total time: 43.38 minutes
total words: 3629
total time: 8.73 minutes
total words: 798
[Milva McDonald]: Welcome everyone to the September 5th, 2024 meeting of the Medford Charter Study Committee. So our first agenda item is the minutes from the August 1st meeting. Did everyone have a chance to review them? Yes.
[David Zabner]: Move approval.
[Milva McDonald]: Move approval.
[David Zabner]: I'll second it. Second.
[Milva McDonald]: All in favor?
[David Zabner]: Aye.
[Milva McDonald]: Aye.
[David Zabner]: Aye.
[Milva McDonald]: Any opposed? Okay. Great. All right, so our work for tonight is to, we got last time, we got through the first three articles of the draft charter. So our work tonight is to get through the rest of it. So I'm just going to open the floor and ask if anybody has any amendments that they want to propose. starting with Article 4. Anything in Article 4?
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, a couple of things. I noticed in Section 4-1, the term of office, reads, the term of office for the six school committee members elected by the voters shall be two years each beginning on the first day of January in the year following the regular municipal election until their successors are qualified. I don't know if it matters or not, but this is not consistent with the city council and the mayor, which indicates, well, no, I suppose it is somewhat consistent. The word is just a little bit different. It says beginning on the 1st, Monday in January, succeeding the Councilor's election, except when that 1st, Monday falls on a legal holiday, in which event, the term shall begin on the following day and shall end when their successes have been qualified. So my thought was. shouldn't this, other than, you know, changing the name of the body, shouldn't the rest of the wording be identical? Consistent. Yeah, consistent.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony or someone from the Collins Center, can you speak to that?
[Ron Giovino]: I just, is it because the school committee meets on Mondays and the city council meets on Tuesdays? As simple as that.
[Eunice Browne]: I don't know. Good question.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: My memory is, I actually don't have the old version, the older version here, but my memory is that the intent was to keep it consistent. And I think the language we received from the committee originally had the provision about not meeting on a holiday in the city council and not in the school committee. And so we just kept the language consistent except for that addition. So if you wanted to add it there, you could.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so Eunice, do you want, are you making a proposal that we add that language so that the term of office for the school committee is consistent with the city council and the mayor?
[Eunice Browne]: Well, I think Ron has a bit of an interesting point there about the Monday versus Tuesday thing. Let me under this for a second. First business day. of January versus beginning of the first Monday.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, the city council is also the first Monday in January.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I think it should be consistent. Unless anybody has a compelling reason for it not to be.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, and the school committee just says the first business day of January, not necessarily the first Monday, right?
[David Zabner]: I think they're in effect identical, but I agree that the language should be the same.
[Milva McDonald]: So, Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Just a point of information. When they're inaugurated and become who they are, isn't that their effective date, not the first meeting? Correct. So like on that Sunday, they are the city councilor, not Tuesday. So it's kind of a, I'm trying to make it a moot point, but they don't become, oh, go ahead, I'm sorry.
[Eunice Browne]: My understanding as far as like getting sworn in is, I mean, we traditionally have the inauguration on what, the first Sunday in January usually, you know, and it's, you know, a big celebratory deal, but I think they actually, Get sworn in prior to that in the office and then they elect their officers.
[Ron Giovino]: Oh, yeah, you're right.
[Eunice Browne]: I think it's more an end. Via the clerk as soon after I think the. celebration, inauguration that the public sees on that first Sunday that's held in one of the local halls and so forth, I think that's largely ceremonial. I think they've all already been sworn in on or about the first day of the month of January. I thought, because I've seen photos of, and I think I came across this with, I'd have to go back and find the correspondence, I didn't think of this earlier, that a lot of them, you know, go into the clerk's office, you know, one by one as their schedule allows, and they take the oath. My understanding, I think, is that they're, December 31st is the last day of the term. And then the 1st of January is the first day officially of the new term. So I think most of them get sworn in, not on the 1st necessarily because that's a holiday and City Hall is closed, but on the 2nd or the 1st business day after the 1st.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, my point is being that it has nothing to do with meeting dates. It more has to do with an effective date of January 1st. They're all active at that point.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, so I think that that's consistent with the language we have now. So I'm going to throw out and say, Eunice, tell me if this sounds like what you intend, that a motion to make the language in Article 4.1 under term of office consistent with the mayor and the city council, to make the eligibility language, I mean, the term of office language consistent. with all three elected bodies. Is that what you're going for? Yes. Yes. OK. All right. Seconded. OK, great. Everybody understands what we're voting on?
[David Zabner]: I went ahead and put what I imagine the language would look like in the chat, if anybody wants to take a look.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, thank you.
[David Zabner]: It's not exciting, but it's there.
[Milva McDonald]: So, and yeah, we can send that. I mean, I was thinking maybe the call-in center would just standardize it for us. Does that sound right, Anthony Wilson? Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Great. Okay. So all in favor, well, let's do a roll call. Anthony Andriado. Yes. Eunice. Yes. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: I'm just reading David's words, and he includes Monday. Are we saying effective January 1st, or are we saying Monday?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, the motion is that we'll just make the language consistent and leave it to the Collins Center to standardize for us.
[David Zabner]: Articles two and three, I put the language from articles two and three above where I wrote proposal, and they both use Monday.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. But this motion is that we're just standardizing it and the call-in center will use the best language. Okay. Phyllis?
[Phyllis Morrison]: I'm just going to abstain. Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Gene? Yes. Maury?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: David?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: And I'm also yes. OK, great. So that passes. Does anybody have any other amendments or changes to Article 4?
[Eunice Browne]: Also under 4.1, again, going with consistency, under the district eligibility, Milva, would it be possible for you to put up You know, on the screen share screen with the draft so that we can all kind of see what we're looking at.
[Milva McDonald]: There it is.
[Eunice Browne]: So it reads, a school committee candidate shall at the time of election be a Medford voter and shall have resided in one of the wards of the district from which they are seeking office for one year prior to submitting nomination papers for the office of school committee. And then over on the city council side in section 2.1, And we voted on this on August 1st. A ward candidate for city council shall at the time of the election be a Medford voter and shall have resided in the ward for which they are seeking office for one year prior to inauguration.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so we should standardize that. Right. Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: We could go either or. Whatever is the will of the body.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, while we're, can I broaden this section? This district eligibility, because I noticed another issue that doesn't match up or that's not consistent where about the about moving, whether if the school committee member moves from Medford, then the office shall be immediately deemed vacant. Um, and in the city council, I believe we had if the if the if a ward Councilor moved from the ward and stayed in Medford, that Councilor could finish out their term. So I'm wondering if we want to add that in.
[David Zabner]: I mean, I think that's implied here.
[Milva McDonald]: Uh, OK.
[David Zabner]: Right, because it says if they move from Medford, it doesn't say if they move from their ward.
[Milva McDonald]: Right, that's right. I guess I guess I'm just wondering whether the fact that it's not specified might raise questions for people. And it is specified in the city council section.
[David Zabner]: Yeah, I mean, so I guess I would move that we add the specification that as long as they stay in Medford, they can finish up their term. And along with that, I would say I personally prefer the from one year prior to inauguration language. So I would so I don't know if we want to do that as one motion, both of those things. But if I if we can, that would be my preference.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so Maybe we'll do them separately just to avoid confusion. So the first thing that we're going to vote on is whether the person has to reside in the district from one year prior to nomination papers or one year prior to inauguration. Can I ask the call-in center whether you have any comments on whether one of these is preferable?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Oh, we would say that the preference would be for from the date of inauguration as that will be a great as that will be a specific date.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Okay, so. Do you want to, David, since you are bringing that up and saying you preferred inauguration, do you want to make that motion?
[Andreottola]: Yes. Can I ask a question before we do that? Yeah. We're referring to people as voters. Do they have to be a registered voter in that ward for a year? Does their voter registration status come into play or is it just their residency?
[David Zabner]: Just their residency.
[Andreottola]: But we're not saying that, though.
[David Zabner]: Yes, because it says shall have resided in one of the wards.
[Andreottola]: But they could have voted somewhere else.
[David Zabner]: You know, it's in general against the law to vote in a place where you're not a resident, so.
[Andreottola]: But you can be multi, like I'm right now, I'm in Maine. I can vote in Maine and I can vote in Mass. You know, it's it can be.
[David Zabner]: In general, in the United States, you need to be a resident of exactly one place.
[Ron Giovino]: Yes. You could be Maine or you could be Medford, but you only get one choice.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony Wilson, did you have a comment?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yeah, just sort of add some information there. So this comes up in a number of communities like vacation communities. You can be a resident in terms of owning property and being in a place sort of part-time like six or three months out of the year. So technically be a resident and not be a voter. The provision here where you're limited to people who have registered to vote, that is, excluding, I guess, a number of people who might live in Medford, but not have taken the active action of signing up to vote. It's just to be aware. There is a class of people that are residents, but not voters.
[Milva McDonald]: That issue is different than the one we were about to vote on. So let's stick with our motion and then we'll go and discuss the voter issue. Ron?
[Ron Giovino]: Here's the thing I'm thinking is if we, the difference between inauguration day and pulling papers, is there a possibility that someone who pulls papers in whatever the date is, will not be eligible to meet that secondary requirement, and if so, should not be qualified to pull papers. I don't know what the timeline is, but that's my thing, is if you pull papers and it turns out you don't meet the requirement of one year before inauguration, you shouldn't be allowed to pull papers. I don't know if we cover that in this document.
[David Zabner]: If you're, I mean, yeah, I think that's certainly, I think, like, I think that's in general, like a problem we have in the United States. Well, I should just let Anthony talk about it.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony Wilson.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yeah, I was just going to say, so one of the. I think why having the inauguration date as a preference is that it's a specific date that you can look to in the charter, whereas if you have a time period, I wonder which poll papers, and technically, you know, the nomination papers become available on some date, it varies from community to community, but you have up until the deadline for submission. So you leave a lot of ambiguity as to when someone would have to make the determination that this person meets your residency requirements. It becomes simpler. You choose a specific date, like the inauguration date.
[Ron Giovino]: So as long as the language states that when you pull the papers, a validation that you will be meeting that requirement. I just don't want somebody on the ballot that we find out on the inauguration day they don't meet the requirement. and pull votes from somebody who does. So do you feel like our language is, I'm not sure, but do we have our language covered so that someone who will not be eligible on Inauguration Day a year back does not get to pull papers?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I guess from my perspective, I would say having an Inauguration Day be the date would make that determination easier to make.
[Ron Giovino]: But do we have in the, does the clerk now in his process have that check on when papers, or he just counts the 10,000 votes that you need?
[Milva McDonald]: You mean the signatures?
[Ron Giovino]: Signatures, yeah. I guess, you know, I guess it's there if we say one year. I just don't, I'm trying to avoid the scenario where somebody's on the ballot, and then we discover on election day that they will not be able to meet that requirement. if they shouldn't be on the ballot in the first place. I'm just not sure that that would happen.
[Eunice Browne]: Wouldn't that be up to the Elections Commission to specify that? If I walk in and go to pull papers, it's incumbent on me to read the rules that the Election Commission would disseminate to me. about, you know, whether or not I'm eligible.
[Ron Giovino]: And my curiosity is, is that part of the qualification package that they follow? That's all. That's the reason why.
