're not done yet. So yeah, let's get you know, so close. But we're doing really well, yeah. I mean, you know, I feel like the final report is going to be kind of like writing a dissertation, but maybe not. Jean is on the committee, and she seems very, you know, she said she writes reports all the time for her work, so she's not intimidated by it at all. She's not deterred by it, yeah. But I think it'll be good.
[Eunice Browne]: Are we going to include in I know that we did a lot of work with the word representation stuff, and we had charts and graphs and nice visuals.
[Milva McDonald]: We'll be including that. I envision that there will be appendixes. There will be that. There will be the survey results. Gene did an awesome report, the summary on all the listening sessions. So those will, I think, will be sort of addendums to the report, but we'll discuss that.
[Eunice Browne]: I particularly like Somerville's in looking through it. Okay. The five or six that you sent us, I noticed, let me just get my piece of paper here. Thelmuth, Ashland, Newton, and Watertown were under 75 pages long, but the Somerville one was 125 pages long. That's what you want to get us to do. Well, it was the only one that basically wrote a charter from scratch. The other ones were all revisions. So it kind of seemed to mirror more of the work that we've done. And it was pretty comprehensive. But as far as the charts and graphs, I don't think we have ones for school committee. So I'll work with either Aubrey or Jean and get you what you need. Because that data came from me initially.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, when the final report committee meets, if we feel like we need stuff, we'll just ask for it. Maury?
[Maury Carroll]: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
[Milva McDonald]: So I will see some of you at various subcommittee meetings and the rest of you have a fantastic July. I guess we're supposed to vote, but I know everybody's okay.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah. Thanks.
|
total time: 29.64 minutes total words: 2685 |
total time: 7.07 minutes total words: 578 |
||