[David Zabner]: Ron, I think that's super reasonable. But like, I know that almost every four years you get like 22 year olds who are running for president in some state or another. And that's because in general, we just don't specify those kinds of things. Right. I guess I don't know what happens if you, like, win the election but aren't actually eligible to take office, but I imagine that it's exceedingly rare.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I would agree. But on this local level, it's definitely a possibility. But if we're saying Inauguration Day, I'm fine with that. My concern is, as I said, how do we ensure that the Election Commission is following that? Maybe we can write a recommendation at the bottom, outside of the charter.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, that's a good idea. Anthony?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I'm just going to add to the discussion. No one specifically has information about your residency for candidates other than what you provide on the papers. What usually happens in this situation is someone, usually an opponent, will challenge someone's residence, and then it becomes a fact-finding issue. where people will have to present evidence as to their residence or what. So that's why I was making a point that it becomes easier to make the determination if you have a specific date rather than adding to the fact-finding mission. But I have to figure out when this person pulled papers.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. So I guess that we can't prevent everything in the world, but we can put language in to make it more streamlined and easier if such a thing does occur.
[Eunice Browne]: And I would be with Ron in, we put a recommendation in somewhere wherever appropriate, maybe in the final report somewhere that, you know, the Elections Commission needs to be on top of this.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so next month is the final report. So we'll make note of that and we can talk about adding that next month if it didn't get in. Okay. Okay, so the motion is that under district eligibility in all, not just school committee, not just 401, but we make that consistent with city council and we use one year prior to inauguration.
[Eunice Browne]: That would have to be with mayor too. Want to be consistent across the board.
[Milva McDonald]: We don't have the residency requirement with mayor. Oh, we don't? It's just with ward Councilors and school committee. Okay. I'll second it. Okay. All right. I'm going to do that thing again where I can't see everybody because I'm sharing screen, so I'm going to try to do it by memory. Eunice. Yes. David.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Ron.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Maury.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Gene. Yes. Phyllis? Yes. Anthony Andreottola?
[Andreottola]: I'm not sure what I'm voting on, so I'll abstain.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. I'm yes. Did I get everybody? Okay, so the next issue that we had in section 4.1 was to standardize if someone moves out of, in this case, for the school committee, it's the district.
[David Zabner]: I'll make that motion.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So let's be clear about what the motion is, that we're standardizing language.
[David Zabner]: If they move within the city, they are allowed to finish out their term.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, okay, so we don't have, yeah, and that's what the city council says. So the motion is that if a district school committee member moves out of the district during their term and stays within Medford, they're allowed to finish out their term. I'll second it. Okay, Daveed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Ron.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice. Yes. Morris, Maury.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm writing a word and talking. Anthony Andreottola. No. Okay. Phyllis. Yes. Gene. Yes. And I think I'm the last person left, and I'm a yes. OK, great. So that passes. OK. OK, now we did have something come up during this discussion. It was a question about the use of the word voter, which I believe we used in other sections as well. Does anybody, do people still feel comfortable with that?
[David Zabner]: I'm comfortable with it. Okay. I remember we talked about it pretty extensively when we were talking about sections two and three, so.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Then there's no proposal to change that. Great. Yeah. All right. Anybody have any other changes in article four?
[Eunice Browne]: I had a couple of others, but I don't want to hog the, you know, if other people do.
[Milva McDonald]: Nobody does, so go ahead.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay. I thought if I recall that Paulette had a concern about this one, and I know she's not here and I may be off base, but in board 2, and this is something that in going through the notes from our phone center friends, the secretary or clerk part, that the Collins Center deleted the language about the secretary is responsible for overseeing and approving the bills unless the school committee votes to form a subcommittee, et cetera. The Secretary, as far as I know, the Secretary has been approving the bills, you know, for years and years and years. It's how things have always been done. My understanding is that it's a check and balance sort of situation. So I guess the question of, you know, should it continue that way? And in that case, should the language go back to the way it was? Or, you know, Should the finance director, you know, be consulted before we change any language?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, I think the language was deleted, so I don't think it may be. I don't think it would. Yeah, well, Paulette didn't. contact me with any amendments, first of all. But I don't think we say anything about the handling of the bills or anything. I think that was deleted. I don't think it means that that system can't continue just because we took it out.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: Right.
[David Zabner]: Right, so the school committees could still choose to do that either by voting that way or just by practice.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah, that's what it seems like. It doesn't take that process away from them. They can choose that.
[Milva McDonald]: That's right. So does that change what you, do you still want to look at adding it back in, Eunice?
[Eunice Browne]: I'm just trying to do something from memory with what I thought Paulette had mentioned, so I don't want to misspeak necessarily. I wonder if it's something maybe we can just leave it, I suppose, and if she has an issue with it, she can bring it up. Yeah.
[Phyllis Morrison]: She's pretty thorough. I think if she had anything about this, she would have gotten in touch with Milner about it.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: All right. So we're moving on from that? Yeah. Then under the filling of vacancies part, section 4.6. Can you make it a little bit bigger too, Melissa, please? Yeah. Thanks. Where's my notes? Let's see. A couple of quick things here. In section 1, I think it might be just a typo where third line down, it says Office of Councilor at Large. I think we want to probably say School Committee Member at Large on that. Because I think that was a copy-paste job from Yeah, city council stuff. So, yeah, just want to change that to thank you. Yeah, we probably don't have to vote on that. Right? Because no, I don't think so. I think that's just something that I picked up and then. A note from the call and center on this and I guess. There isn't anything in there, but it was a suggestion from them and just, you know. uh, they suggested under four six, which is where we are now that the, we mirror the city council vacancy provision, which I think we're doing. And then, um, the project team suggested the committee consider allowing the school committee and the city council to fill a school committee, um, vacancy jointly. Um, and, um, I would say absolutely not. think each body should fill their own vacancies. I don't know if that's something that we wanted to talk about in their notes to us.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony Wilson, do you remember? Let's see. Yeah. Go ahead, Anthony.
[David Zabner]: I think that's a copy paste mistake as well. Um, because I'm looking at, uh, we're talking about, uh, filling of vacancies here, right?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, but we're talking, we're talking about, um, that in the memo from the call-in center, they recommended mirroring the city council vacancy provision, which I think we're, we're, we agree is a good idea. And but the other part of it was suggesting that the committee consider allowing the school committee and city council to fill the vacancy joint. So that's, can you, Anthony Wilson, talk about maybe the reasoning behind that recommendation?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yes, I just want to double check. I think is, Marilyn, are you on the call? Is that you at the 781 number? Guess not. I guess not. Yeah, so this is a suggestion. This is one of the suggestions. We didn't actually change the language.
[Contreas]: I'm here. I was muted.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Oh, go on. I didn't know if you wanted to, you could probably speak a little bit more succinctly than me on this suggestion from us to them.
[Contreas]: Okay. In the case of a school committee vacancy, the council gets involved because they are representing the voters. at large, the school committee shouldn't fill its own vacancy. There should be some way to represent the voters of the city. And most communities use an approach like the one we've proposed here.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: It's part of a check and balance system so that it's not sort of dominated, but that's, yeah.
[Jean Zotter]: But the school committee is elected by the voters. Yeah, I don't think it makes any sense.
[Contreas]: But they're not participating in filling the vacancy. So the council is actually representing the voters in that instance.
[Jean Zotter]: But the school committee doesn't get involved in city council vacancies.
[Contreas]: No.
[Jean Zotter]: Right.
[Contreas]: Because the school committee is secondary too. The school committee is a single, is an entity with a single job. To they do not represent the whole city they represent. The, the school department, essentially, the city council represents the whole city. That's what we're trying to that that's why other communities do this.
[David Zabner]: Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay.
[David Zabner]: I prefer the idea that the school committee fills its own vacancies. There is also, I think, a paste error in section 46.3. Oh, here's where we are anyway.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Yeah, I mean, the typos and things will get to those. I, you know, we've actually already addressed.
[David Zabner]: It says the remaining members of the school committee shall elect a person to fill the vacancy. And then it says a person elected by the city council.
[Milva McDonald]: Ah, I see.
[David Zabner]: Which is maybe actually even why we're discussing this. I think that should be a person elected by the school committee.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So we've heard the reasons for potentially having the city council involved. I mean, I think the first level is that it's the next highest vote ever, right? The only time appointment is going to happen is if there's nobody to do that.
[Ron Giovino]: Correct. Milda, can I just interrupt? To that point, we're also saying you have to have achieved 30% in order to be next man up. Is that what that says? I'm not reading. Yeah, it is. So my point to that is, why don't we just leave it as, you know, going by the next most all the way down, because that also eliminates a vote of somebody who didn't even run. as the last option, should be the very, very last option. Somebody who ran, it's just my opinion, if you... You're saying we should just go down the list. I mean, I guess... At least go down to 20% to add two more names to that pile before we go to this city council vote.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, no, I think along the lines of the Collins Center argument, the threshold of, you know, those people didn't get a very high threshold of votes. And then the city council who did get the votes and represents the whole city. I mean, you could look at it that way. That's all I'm saying.
[David Zabner]: Ron, I got to say, I'm comfortable with with 20%. I certainly wouldn't want it to be lower than that. Yeah, I think there are enough cranks who run.
[Ron Giovino]: And I think if 90% or 80% of the city... You meant to say non-favorable candidates, I think.
[David Zabner]: I mean, sorry. There are people who didn't get votes for a reason. Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, so now we have another idea on the table, which is to lower the threshold to 20%, not less than 20% of the total vote cast gene.
[Jean Zotter]: Well, for city council, we have the, if you just want to think about consistency, we have the 30% is what we require for city council.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah.
[Jean Zotter]: If we change it to 20%, we should have a good reason for being different there. Right.
[Eunice Browne]: I agree. I would prefer to see consistency. Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So we've had a discussion about this. Does anybody want to make a proposal on any of the issues we've been discussing? I want to, I would, uh, Jean.
[Jean Zotter]: I, I don't completely understand the city council, um, piece. So I guess I, prefer to have the school committee vote and fill the vacancy and not have the city council involved. That's my proposal.
[Milva McDonald]: I second that. Okay, Daveed?
[David Zabner]: I was going to make the same proposal.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so we are voting on that a person after the 30% threshold and after, if the position still needs to be filled, that the school committee would fill the position.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Does everyone? I guess I apologize for interrupting, Madam Chair, but the current language is just for the school committee to make the election. The city council part there, that's a typo. I have a corrected version in front of me that already has it, so we can do that update. Okay, that's the city school committee on that.
[David Zabner]: Yes. This is just a vote to confirm that we all agree that that's what we want. As it currently stands.
[Milva McDonald]: So, basically, it's to leave the language the way it is. And 2, we're just reiterating that because.
[Andreottola]: So, we're going against the recommendation. Well, we don't know.
[Milva McDonald]: We're going to vote on that. We're going to see.
[Eunice Browne]: So then if we choose to leave the wording the way it is in section three there, filling your vacancies by the school committee, then are we, and maybe this is a different motion, changing the 30% threshold to 20%, and then another arm of that is, are we changing it over for city council as well?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, no, we're not talking about that right now. We're just talking about when a opening needs to be filled that can't be filled by someone who has run and met that 30% threshold currently, as it is, then the motion on the table is that we leave this as is and say that the city council will fill the vacancy, which is contrary to the recommendation of the policy. You mean the school committee? Did I misspeak? I'm sorry. The school committee fills the vacancies. If you vote yes, you're voting for the school committee to fill the vacancy and not the city council. Is that clear to everyone? David? Yes. Ron?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Maury?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice. Yes. Jean. Yes. Anthony Andreadov.
[Phyllis Morrison]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Phyllis. Yes. I'm a no. Unfortunately, we have a tie because we only have eight people here tonight. I think then that means the yes gets it.
[Andreottola]: I don't know. Whatever the motion was, doesn't pass.
[David Zabner]: I mean, I think it's immaterial because it was a motion not to change anything, but it seems like then people want to change something.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, we're split on that. The eight people that are here now are split on that.
[Eunice Browne]: So I'm trying to understand. I mean, as I said in the beginning, That I thought that the school committee should be handling their own affairs That's we just had the vote Voting.
[David Zabner]: Yes was it support of school committee handling its own affairs, right?
[Eunice Browne]: I understand that david. Um what i'm trying to understand is why You know what the reasoning is that people would vote against that Um, I mean maryland spoke to it.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean to me this isn't the affairs of the school committee It's who's on the school committee. So that's not The affairs of the school committee are the job of the school committee. That's how I see it.
[Eunice Browne]: That's all I'm saying.
[Andreottola]: You can look at it like this too. We're going to have ward Councilors, two ward Councilors that would represent that district that could have a say and who would fill that role, who would know the people from that district. You know, so in a way, having the city council kind of, which would be 11 people, you know, decide rather than the school committee, which would be minus one. So you're talking just a handful of people making the decision that affects the whole city.
[Milva McDonald]: You're also talking about the mayor, because the mayor's on the school committee. So. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Just to answer Eunice's point, I mean, listen to Marilyn talking about the perception of the city council not being more, you know, having, representing the city in a different way than the school committee. Having the school committee be impacted by that decision makes me lean towards the city council decision. That's why I voted no.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: Ron stole my thunder because that's exactly how I felt. The way Marilyn explained it and so forth like that was a different perspective than when we went over this a few months ago and so forth and came up with this. I never looked at the city council as really representing the public in general. So that's kind of why I voted the way I did.
[Eunice Browne]: I appreciate the feedback. I wonder if, since we have a tie, if it's something that we table in the hopes and revote in the next month, in the hopes that we have, you know, I mean, we're missing three people, so.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, and actually, yeah, Danielle actually told me she would be here late, so. We're missing Danielle, we're missing Paulette, and we're missing- I know. We might get Danielle tonight, but okay.
[Phyllis Morrison]: So I need a point of clarification. So as the vote went, the language stays the same with the update of the typographical appraised errors, correct? Well, the vote was tied. Exactly. So the language would stay the same as it is right now. There's not going to be the same.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, the motion was that the language would stay the same, and it was tied. And if the motion falls, that means the language wouldn't stay the same. But we didn't vote on what to change the language to, although I think it's already. Everybody knows what the choices are. Just so far, I'm clear.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yeah. The language right now after that vote is not going to change with the exception of any typographical or pasting errors.
[Milva McDonald]: No, I don't.
[Ron Giovino]: point of information it's all we did was vote nothing so it stays the same way before we took the vote we still need no no no no we need a vote because otherwise i think i think we are going to table this particular vote and do it again and when we have at the next meeting and and to that end i think you know we're missing one person that not that everybody's you know
[Eunice Browne]: opinion isn't valuable, but we're missing one person who, you know, served on the school committee, who may have some valuable input for us.
[Ron Giovino]: With all due respect, Eunice, if Danielle shows up tonight, we should take the vote. We can't be holding votes to make sure everybody's here, just that's the process. So if Danielle shows up, we can split the vote. I say we move the vote.
[Milva McDonald]: I think Ron, what we're going to do is we're going to take this vote again when Danielle shows up. Because you're right, it's possible that at our next meeting we won't have the other three of us. So let's take the vote again.
[Ron Giovino]: Just point of process, too. We can vote when Danielle gets here to table it. That we can do.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, we can.
[Ron Giovino]: It has to be a vote.
[Milva McDonald]: So we're going to revisit it when Danielle gets here. Right. OK. OK. There was some, does anybody, do we have anything else? It was discussion about lowering the threshold and then Jean pointed out that it's 30% with city council. So does somebody want to make a proposal to make a change?
[Ron Giovino]: I withdraw my amendment to change it.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Okay. Anything else in article four? I'm good. Okay. Great. Article 5. Article 5, which is short. And it was pretty much boilerplate language, but does anybody have anything they want to change for that? Administrative procedures? Administrative organization? All right. What about Article 6 is financial procedures?
[Eunice Browne]: The budget? I just have one question on 5, but it's kind of a practical question. It talks about somewhere in there, City Council, I think it's somewhere in Section 5.1. The City Council shall hold one or more public hearings on the proposal, giving notice by publication in a local newspaper. My point to this in its consistency and all over is that, I know the clerk does put things in like the Medford-Somerville Journal or something, but we've talked about ensuring that things are publicized by all means possible. So, you know, making sure that language such as that gets put in, you know, everywhere that it says newspaper. Does that make sense?
[Milva McDonald]: So your proposal is that whenever there's an incidence in the charter that says that something needs to be publicized in a local newspaper, that that language is changed to?
[Eunice Browne]: I think we had it somewhere in section 9, too, about, let's see if I can find it.
[Milva McDonald]: Meanwhile, Maury, did you want to say something?
[Maury Carroll]: We went over this when we went over the different articles, and I thought it came back that the clerk uses either the Herald or the Globe for all their announcements, as well as anything like maybe the Summerville Journal and so forth like that. But I thought we were led to believe through the clerk's office that it was either the Herald or the Globe that they consider the newspaper for advertising. Oh, yeah. I know that's what we came up with.
[Eunice Browne]: Yes.
[Maury Carroll]: OK, you're right.
[Eunice Browne]: I'm sorry about that. Yeah.
[Maury Carroll]: Never mind. You know, OK, to be all this stuff and committee meetings and so forth.
[David Zabner]: I mean, I would certainly support the idea that we replace the word newspaper with like something else about, you know, public by publication in a reasonable manner or something like it doesn't seem like I think fewer people every year are getting physical newspapers, and I have no idea where those kinds of announcements are on the Globe website. And so I think it would be completely reasonable to find something to replace newspaper with there.
[Milva McDonald]: Collin Center, can you speak to this? Because this is obviously not, other communities deal with this decline of newspapers as well.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: So this is a fairly, I guess I would sort of classify this as sort of vanilla language. It's reflected in state law. Most of the times when there's a state law that requires a publication, it uses newspapers. Committee member DeVete's point, I apologize if I'm messing up your name, is something that committees do. that we've heard communities are dealing with, what are the best ways to get our information out there? But you'll see as you look at sort of most laws, they're gonna still say newspaper for any number of reasons. If the committee wants to change it, there's language about having it posted on the website. One of the other things is a lot of older language talks about bulletin boards. So usually it's language I don't want to sort of give you the wrong, but usually there's language around sort of any accessible method and on the community's website is some places where communities do change.
[David Zabner]: Yeah, I feel like something like publication in a manner, you know, like reasonably available to the public or something. And that concludes newspapers or websites or anything else. But I imagine we have to pay to publish these announcements.
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah, I think you do.
[David Zabner]: You know, I'm sure it's not a large expense, but it also seems a little silly, especially given that we don't have a newspaper that directly covers Medford.
[Milva McDonald]: Maury, did you want to say something?
[Maury Carroll]: Yeah, I agree. But, you know, listen to what Anthony just said. You know, newspapers generally the the vehicle of choice that everyone uses. I understand it's different today with emails and websites and so forth, but I still think you have a sector out there of seniors and so forth that may not have computers, that may not have email, that may not have Instagram or whatever. So if we want to include that as a options are in addition to, that'd be fine. I still would keep newspapers as the primary for this, at this point.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, I guess my interpretation of newspaper is that it doesn't have to be a paper newspaper. It can be an electronic newspaper or some sort of newsletter or something. But anyway, that's just my interpretation. Ron?
[Ron Giovino]: I just think we should be encouraged to keep it as general as possible because if we say newspapers and in 20 years, there's no such thing as a newspaper, then we'd have to make an amendment. So I just think, you know, saying finding the best ways of communicating to the community leaves it up to the details to somebody else. But I think we should stay away, particularly in this kind of issue, which is not a major issue, that we should just leave it to a general statement and let the people at the time decide how that's done.
[Milva McDonald]: So you're saying we should change newspaper, Ron? I just want to be clear on what you're saying.
[Ron Giovino]: I'm just saying eliminate newspaper and just call it general community distribution of information.
[David Zabner]: I'm going to make a motion that we specifically change it to giving notice by publication in a reasonable and standard manner. That's fine.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, I just want to circle back for one second to Anthony's. I just want to, Anthony, can you address again that this language is a reflection of state law because this is state law still says newspaper?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I wouldn't say it's a reflection of state law, but I would say is that in most places in state law, when you look at requirements for publication or advertisement, they're talking about, they use the word newspaper.
[Milva McDonald]: But do you feel that because of that, that the charter should say that as well, or do you think it's fine to change it?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Well, I'll let Marilyn jump in here. But what we gave you was sort of the most sort of inoffensive language possible for this section. And so I would say, you know, a lot of charters in a lot of places where they ask for publication or publications required of some document or some meeting, it does use the word newspaper. So it's the most prevalent and the most prevalent. And it's the most common.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, Marilyn, did you want to add to that?
[Contreas]: Um, yes, I just think that what's being proposed is is far too vague. And it, it allows for discretion. And we don't know that anything would get meet the requirement. The old requirement was that a newspaper guaranteed you quote unquote, general circulation reaches everyone. So if we say that It should be on the city bulletin board. It should be on the city website. It should be in the newspaper if, you know, if it's available and, you know, maybe post notices in other public places, such as the senior center and the library, but you really can. I'm sorry, you really have to define what general you have to. try to meet that standard of general circulation to the best of your ability. And that sentence just does not do it.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Okay. I guess I would only just add, just for the committee's consideration, in the public, in the open meeting law, it allows an additional newspaper posting on the city's website. So website is a term that is used, you know, in the place of the law that, again, it seems acceptable.
[Ron Giovino]: Okay. Did I just propose amending David's statement to add within state guidelines? That seems to be able to cover the newspaper issue, whatever changes. And again.
[Contreas]: No, there are no state guidelines. We have to say what we want in the charter. And if you want to, and you've talked about transparency, and you've talked about people having access to information. And so, we're going to define that so that the information is out there in as many places as it is reasonable to be.
[Milva McDonald]: So, Marilyn, would you think that leaving newspaper and adding something else would be specific? Is that what you're? Okay. Yes, that's where I'm going. Okay. Jean.
[Jean Zotter]: Well, that was going to be my proposal, is newspaper and website, or say- Or digital media. Or digital media, but or use standard language throughout and then define general circulation in the definition section, which would say at a minimum, it would have to be newspaper and website. So those were my two thoughts.
[Andreottola]: Okay, can I just say, I just, I'm, I'm a little concerned. I just don't want it to end up that city businesses advertised on social media where it might be restricted to certain groups and not access to everyone, even though, like, people have everyone has access to social media. Some people don't have it. So, when we. kind of go step away from newspaper. We are trying to bring it into a more digital realm and maybe newspapers can be shared other ways, you know, like through digital kind of, you know, people may not get a physical newspaper, but you can get the Globe or the Herald or the City Announcements, you know, at your fingertips. So this way it's equal access.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Maury and Ron, did you want to say something? Maury, did you want to say something?
[Maury Carroll]: I listened to Anthony, what he was saying. It's kind of basically where I was going. I'm just saying that there's all kinds of public notices of what's going on within the government, whether it be for zoning, liquor licenses, public hearings and meetings and so forth. I mean, there is a lot of advertising going on out there on a continual basis.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Ron, did you have another point?
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I just want to move the question to just say communication by newspaper and city website minimally.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so I just want to check in with David and see in light of this discussion, because you did have a proposal on the table. So I just want to check in with David about that.
[David Zabner]: Yeah, I mean, so the goal I had in proposing a difference was really just kind of to future-proof the thing, right? I imagine that if what we're saying is reasonable in standard manner, that might mean for the next 10 years that we continue to publish in a newspaper. It was more Along the idea that like maybe 10, 15 years in the future, the city council decides that publishing in a newspaper is a waste of the, I don't know, five, $10 per publication, then the city could decide to do something more reasonable. I don't think it's a big deal either way. I would prefer, I think, like my specific goal in making the proposal was to remove the word newspaper as a requirement to give that flexibility. Um, so I don't think I prefer Ron's, uh, suggestion. Um, but I also don't have a super strong feeling on this either way, if that makes sense. Um, the goal is flexibility and it newspaper just to me feels like a silly requirement for people 25 years from now, obviously for today, I think it's a very reasonable one.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So I'm, um, I'm going to throw out a proposal and say that First of all, I'm going to propose that we leave newspaper and add city website. So we say newspaper and city website. And also just want to say in conjunction with that, that it doesn't mean that the city can't publicize things in other places. It's just the charter says this is what they have to do. It doesn't stop them from doing other things. So, and I guess, As I said before, to me, newspaper includes digital media.
[Eunice Browne]: Going into on Article 9, which we had talked about a while ago, one of our prior meetings that we were going to ask to be included in that section, For the rules, regulations, periodic review of ordinances, and so forth, we asked to have included language that requires all information, like rules, regulations, agendas, meeting notices, et cetera, to be shared with the public via all available means. So I'm wondering if we could apply that here.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, we could, but I think that falls under Marilyn's comment about being vague. Because it's not defined. It's not defined. That's true. Yeah. If we say newspaper and city website, that's defined. It doesn't prevent the city from putting it out in other places, but it defines the minimum that they have to do. Would you agree with that, Anthony Wilson?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I would agree with that. Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so that's my proposal that, you know, we keep newspaper in all the places where it says things have to be disseminated by newspaper, but we add that newspaper and city website.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I will second that.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay.
[Maury Carroll]: All right, one quick question. I noticed today, too, and I don't know if this was by charter or not, that everything is also posted on a board in the clerk's office for the public to go in and see. I don't know if that's part of the charter or not.
[Milva McDonald]: It could be, I mean.
[Maury Carroll]: Is there a requirement right now that the clerk is obligated to post all meetings in his office?
[Milva McDonald]: You're saying is there a requirement in the charter?
[Maury Carroll]: I don't know.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't think there is in our current charter.
[Maury Carroll]: Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: I think that's part of open meeting law that it had to be. I think it had to be somewhere accessible. So that was outside of the clerk's office. And I thought that there was. It was posted also posted at the police station as well, because that's the only building in the city that's open 24 7. and then, I don't know, I think it was. Maybe when mayor came to be that she started using the city website. You know, and that became. 1 of the main methods of communications prior to that, I don't think I think it was just.
[Milva McDonald]: But we're talking about more than just city meetings. We're talking about other things because the charter references all kinds of stuff that has to be shared with the public, not just meetings. Danielle, welcome. Right now, there's a motion on the table that wherever the charter directs that something has to be publicized to the public in a newspaper, we're going to add city website so that there would be required by the charter to put it in a newspaper and on the city website. Daveed?
[David Zabner]: I don't know if I got any seconds, but are we just skipping my motion?
[Milva McDonald]: I'm sorry. I thought you had... Okay. Let's go. I thought you had sort of let it go, but I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
[David Zabner]: Yep.
[Milva McDonald]: All good. Then can you just state what you want your motion to be?
[David Zabner]: My motion was to replace the word newspaper with giving notice by publication in a reasonable and standard manner, which supports general circulation of the information.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, and that language is in the chat.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. All right. So. Phyllis.
[Maury Carroll]: We need a second.
[Phyllis Morrison]: We're not voting on the motion that you presented.
[Milva McDonald]: No, we're doing Daveed's first. We're doing Daveed's.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I'll second it. I'll second it. Yeah. And I'm saying no.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So we're doing Daveed's first. Um, Eunice? No. Uh, Anthony Andreottola?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Uh, Ron Giovino?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Uh, Daveed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Jean.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes. Did I get you, Rory?
[Maury Carroll]: No, Vanessa, no.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm also a no. So that doesn't pass. And now we'll vote on my motion, which is to where it to keep the word newspaper wherever the charter specifies it and add city website.
[Phyllis Morrison]: And I seconded that already.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so Phyllis, go ahead.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Maury.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Ron.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Daveed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Gene. Yes. Eunice. Yes. Danielle. Yes. Who did I miss?
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Thank you, Anthony. And I'm also a yes. Okay. So that's good. We got that passed. All right, so before we start Article VI, I want to go back to the tie vote that we had so that we can retake that vote. Danielle, the pressure is on you. No. Danielle, we had a tie vote, so we would like to revisit it. And it was under filling vacancies on the school committee. The current draft says that If there's nobody, if there's a vacancy and a candidate and the next candidate who didn't get elected and who meets at least 30% of the vote isn't available, then the school committee chooses the replacement. That's what we currently have. And the Collins Center made a recommendation that the city council do it rather than the school committee because the city council The school committee's job is narrow and focused on running the school department, and the city council represents the whole city and the workings of the city, so that they recommend that the city council do it and that that's common practice in other cities. And I'm going to let Anthony Wilson.
[Contreas]: Melva.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Oh, go ahead. I think Marilyn was going to do what I, but to clarify, it's the school committee.
[Contreas]: Yeah, it's the school committee and the city council meeting together. Together, OK. It's not that the city council is doing it. The school committee is there.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Did everybody understand that the first time around? Okay. So let's retake that vote. So basically what we're going to vote on is that currently we have just the school committee doing it. Now we have the school committee and the city council doing it together. That's what we would be voting on. So if you vote yes, you want, this isn't exactly how we did the vote last time, but we'll do it this way. We'll simplify it this way. If you vote yes, you're saying yes, it should be the city council and the school committee together, and if you vote no, you're saying no, it should just be the school committee. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay.
[Ron Giovino]: Can I just make a point there? The assumption that if I say no, I mean I just want the school committee is not necessarily correct. It's either yes, we're going to have the city council and the school committee, and move it, or if it's a no, it's defeated and we must decide another amendment. I think that's the correct procedural thing to do.
[Maury Carroll]: We're just voting up or down this one piece.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, let's see where the vote falls. So this is a vote to have the city council and the school committee involved in replacing a vacancy on the school committee. Ron?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Jean?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice? No. Phyllis?
[Phyllis Morrison]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony Andreottola?
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Danielle? Yes. Maury, did I get you?
[Maury Carroll]: No, but I'm a yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Daveed?
[Maury Carroll]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: And I'm a yes. So that motion carries. Great. So the call-in center will change that language. OK. So now we're on Article 6. Did anybody have any amendments that they wanted to propose to Article 6? I did. OK.
[Jean Zotter]: It's to section 6.2. Yep. The annual budget meeting currently reads on or before March 1st, the mayor shall call a joint meeting of the city council and school committee before the commencement of the budget process to review the financial condition of the city and share relevant information. Yep. I propose changing that to February 1st. is we had a range, I don't know if you remember, we had like 60 to 100 days and the Collins Center picked a specific date to be clear and more directive. But the new budget ordinance that the city came up with has the city council submitting their budget priorities on March 1st. And so it would be hard for the city council to submit their budget priorities to the mayor if they meet on March 1st. So they would need, I'm basing this on the city ordinance, which I understand could change, but just give city council more time to develop their priorities. We had a range, so they picked a specific date, the Collins Center did, and I'm just proposing making it February 1st.
[Andreottola]: I like just the thing is with that though you have to think about if there's a new mayor who just gets sworn in and in January and then being faced with preparing that in such a short period of time that you know I don't I think there needs to be a little bit you more time to do that. That's a significant piece of work for somebody just stepping into a role and to be prepared to present to the school committee and the city council and the whole city just within a few weeks of taking office. So that's just my- Sure, that makes sense.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, you both have good points, but Gene makes a good point about the budget ordinance that specifies March 1st as a date for the city council to, can you say again, the city council is submitting their budget recommendations to the mayor on March 1st?
[Jean Zotter]: Yeah, they're submitting their budget priorities to the mayor on March 1st. Okay. February 15th, I'm not wedded to February 1st. I just wanted to give some time for city council to develop.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. It says on or before March 1st now.
[Jean Zotter]: We could just leave it, but if the meeting happened on March 1st.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I think Anthony brings up a very good point though. I mean, if we have a new mayor, that's a very short window.
[Milva McDonald]: All right. Let's see what other people. Eunice, did you have a comment about this?
[Eunice Browne]: Yeah. A comment about this, and I'm going to say the same thing when we get to Section 6-5 as well, possibly. Melville, was it you and Maury that met with the CFO and Chief of Staff Barian? Yes. How do these, I mean, the charter obviously will overrule anything else, but how do these things jive with what they've told you in terms of what's within the realm of possibility?
[Milva McDonald]: Oh, I can tell you they were concerned about being able to fulfill this. But that was one of the reasons that we generalized the language. Because people still wanted to keep it. committee members still wanted to keep it, but there was a concern.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, I think something to keep in mind.
[Milva McDonald]: David?
[David Zabner]: Given that the city's year ends the end of June, it's surprising to me that they wouldn't be ready at the beginning of February to discuss how the previous fiscal year's finances went. So, and I mean, I guess that doesn't really say anything about whether the CFO could be reasonably ready by February 1st, but I would say that kind of regardless of whether or not there's a new mayor, I imagine the city staff will work on this. And so while I see the argument that it could be a lot of work for a new mayor, I feel like this is probably more of a here's where our budget is for, you know, for the year that ended, in June at the beginning of February. I think that's super reasonable.
[Andreottola]: Okay. It's not the budget that ended in June, it's the budget for the year, for the term. It's not a retro look at the previous year, it's a forecast.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, currently it just says to review the financial condition of the city and share relevant information.
[David Zabner]: Yeah, I mean, I guess even more so it's not anything specific. It's just requiring the mayor to show up and have a meeting. They could say vibes are good and fulfill this requirement as long as they have the meeting. So I think February 1st is much more reasonable.
[Milva McDonald]: And one of the things that people expressed on this committee and in the public was that they wanted more collaboration and they wanted more interaction between the branches of government. And that was one of the other reasons for this.
[Andreottola]: But it's actually they wanted more information. And, you know, you'd be putting, say, a new mayor in a position to to not have gathered the information that people want and need. You know, when we talk about transparency, you have to have the facts to be transparent with them. And if someone is not going to have the ability to gather all those facts in a short period of time, you would rather have someone, you know, be transparent and accurate. instead of just kind of coming out and you know just just having a meeting and just saying yeah things sound good and then be faced with oh look there's no transparency i mean it's good to be transparent but it's also good to have you know command of what's going on in the city. And to put that on a new mayor, I don't think is... And financial people turn over too with administrations. So you may have a transitional period that you're asking. I think the charter will be asking a lot to only give a month.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, first off, the new mayor thing would only happen once every four years if our charter gets approved. So it kind of makes it less of an issue. And also, we're not defining what happens at this February 1st meeting. I believe the first meeting would be a discussion of what expectations will be on the March 1st meeting when every department comes in with their requests. So to me, I think it's extremely valuable to get the process going, There's no budget that's going to be expected to be in front of them, because March 1st is when they make all their requests. So I'm strongly in favor of first business day after February 1st.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So I think, Jean, your original proposal, you said February 1st, right? I did. On or before February 1st, changing March 1st to February 1st. Okay. Thank you, Ron. Maury, did you want to speak? Maury, maybe he stepped up.
[Maury Carroll]: There we go. Yeah, sorry. Yeah. We talked about this after our meeting at City Hall. And what we were trying to do was to get the different parties together. I understand what Anthony is saying. Ron's 100% correct. We're doing a mayor every four years. This is not a condition of previous years. This is to review the financial condition for the city in the present fiscal year looking to put together a budget that would be starting in July of the following year. And so we thought, you know, only given four or five months was not enough of a to make a decision on how the upcoming budget should go. So we took this. I mean, February or March, I agree. I mean, but it's imperative that they all get together and that the different bodies know how close they are to the existing, keeping the numbers the same to what the budget was for the fiscal year they're in.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you. All right, we're gonna, oh, Eunice, you have one more point?
[Eunice Browne]: I was just gonna say I propose that we split the baby and go for February 15th.
[Milva McDonald]: Jean, how do you feel about that? That's fine with me. Okay, so we'll vote on that. But before we do, I just want to ask if the Collins Center has anything to add to this discussion about an annual budget meeting and Yeah, there were a lot of dates as I understand it in the budget ordinance, and that was a concern, was conflicting with the ordinance. So I'm glad you brought that up, but I would like to know if Anthony Wilson or Marilyn have any thoughts about this.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I don't think we have any specific thoughts. We, I can't remember that. I think we're aware of the budget ordinance, but I don't think we, off the top of my head, I don't have all the specifics, but we don't have any, I don't have anything to add. I'll just add, tell you that one of the reasons we removed the range, I mean, added a specific date is I think over time, the way to work operationally is that the administration would pick basically the end of the range. So you'd end up with a date by default, just because people want as much time to do these things. So that's just one of the reasons for picking a date, sir.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. I mean, I guess I'm slightly concerned about February 15th because the people who would be doing this express concern about being able to get information together. But we also, I guess, conflicting with the budget ordinance. I mean, the charter would supersede the ordinance, although they're two different things. I think they would both exist, right, Anthony? Yeah.
[Jean Zotter]: I think it's more, it's not conflicting with the ordinance, it's just the meeting is occurring at the same time that the process is starting at city council. So city council has no information. I'm trying to move it up so city council has- So that they have information for their march. Right. So I'm just trying to give them at least a couple of weeks before they prepare their budget requests or their budget priorities. Because otherwise, the meeting is kind of not timed very well.
[Milva McDonald]: Right. OK. I mean, based on what we've heard and what I understand, I don't know how much information they're going to get in February anyway. But yeah. If we're doing this, people feel strongly about it. And so February 15th, we'll change it to February 15th. That's the proposal on the table. OK? I'll second it. So does everyone understand what they're voting on? A yes is we're changing from March 1st to February 15th. OK. Maury?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Jean. Yes. David.
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Danielle. Yes. Phyllis. No. Ron, did you vote?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I did not. Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony Andriodala.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: I missed one person. I met with Eunice. Yes. Okay. I'm going to vote no. So, all right. So that carries. So we'll change that. Great. Anybody else have anything in an article six?
[Eunice Browne]: Okay. Just moving down to the capital improvement stuff, which I know pretty much I think the call-in center added all of that, which was nicely detailed. But again, I'll ask the same question. What we propose is what we propose, but how did Nina and Bob Dickinson feel about that? Is there anything that we should be considering there?
[Milva McDonald]: Maury, do you want to speak to that? Want to repeat?
[Eunice Browne]: The capital improvement piece, section 6-5, the Collins Center had added into that a good deal of detail based on past practices and so forth. I'm just wondering if there's anything there that we should be concerned about based on what Chief of staff and CFO said if there's any adjustments that we should make based on that.
[Maury Carroll]: I'm going to give you my true opinion is I kind of like this. I think we should stay that every individual operating government is going to put their own two cents in what works for them. And that's not necessarily what works for the city or what's in the best interest of the city. I like what's done here. I think it covers it. And I think it works for the entire city and not just for like one regime that's in there is operating at that time.
[Milva McDonald]: Thanks, Maury. I mean, my recollection was that there was concern about doing it annually, but... Yeah, they had concerns about, you know, what works best for them, you know, and... I agree, right.
[Maury Carroll]: But it's, you know... It's going to have what works for them. Let's, you know... Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: It's also was, you know, we're reporting as a communication secondhand and... I feel that since the Collins Center has strongly told us that this is standard practice and it's important, is that correct? Then I feel comfortable with it.
[Eunice Browne]: I'm with you. Did you want to make a proposal about that, Eunice? No, I was just concerned. I wanted to make sure that we had listened to what they had to say. Thank you. It sounds like we did.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Elections, Article 7. Anybody want to make any amendments there?
[Eunice Browne]: I had one question. I think it was under this section. Let me find it here. Conditions making a preliminary unnecessary. I messed up my papers. Section 72 probably. Yeah. Okay. Let's see what I did here. It talks about filing statements of candidates. I had to look through that a couple of times trying to figure out what's a statement of candidate. Do we define that anywhere?
[Milva McDonald]: You don't remember what section it is? I'm just skimming.
[Eunice Browne]: 7.2 7-2d okay exactly the candidates statements have thus been filed shall be deemed to be to have been nominated to the office um i mean i i guess so anthony wilson tell us yeah so that that that's um um
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I'm thinking of using a different word than the one that's in the language, but it's basically the paperwork that you're filing to say I want to be a candidate for office. So, you know, to sum up that section saying, you know, if only two people, I'm sorry, if, you know, pick a seat or a board position, however many positions are going to be available for that election, the candidates have to file a statement saying that they want to be candidates and appear on the ballot. And we get that from state election law. That's sort of like standard language. If only two people, I'm sorry, if only two times the available seats, if only individuals were two times the number of, I'll make this simple. Assuming that there's one seat available, and if only two people pull papers and then submit them for that to appear on the ballot for that seat, then it's saying there's no need to have a preliminary election.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, I was just I'd never seen the term statement of candidate before and I didn't know if it was like some big official thing that we should be defining. It doesn't sound like it.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, great. Anything else in article 7? Okay, article 8. Anybody have any? Everybody okay? Article 8, anybody? I have one change to Article 8.
[Eunice Browne]: Section 8.5, because- Can you put that up, Melva, because that article was mega confusing. There's an awful lot in that article.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah, my proposal is very simple. It's not complicated. 8-5, which is about recall. Let me find where the party. A recall petition may be initiated. I'm not going to find the language. Let me see. I'm looking for... Oh, here it is. It's down here. And there it is. It happens to be highlighted right now, where it says, from which removal is sought in the grounds of recall, as stated in the affidavit. So since the recalls that we're proposing are not for cause, I'm suggesting that we remove grounds of recall.
[Contreas]: You need to say why you want this person recalled.
[Milva McDonald]: I thought that you that recall, you could just get the signatures to recall someone and you didn't have to say why.
[Contreas]: There has to be a reason. You have to state that you're unhappy with something that the person did or did not do.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. That's not what my understanding was about recalls. Jean, do you remember when we discussed this?
[Jean Zotter]: Right, I do. And I remember there was, I thought that you could have like a no fault recalls type of, in Massachusetts. I thought you didn't have to have a reason by law here.
[Contreas]: No, recall is not defined in Massachusetts state law. It's only available locally in a charter. And you have to state the reason why you want this person recalled.
[David Zabner]: Why do you have to state the reason if there's no state law?
[Contreas]: Well, most charters require it, I guess I should say.
[David Zabner]: Okay. So it's not, so we can make that decision to have our charter say whatever we want it to say.
[Contreas]: Well, I think you're, you're, you're challenging. Once it, once it goes to court, the lawyer will, the judge will question it because he's used to seeing it.
[Jean Zotter]: I think what we talked about, Melva, was maybe some states you had to have, there were only particular reasons that you could recall someone. Does this sound familiar? Like improper conduct? Yeah. We weren't going to limit it in that way.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, what I remember is that we read some materials that indicated that in Massachusetts, and maybe what Marilyn is referring to is the fact that it's not in state law and it's just by charter, but that you could do recalls just with signatures for no particular cause, and said causes are not defined. But I think maybe what Marilyn is saying, and you can correct me, Marilyn, if I'm misunderstanding, is that it's going to come up at some point anyway. So it's best to include it.
[Jean Zotter]: And I was just, there's a difference between only allowing recall for particular reasons, which we discussed. Right, right. Not to do. But what Marilyn is saying is that there just needs to be a stated reason, but it doesn't have to be any distinction.
[Milva McDonald]: That's what it says now. Daveed?
[David Zabner]: I mean, I was just going to say that if you still want to remove it, I'm totally down to remove it. That seems like a pretty arbitrary requirement, especially because that seems to imply you could just say we want them recalled because they wear blue shirts. That's right.
[Contreas]: And we could assign that recall petition, but that's legitimate.
[Milva McDonald]: No, well, in light of this discussion, I'm withdrawing because I think, you know, I understand now the distinction and the reason that it's there. If anybody else wants to bring it up, they can, but I'm good with it the way it is. Nobody else has anything in Article 8?
[Jean Zotter]: I had one more just from the Collins Center. I was just looking at the recommendation that they recommend in Section 8 to be that every member of the committee received a copy of the solicitors decision. So, um.
[Contreas]: And I just that's every member of the petitioners committee, which is the 1st, 10 signers.
[Jean Zotter]: Okay, so I am okay with that adding that. It's in there now, right?
[Milva McDonald]: Is it? Oh, are you looking at the recommendation sheet, not the active?
[Jean Zotter]: Yes, the recommendation sheet. And I was trying to figure out if it's in there. Is it? Did we put it in? It's not in there. OK. So the recommendation is that we add it.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. OK. I'll second that. So what we're voting on is adding that every member of the committee received a copy of the solicitor's decision, and this is in reference to recalls, right?
[Contreas]: No, initiative. Initiative.
[Jean Zotter]: Sorry, sorry. And it's the decision by the solicitor, correct me if I'm wrong here, about whether the proposed initiative is lawful or not. Is that it? Yeah. Do I have that right, Marilyn? Okay. Yeah. Okay. Anthony Wilson.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: So this is, I guess, kind of a question for Marilyn. So the last sentence of that section, Marilyn, is a copy of the opinion of the solicitor shall be mailed to the members of the Petitioner's Committee. Does that encompass that suggestion?
[Contreas]: Is it in the document now?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: It's in the copy I have. It's the last.
[Ron Giovino]: It's not part of the changes that you sent that I'm looking at. Okay. I don't know if anybody else is. All right.
[Contreas]: So maybe we made it and then overlooked it. Okay. That's what it should be.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm having trouble finding it right now, but let's just look at it on the screen and then we can. So, we believe that it is there.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Well, I'm looking at my local copy. It may not have it on what you have. So, I'm just putting it out there to double check. So, 8-2 paragraph B. I'm going there now. The last sentence.
[Jean Zotter]: Says it right there. Okay. So, it is there.
[Ron Giovino]: Okay. I was looking at the comments. So, it's there.
[Jean Zotter]: Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: So, we're good. Yeah. All right. I'm going to draw. Great. Thank you. All right, we're good on that one. Okay, so we're good with article eight? Now nine. Anybody have anything? I mean, we had a new section added to article nine about the financial statements.
[Eunice Browne]: I sent it. thoughts okay and i sent everybody what the collins center reiterated about their recommendation so um i had some other questions about article nine before we get to that though okay go ahead um looking at the draft that we put together and notes that we had there was um and i didn't see this in the final copy that we got um We asked, as I had kind of read out earlier before rules and regulations, periodic review of ordinances, multi member bodies. Please use language that requires all information rules, regulations, recommendation reports, agendas, meeting notices, meeting recordings. to be shared with the public via all available means and require meetings to be accessible via all available means, i.e. live broadcast and recordings. And I didn't, I don't think that I saw any of that included in the, um, three relevant sections, um, uh, the rules and regulations, the periodic review of ordinances in the multi-member bodies.
[Milva McDonald]: Um, Anthony, do you want to address that?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yeah, I'm just, I'm actually just re-reading, re-orienting myself. I know that we, we did look at some suggestions, I don't, I'm just double-checking the memo, but what we wrote was to comply with... Wait a minute, are we in Article 9?
[Contreas]: Yes. Okay, so there's quite a lot in Section 9-7 that says that all documents shall be public record and certified copies shall be placed on file and posted on the city's website. And to the extent practical, all related submissions to any agenda item provided, however, that such, if such cannot reasonably posted, such as, you know, plans, development plans. the meeting men shall state when and where such admissions shall be referenced and can be viewed.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, perhaps I missed that. My apologies. Was it under the section on? 97 clause C. I'm just reading it, Marilyn. Okay, I think, you know, I don't know, maybe I was expecting, you know, sort of a standalone section or something like that. And then, so that applies to the multi member bodies, the periodic review of ordinances. I think Anybody else following along? Am I making any sense?
[Milva McDonald]: You're saying you wanted similar requirements to apply to other sections?
[Eunice Browne]: Right. Again, in the interest of transparency is to ensure that all of this, within any meeting or discussion of anything that any reports, agendas, but I guess it does fall under the multi-member body part best.
[Milva McDonald]: The ordinance, it says that copies of any recommendation shall be made available to the public at a cost not to exceed the actual cost of the reproduction. Yeah.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: My apologies. Anybody have anything else in article 9?
[Eunice Browne]: Did we have anything for the multi-member boards? Maybe I'm missing that too, but didn't we talk about residency?
[Milva McDonald]: I feel like we did talk about it and we voted on it and we didn't vote.
[Eunice Browne]: I thought we voted because our uh, approved for article nine, um, all appointed monthly member bodies shall be residents of the city. However, the residency requirement established by the subsection may be, uh, maybe waived by the majority vote of the city council upon recommendation of the mayor. The mayor's recommendation shall set out the reasons why said waiver is in the best interest of the city. Um, did that, did that get in there?
[Contreas]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: I think that would have been in, what's that? Multi-member bodies are addressed in another article. Is that right? Am I imagining things?
[Contreas]: Whether it's in their appointment section, whether it's in where the mayor appoints them.
[Phyllis Morrison]: That's what I'm wondering. I know we did talk about this though. We did.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm not finding it right now. So that language, Eunice, can you read it again, please?
[Eunice Browne]: uh, language for residency requirement for multi-member boards, all appointed multi-member board, multi-member body members shall be all appointed multi-member body members shall be residents of the city. However, the residency requirement established by this subsection may be waived by the majority vote of the city council upon recommendation of the mayor. The mayor's recommendations shall set out the reasons why said waiver is in the best interest of the city. And I know we had a long discussion about this.
[Andreottola]: I'm gonna have to look back at the minutes and find the vote where we voted on that, but Anthony- Isn't that somewhere else because we talked about the police chief not living in the city and I thought we went through this all.
[Milva McDonald]: What I want to ask is what section would that go under? Would that go under the appointment section or would it go under the article 9?
[Contreas]: Yeah, it would go in the appointment section. So it would go under the appointment.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So I need to just make sure that that gets in there. First, I'm going to look back and just refresh myself on what meeting we discussed that and when we voted.
[Eunice Browne]: We asked for it. I'm just looking through here. I think we asked for it to be included in section 9-7. Well, those are procedures.
[Contreas]: Those are procedures of the multiple member body.
[Eunice Browne]: So it wouldn't necessarily belong there?
[Contreas]: That's not a condition of appointment. Residency appears to be a requirement that you want to see with the waiver exception. So that would be in the appointment process. Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm going to look. Yeah, go ahead, Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Just a quick question. Did we actually approve Article 9 and we move it to this meeting?
[Milva McDonald]: No, we didn't last meeting. Well, it wasn't last meeting, but we finished it up. That's why we got the draft charter with everything in it. But we did have something added to it, which was the financial statements.
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I just don't remember a discussion on section 913, that's all.
[Milva McDonald]: I don't know what we... Well, we may not... If nobody brought it up, we didn't discuss it. Yeah.
[Jean Zotter]: Gene? We discussed the residency requirement on our June 6th meeting. And it passed with eight yes votes, one abstain.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so I will pull up that language and make sure it gets added to the appropriate section.
[Ron Giovino]: I just believe I, you know, my summer memory is not like my winter memory, but I do, I do recall on section 913 talking briefly about the waiver that the mayor has for her own appointment and wondering if that should be looked at. And I don't remember discussion on it.
[Contreas]: Well, we do say unless otherwise allowed by law or by this charter. And the mayor's on the school committee as a result of Article 4 of the charter.
[Ron Giovino]: So... Yeah, this is referring to having more than one city office or position of employment.
[Contreas]: Right, and the first clause is unless otherwise allowed by law or this charter. So your charter does allow it for the mayor.
[Ron Giovino]: But what it's allowing is that a... appointed official or an employee of the city can have two jobs and that's decided on by the mayor. Is that, am I reading that correctly, 913?
[Contreas]: The mayor has the authority to make an exception, but once again, the mayor would have to justify that.
[Milva McDonald]: So you wanna question that.
[Ron Giovino]: That's what you're saying. I don't see the checks and balances in that scenario. If the mayor says he'll be in charge of fire and police because he's a good guy, that follows this direction. If there's some other, you know, the mayor submits a name to the city council for approval or whatever other rule there is, to me, it's like, why do we even have, why do we even need an exception if the mayor can do this any way they want. That's my point. The mayor appoints a department head who's the head of DPW already. And they say, well, I want them to be chief of police and the DPW. And here's the waiver because it's convenient for us to have one person instead of two for the lunch menu. How do we stop that from happening? I just don't see the mechanism that is a checks and balances for it. That's what bothers me about it.
[David Zabner]: Yeah, Ron, I agree. I think it would be super reasonable to require that that waiver be approved by the city council.
[Milva McDonald]: Marilyn and Anthony, can you just speak a little bit about sort of how this kind of thing works in practice? Is the city council involved generally or?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I would say if we're talking about appointments to boards and committees, I assume we're not talking about appointments.
[Contreas]: No, it's a position of employment.
[Phyllis Morrison]: City office, a position of employment.
[Ron Giovino]: Right. So my example of a DPW guy filling the fire chief's job is potential that the mayor says, yes, and that happens.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: So I, well, I guess I would just make two points. And so I'd say to the extent that some communities have provisions about residency for those positions, they'd be in an ordinance, not necessarily the charter. And the one that I've seen, it's the way the waiver is granted by the mayor. And then they, you know, it's filed with the city council or just filed with the clerk to be available for inspection.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Right. It says it has to be a written explanation and a justification with the city clerk.
[Ron Giovino]: but it doesn't say it needs approval. It just says, this is my neighbor and I feel like I can reach out to him when I need fire or DPW issues. Okay, there's your explanation, fine. That's what I'm saying about checks and balances. That's what's bothering me about this.
[Phyllis Morrison]: So I have a question then following along what Ron's saying. If we get down to section 917, conflict of interest, does a conflict of interest in any way affect this section here? or is that two separate things? So the conflict of interest says all city employees shall be considered municipal employees under this and shall comply with the state conflict of interest laws. So Anthony in Maryland, does that have anything to do with this section that we're talking about where the mayor can appoint anyone where they want to be?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: So the conflict of interest provisions that we drafted for you that was sent over this week or last week was That's about financial conflicts. This provision is about residency.
[Phyllis Morrison]: So that's chapter 2688 of the general law. So that's residency and financial.
[Ron Giovino]: Well, Anthony, it's not really about residency 913. It's about an appointment of the mayor. and the ability for the mayor to say, well, even though he's the DPW guy, I'm gonna make him the chief of police.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Oh, no, I'm sorry. This provision is talking about, 913 is talking about holding more than one office.
[Contreas]: Yes. Right. And what this says is whether you should have a stronger provision other than just filing a justification with the city clerk.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: I'm just, but I'm going back to the question about the conflict of interest provision that you guys asked. That's right. That's different. That's talking about external. I'm not talking about that. I think that was the question I got.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I did ask about that. I did ask about that.
[Milva McDonald]: You asked about section 917, which I think to me, what I read is that it just says that the municipal employees have to comply with the state conflict of interest laws.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Right. But I needed to clarify that for me. if that had any impact on 913 we were talking about. I agree with Ron on what he's saying here. Do we just get to willy nilly, pick anyone and say, oh, you're my neighbor, you can have this other job.
[Milva McDonald]: So, Ron, are you looking to propose that we just delete the waiver or that it be maybe have,
[Ron Giovino]: I believe it has to be submitted. There's the two ways with the one you just said, but the way I'd like to see it is the mayor can seek approval through the city council for an exception.
[Milva McDonald]: That to me is checks and balances. You wanted to say that this section may be waived by the mayor with approval of the city council?
[Ron Giovino]: This exception can be submitted to the city council for approval. That way, it's only the mayor that can submit the name. It's kind of like the Supreme Court scenario.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. And I just wanted to hear from Marilyn and Anthony whether, you know, I'm just only interested in standard practice and whether that's typical or whether there's a reason not to do that.
[Ron Giovino]: Without checks and balances is why you didn't have it. Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't know what it's typical, but I don't.
[Contreas]: I mean, the 913 is standard language. Yeah.
[Ron Giovino]: I just don't see where you can stop it from being done.
[Contreas]: So if the committee wants to vote to require city council approval, then it can be changed. But what is before you is what appears in those charters.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so I guess my thing is I always think if something is standard language, maybe sometimes there's no reason, but maybe sometimes there is a reason. So I was just trying to sort of discern whether there's a reason to keep this way. And I'm just thinking about it. I don't know, maybe there's a scenario where it makes sense to fill this position of employment, fill with two positions with the same person and
[Contreas]: you know, whether the the situations that I'm aware of, where this has been used is saying, you know, somebody has a part time position. And then there's there's another position that's only, you know, 10 or 12 hours a week. And so you give that. So the person is working, like, let's say 18 hours, and you give them another 10 hours. That's the only way I've seen this used. Okay, never seen. I've never seen department heads, you know, combined. Um, because, you know, there would be political consequences for the mayor. Um, if that was done, and they would have to think through, you know, how that would be received in the community. But like I said, the only ones I know of have been these combination of part time position.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, thank you, Jean.
[Jean Zotter]: I'm just wondering about your proposal, Ron, and how that squares with, we decided not to have the city council be able to reject department heads. Um, like the, so it started giving them that power here, but not giving them a power.
[Ron Giovino]: It's more of a policing scenario that if it, it technically the way the charter is written now, if I'm, If I'm a mayor for four years, and my plan is to go teach at college in the fifth year, I don't really care what happens. So let me give you three jobs at $75,000 each, and I don't have to justify it to anybody. If the voters don't vote for me or they recall me for abuse, that's a different thing. To me, it just makes sense that those scenarios that Marilyn talks about make sense. a part time player getting becoming a full time in two different departments, an emergency scenario that we need to fill a position, but not lose a position and those things seem like they're justifiable I just want the ability to say. I don't anticipate battles. I anticipate, okay, we agree with you, just out of transparency. Otherwise, we may have appointments being made, sent to the clerk's office without any public form or information at all. So that's what I'm saying. I think transparency, checks and balances is the reason why I think it's important that mayor submit a name for approval to the council. And the council is then responsible for making sure that the voters are happy too by the way they handle that request. So everybody's accountable. I just want not one person who has the desire to be the approver of the desire as well.
[Jean Zotter]: Would we use the same language we use for like multi-member boards or the city council has certain amount of time to object? And if they don't object, then it's approved?
[Ron Giovino]: Yeah, I think that's a fair thing to do. I mean, I haven't really thought out the whole process, but yes, that's fair. Certainly that's fair.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. So we start by, you want to propose that we add city council approval to the mayor's-
[Ron Giovino]: I wanted to clearly state that it's the mayor's submission to be subject to city council approval, simple majority.
[Milva McDonald]: Uh, okay, um, would you be willing just to.
[Andreottola]: Keep it the same, just so the language is kind of the same that the mayor has to submit it to the city council. And if they don't, what do you call it? Uh, you know, uh, say, no, it goes into effect in 30 days or whatever, whatever we did for the. Number thing. So there is that check and balance, but we're not like doing it different than what do you know what I mean? Kind of keep it. Yeah. No, I agree.
[Ron Giovino]: Once it's submitted to the city council, they should have a timeframe, whatever that timeframe is in our other. other writing i'm okay with that they need to respond quickly because obviously it's a crisis situation that we're trying to resolve but yeah i agree with that i agree with that but only that the city council touches it to me is very important so i
[Milva McDonald]: Again, I feel like if we vote yes on this, I think the Common Center will craft language that would cover those bases. Anthony, is that okay? Okay, so we're voting on adding city council approval to the mayor's waiver on no person being able to hold more than one city office or position. And the city council approval would be a simple majority.
[Phyllis Morrison]: But what is the time frame? I'm sorry? What would be the time frame? Because that's an important consideration for me. Okay.
[Ron Giovino]: Whatever Jean would know, what was the time frame we gave? Was it two weeks? Or a month?
[Maury Carroll]: I think it was 30 days. I think it's 30 days we put in there.
[Ron Giovino]: Okay. So let's be consistent. You think it's less?
[Milva McDonald]: 30 days. Within 30 days. Okay.
[Andreottola]: Well, they could just not act. Exactly. They can just not act. They don't have to vote. If they want to vote, they can't.
[Ron Giovino]: If they don't do it by 30 days, it's approved.
[Andreottola]: Exactly.
[Ron Giovino]: Non-action is approved.
[Milva McDonald]: We got it. We want to say with the same process that they would approve a multi-member board person. Is that what you're saying?
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Ron Giovino]: I'm going to say yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony Andreottola.
[Ron Giovino]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Danielle. Oh, yes, okay. Dean.
[Jean Zotter]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Phyllis.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I'm going to have to abstain because I think 30 days is too long. I would go along with it if it was a shorter period of time. So I'll abstain.
[Maury Carroll]: Phil, it's just a little point of information. The reason we did 30 days is the way the current council set up the only meet every other week.
[Phyllis Morrison]: I understand, but- They do have committee- And honestly, Maury, I agree, but- No, no, I'm just saying- Okay. Eunice. Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Daveed.
[Maury Carroll]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Who did I miss? Yourself. I'm voting no. Who did I miss? Did I get everybody? I feel like I missed one person. Okay. Paulette has joined us. Hi, Paulette. Hi, Paulette. Hi, Paulette. She's on mute. Okay. Okay. So that motion passes. So we will add that.
[Eunice Browne]: Anything else for Article 9? I just had a question and a thing that I think we need to change. Okay. Under section 9, 8, loss of office, excessive absences. It talks about multi-member bodies. Does this apply to elected officials as well or no? I can't remember. It doesn't say it does. Should it? No. I don't think it. Who said no? Marilyn?
[Contreas]: Yeah.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, I don't think it can. Oh, that's why we have recall. Okay. Good point. And then my other. Point was in section 911. Oaths and affirmations for the office of mayor city council school committee and city clerk. And it says mayor elect, the city council members elect, the school committee members elect, and city clerk elect shall on the first Monday in January of each even number year meet and take the oath of affirmation, et cetera, et cetera. We don't elect a city clerk. Right. So I'll take that out. Okay.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. Thank you for that, Eunice. So that's all I got. The leading city clerk from 9-11. Okay. Anybody else have anything else for Article 9? Okay. Paulette, welcome. Thanks for joining us.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I don't know if you remember this, but when you first called this meeting, I said I couldn't come. Now that you elongated it, but I do have to ask you, did you do the school committee piece already? Yeah.
[Milva McDonald]: We've just finished up basically. Then we'll go back and ask you if you have any amendments to any section. But before we do that, I just want to check in and make sure everybody saw the language that was added about the financial statements and that the message that I sent you from the call center and see if anybody had any comments or.
[David Zabner]: I have one comment on the financial statements thing.
[Milva McDonald]: OK.
[David Zabner]: I think that the so this is F4. I feel like family members is maybe too vague. Um, and should either be, you know, defined in some way, or we should specifically say, you know, like family members up to, uh, you know, let, let, uh, decided by, uh, the city council or what, you know, by what's the word I'm looking for now.
[Eunice Browne]: We do define family, family members is defined, um, under section C. That's yeah.
[David Zabner]: Oh, then my bad.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, we read the same thing.
[David Zabner]: No, I, I just missed it the 1st time through apologies.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, everybody else good with that section.
[Eunice Browne]: I had just under the statement of financial disclosure part. Just 2 thoughts. The statement of financial disclosure form shall include the following and then it lists 5. Areas that it should include, um, my suggestion would be, um, should include, um, but are not limited to, um, so that the commission could include other things. Um, should they wish to, and I was just wondering how. Um, the 5 things that are listed there. How that compares to I know when we had this discussion and I had spoken at length to George King from Framingham, they're using, as I stated before. the state form, which is a zillion pages long, and as we all decided, quite intrusive, he suggested a more targeted form. We looked at the Cambridge form, and I was wondering if any of these five line items had been modeled after the Cambridge, A statement of financial interest, because it also seemed that there were other things on the Cambridge form that. Don't necessarily fall under. Excuse me these particular 5. Line items.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: So yeah, the short answer is yes. We looked at a number of forms like this across really not just the Massachusetts, but across the state, I mean across the country. So this was sort of the most common ones. I would say that. It's the, it's the, I mean, we have our, we sent this language and then we sent the sort of, I guess, cautionary message in addition, but number five really is meant to encompass other things. And since that it's the city council that determines. in a sense, how intrusive the form that the committee ultimately creates will be versus the committee doing that sort of on its own. But sort of that's how it's drafted. But the short answer is yes, it's drafted on Cambridge and then Whether other things are included beyond these, there's the four sort of defined categories, but then the fifth is the option that gives the city council the power to determine in the future other areas that it may wish to have included in these disclosures.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay, okay, that is covered. And I know, you know, it talks about, you know, who this applies to, the electeds, we chose not to include candidates. It has to be elected only the superintendent, the CFO, chief procurement, public works, any other municipal officers. So that, that means any other, I suppose, I would like to see, maybe not all boards and commissions in there. I don't think it's necessary, but certainly, you know, zoning and community development are pretty big ones, um, you know, and are pretty impactful in terms of their charge that the, what they're charged with insofar as their task. Um, but I guess the other municipal offices, they could then include those boards if they so desired at a later date. Correct.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Correct the language is by ordinance, so it would be again that by ordinance basically means through the city council to determine who else should be included in section E. Okay.
[Eunice Browne]: All right. That's all I got there. Thank you.
[Andreottola]: You said the caution, can you, with the caution, talk a bit about what you're cautioning us about?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: So with Framingham being the outlier, most places do not have this type of language in the charter. Let's not say it's not, it's not something people should do, but it's not in the church, usually by ordinance. And I, I don't know if I put this in my email, but again, it allows flexibility. I know that some discussion was on, you know, there's the work that comes into creating these forms. And so, you know, this is very sort of generic, you know, here we're creating committee, the committee's gonna create a form and it's gonna cover these areas. but again usually this type of thing that would be done through ordinance and not included in a charter which is much more high level and we again we recommend not having certain organs of city government specifically articulated in the charter sort of generally thank you but and and we haven't gotten any feedback from our elected officials if this is something that
[Andreottola]: they want to take on halfway as a group?
[Milva McDonald]: No, not officially. Maury talked to some former elected officials. Correct, Maury?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes, and they were, did something against it. And they just felt as though it would discourage other people and so forth like that on this disclosure and so forth.
[Eunice Browne]: And some of what I found in my research elsewhere was that it didn't seem to discourage others.
[Maury Carroll]: from running over this and gone over this. Why is this all coming up tonight? We had subcommittee meetings, we had radio meetings.
[Milva McDonald]: It's just coming up because we just got the language. We haven't met since, so we wanted to make sure everybody was okay with the language and with the language came this note that I shared. I just wanted to check in and see if people had any thoughts or comments about that.
[Maury Carroll]: I understand.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so we're good. Okay, so now Paulette, is there something you wanted to revisit?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Sure, so you probably already discussed section 4-2.
[Andreottola]: Excuse me, but don't we have to vote on that language for finance?
[Milva McDonald]: We don't. I don't think we have to vote on it unless
[Andreottola]: I mean, we didn't include it.
[Milva McDonald]: We voted to include it and the call and center created wrote it. We voted to include it, and then the Collins Center created the language. Just as the whole charter has partially been created by us and partially by the Collins Center, so the process tonight is to go through all that language and see if anybody has any proposals for changes.
[Andreottola]: So- I propose we change the language to zero.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so you're proposing removing the- The language for the financial reporting. You want to remove that whole thing from the charter.
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. I don't have the section number in front of me. I'm sorry. What is it? Off the top of their head. It's okay.
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: 9-18.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. Okay. So Anthony wants to vote on removing section 918 from the charter. Does everybody understand what that would be?
[Ron Giovino]: Just have a quick point for information. We took a vote, and by the rules of the committee, are we opening this vote back up for reconsideration?
[Andreottola]: No, I'm making an amendment that the language
[Ron Giovino]: you know we've already voted we voted that it stays and you're you're actually acting asking that the vote that was already taken be reconsidered not we voted yeah we voted to put it in the charter and but we didn't have the language so now we're not voting Once we voted, you can't amend it. You can reconsider it. And the language is a separate issue. Anthony wants to reconsider it. So we need to move.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, he's proposing an amendment to the charter, which is to remove Section 9, which, you know, is so. OK, so does everyone understand what they'll be voting on?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Did someone say no?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I did.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, Paulette, section 918 is the language that we bought that lays out the creation of an ethics commission to create a financial reporting form. So the amendment that's being proposed is to remove that entire section from the chart. Oh, okay. Okay, Danielle. No. Ron.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Paulette. No. Eunice. No. Phyllis. No. Jean. Yes. Maury.
[Maury Carroll]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Daveed.
[Andreottola]: No.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony Andreottola.
[Andreottola]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: I'll vote yes too, but it stays. Okay, so now,
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Paulette. At the last meeting, we didn't get to section 4-1, the school committee one, and the Collins Center had written The project team deleted the following language. In addition, the secretary is responsible for overseeing and improving the bills of the school department unless the school committee votes to form a subcommittee especially for reviewing the bills. Then they say, that's a quote, the school department is a large conflict organization. They should have a business manager or a dedicated financial team to monitor this issue and report to the school committee. The project team doubts that an elected individual would have time and specialized training needed to address this issue. So may I ask, did you guys go along with this recommendation or not?
[Milva McDonald]: Well, I mean, we didn't vote to change the language that's in the proposed chart. So I guess that means we went along with the recommendation because
[David Zabner]: We didn't have a vote one way or the other. We discussed it briefly and no motions were made.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: But Collins took it out. The Collins Center took it out. And they said, oh, well, there's a business manager. And that unfortunately explicitly is clear that they don't understand why the school committee would have a person looking at the bills. Because of course we have a financial person, and there's a further sign-off on the school department side where both the financial person and the superintendent signs off bills. But the school committee has always had the secretary, a designated person, which in Medford, it's the school committee. In other communities, it might be a subcommittee. And the reason is because we don't want to only be at the beck and call of what's being told us, but we get to see with our own eyes that list of what's being paid out. So I could go to the superintendent when I was the secretary and say, tell me, how come this retired person is collecting this money and this money and this money? Or tell me, why are we spending so much money on pizza at the middle school level or whatever? So it meant that somebody who wasn't in the superintendent's office, if you would, weren't just feeding us information, but that we could We had someone who was looking over all of the information. And so by just saying, well, they have a business manager, so frankly, they shouldn't have this. It undermines, it shows a lack of understanding. And believe me, I don't want to offend the Collins Center. I certainly understand that they wouldn't understand this level of detail, but it's not accurate. Now, if you don't like the sentence, I'm willing, the sentence could be changed in some way. But to just say, well, we're not going to include what the duties of the secretary are in the charter, to me is like, so why, you know, this is what we're doing. We're explaining to people what the duties of these people are. You look mystified.
[Eunice Browne]: I tried to explain this earlier.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony or Marilyn, do you want to respond to that?
[Anthony Ivan Wilson]: Yeah, I'll just say it's probably our fault in how we wrote the recommendation in the memo. We're not saying that the school committee wouldn't see the bills or anything like that. The school committee has general oversight over the school department. Our concern was with tasking one member, particularly the secretary, with that task. They're an elected person as part of this body that does that. And again, in other communities, They can review the financial information of the school department as the body. They can do it as a subcommittee. We were just concerned with trying to specify a specific individual on the committee to do it.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: But in Medford, that is the way it is done. And we continued by saying, unless the school committee votes to form a subcommittee, especially for reviewing the bills, because that could happen in the future. But the key point is that there's always oversight from the school committee to be able to look at the bills. The superintendent can't say to us, no, you can't look at the bills. or you don't need that subcommittee. And right now, for years and years and years, the role has always been given to the secretary. And so if you watch the meetings, the secretary gives a report, and then members ask about a certain thing, because they all get to see it. They get to ask a certain thing, and the secretary often fields the question. And if they can't, then they turn for assistance to the financial person. But to just take it out and not say that it's part of our duties, it's just inaccurate.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, I guess I don't see it as inaccurate because to me taking it doesn't mean that it can't, that the school committee can't still continue with that process if they want. But putting it in means that they can never change it until the charter is changed. That's how that's kind of how I see it.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: But, um, well, we did write it unless the school committee votes to change. So we did give an option, knowing that there are other communities who do it differently. You could also write well. you know, you could refer to the school committee's rules and regs. I'm just saying that if you're, you know, we're saying what the role of the chair and the vice chair, you've got another elected position where other members vote for the secretary. Why wouldn't you put it in? I mean, if it's unique to Medford, it's unique to Medford, but that's what it is.
[Milva McDonald]: OK, Jean, did you want to say something?
[Jean Zotter]: Paulette, I'm hearing that you have a concern that if it's not in the charter, the school refused to provide the information. So you're creating a checks and balance. Is that part of it?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I can't imagine that the school would, but that potential certainly exists. And to me, it's just, I mean, I just wouldn't. So we have a secretary. And we specify that they take the role of the school committee. They call the role. But we never say, I mean, their other duty is to do this.
[Jean Zotter]: I understand the Collins Center's concern, like Medford can keep doing it. They're not stopping us. We're just not putting it in the charter. We're giving the school committee the flexibility to determine whether the secretary would continue to do that. However, if you're concerned that the school would refuse to provide that financial accounting to the school committee, you know, is there a way to make sure the school committee has that power if we haven't written it appropriately so far? Does that make sense? Do we already?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I understand what you're saying. To me, I see it as the defining of the roles. You're saying, well, what if they change it? I think we've put a sentence in to explain that. You know, I don't want to belabor the point. I just think that if we're we've done this whole thing, we looked at all the roles of the school committee. This is a clearly designated thing. I'm running for school committee. I want to find I'm looking at the charter to see what it tells me. I don't understand what the what the secretary position is. To me, this adds clarity. Um, It has nothing to do with when the project team doubts that an elected individual would have the time and specialized training needed to address this issue. That sentence doesn't make any sense at all. The justification that the Collins Center gave to remove that just doesn't make any sense to me at all to say, well, we're just giving them flexibility. Okay, then how come we write what the chair of the school committee does? How come we write what the vice chair of the school committee does? How come you get to the secretary and you don't say anything? I don't understand that. I mean, to me, it's just, of course you would.
[Jean Zotter]: And I just wanted to, I think section four or five powers and duties gives the school committee the power to demand, request all financial accounting, because they oversee the operation of the annual budget. So they could do that however they wanted to pursue that. That's all I wanted to say.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: To me, it's just a clarification of the role. Okay, thank you. I think that's probably, we've done it for a long, long time this way. It's a clarification of the role. We didn't talk about, it's not really in our purview to decide how we're gonna do it. The way that it's traditionally done is either, it might be a portion of the school committee. We've not done that. But we gave leeway for that to happen in this charter. So I, you know, again, it just, I read it and I said, well, you know, how come? I don't understand it. Sometimes I've been bothered by us coming to a point of sort of saying, well, it's not in any other charter. And for me, it's sort of saying, well, this is something, if it is unique to Medford, it's unique to Medford. So we should put it in the charter. So anyway, I know you guys have been going on for a long time. This one obviously just stuck out to me.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. So are you proposing, do you want to make a proposal that we add it back in?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes.
[Milva McDonald]: OK. First, I just want to hear what Ron and Eunice and David have some comments. Ron?
[Ron Giovino]: Just simply being involved in this process. There's no better master of the subject than Paulette, who did this job for year after year after year. I think that the words that allow the school community to elect a suitable replacement process, it gives them the option to change this. This is the way we do business in the city. It's the way that veterans like Paulette are comfortable with. I think we owe it to that process that appears. Mike, one question for Paulette is, We also have verbiage in there that you serve a term of one year. And I believe you were like a secretary for multiple years in a row. Is that, what is your opinion on the, you know, you do it for a year and then you must pass it on?
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I absolutely think, and when we discussed this, we said that no person should do the role for continuous years. So you can do it year A, you can do it year C, you can do it year E, but that one person shouldn't have a lock on these roles.
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. So that's a different issue. But let's stick to this issue of the secretary's job description. Eunice?
[Eunice Browne]: Ron kind of said what I was going to say and what I tried to say earlier when we first went through this, that I the, I think the checks and balances piece is important. And I think, um, you know, we should be listening carefully to, um, you know, what Paulette says and, um, and she's right, you know, in terms of just because it hasn't been done in a charter before. I mean, we just proved that with the ethics part. Um, and if this is, you know, what works in Medford, then, you know, I think we should heed that. So,
[David Zabner]: I was just going to make a motion to add the language back so that we could move on.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Okay. I'm going to ask Melva, can you put the language up on the screen please?
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. Actually, I'm not sure I can do that because it's not in the draft charter. So I'm just going to read it. Right. So we're voting to add in this language. In addition, the secretary is responsible for overseeing and approving the bills of the school department unless the school committee votes to form a subcommittee expressly for reviewing the bills. That would be the section that we would add back in. Jean. I second. Okay. Thank you. Jean. Yes. Maury.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Yes. Phyllis. I'm going to abstain.
[Milva McDonald]: Eunice. Yes. Paulette. Yes. Did I get Maury?
[Maury Carroll]: Yes, you already got him. You already got him.
[Ron Giovino]: You didn't get Ron. You didn't get Ron.
[Milva McDonald]: Ron.
[Ron Giovino]: Ron says yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Anthony Andreotila. Did I get Danielle?
[Phyllis Morrison]: I'm sorry, guys. You didn't, but I'm a yes.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay. And I think I'm the only one left.
[David Zabner]: I'm a no. You didn't get me. I'm a no.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay, so it gets added back in. Anything else?
[David Zabner]: Motion to adjourn.
[Milva McDonald]: Paulette, did you have anything else? No.
[Ron Giovino]: I'll second that. Is there no public available?
[Milva McDonald]: Nobody's here.
[Eunice Browne]: Don't we still have the final report subcommittee?
[Milva McDonald]: Oh, yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Eunice. Yeah. The final report, it was sent to you all in draft form. There have been some changes made since then. We are going to have one more meeting next week so that we can send you a final draft. And then the next meeting will be our last meeting. What I would like to do is ask the call-in center. I'm going to send the call-in center all these changes. hopefully get a new draft of the entire charter and the final report, which I will send to you in advance of our October meeting so that we can just make those officials vote them and then we will submit that to the mayor. That's the plan.
[Eunice Browne]: So you said you already sent the final report once to us?
[Milva McDonald]: I sent a draft, yeah, so that you guys could sort of take a look at it. But you'll get a more final draft.
[Eunice Browne]: OK. I don't remember seeing the first one, but I could have just missed it.
[Milva McDonald]: You'll get a more final draft. And then we have one more meeting, and we'll be good to go.
[Phyllis Morrison]: Wow. I was right.
[Milva McDonald]: All right, so we're good. Everybody, we managed to finish before 9.30.
[Phyllis Morrison]: And we got through the whole thing. Yeah. I'm glad you made it. I'm glad you made it. That was great that you got to have your input in there. That's awesome.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, sorry about that. I have company, out-of-state company. Oh, geez.
[Milva McDonald]: All right. Motion to adjourn. Thank you very much.
[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, everybody.
|
total time: 43.38 minutes total words: 3629 |
total time: 8.73 minutes total words: 798 |
||