[Caraviello]: Good evening, everyone. Emergency meeting that has been rescheduled to tonight at 5 o'clock PM. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Bears?
[Bears]: Present.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Falco?
[Hurtubise]: Present.
[Caraviello]: Vice President Knight? Present. Councilor Marx? Present. Councilor Morell?
[Morell]: Present. Councilor Sterling?
[Caraviello]: Present.
[Morell]: President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Present. All attendance. The purpose of this meeting this evening is to discuss allegations of a legal and personal nature due to something received by the Council. The City Council has chosen to enter an executive session for this discussion. The City Council has also invited City Solicitor Cummings Cameron to attend this meeting. Do I have a motion?
[Marks]: Motion for approval, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Marks]: Yes. Is the mic on, Mr. President? No. Can you hear me now? Yeah.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. Like I was saying, there were 10 specific purposes. The first and perhaps the most applicable is to discuss the reputation, character, physical condition, mental health of an individual, or to discuss discipline of dismissal of, or complaints or charges brought against the public officer, employee, staff, or individual. That particular purpose invokes individual rights. And I want to be mindful of everyone's individual rights. So the individuals to be discussed in executive session have to be notified by the public body at least 48 hours in advance, They have the right to be present. They have the right to counsel or a representative present. They may also choose to have an open meeting and that choice will take precedence over the public body's option to go into executive session. So simply put what the council can discuss during a meeting, it's governed by open meeting laws. So I just wanted to reiterate that.
[Caraviello]: I think we all understand what can be said and can't be said in the executive session.
[SPEAKER_15]: So just to remind the council that there's individual rights. Yes.
[Caraviello]: Okay. Thank you. On that point, Mr. President.
[Knight]: Vice President Knight. So would it be the solicitor's recommendation to go into executive session at this point in time, or would it be your recommendation to follow some sort of notification process? I noticed that, you know, there's nine other reasons why we could go in and maybe she could shed some light on whether or not this would fall into one of those other buckets of, appropriate authority.
[SPEAKER_15]: Well, in my opinion, none of the other reasons would apply here. And that particular purpose does trigger individual rights. So I want to make sure that the council follows individual rights. I know you will. So I just want to point that out.
[Caraviello]: Thank you very much.
[SPEAKER_15]: You're welcome.
[Caraviello]: Motion for approval, Mr. President. So on the motion by Councilor Marks, seconded by? Mr. President. Councilor Bears.
[Bears]: Solicitor, thanks for being here. You're welcome. if we were to enter executive session per that category, would it automatically invoke individual rights no matter what we discuss or would it depend on what we discuss in the meeting?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, so entering into executive session, it invokes a 48 hour notice requirement to the individuals to be discussed 48 hours prior to the actual meeting taking place. Okay.
[Knight]: The motion by Councilor Marks, seconded by— So, in essence, then, what we're doing is tonight we're going to vote to go into executive session. We have to wait 48 hours before we do that because of the individual rights?
[Marks]: Yes. We're not discussing any names, right? We're having this meeting to sit down and talk to our city solicitor, right?
[Caraviello]: Isn't that— I will warn all Councilors that no individuals will be named. or positions or any departments or anything like that, I suggest that we listen to the city's solicitor first before any questions are asked. And take her advice.
[Morell]: But it's my understanding that because of the reason we would be using to go into this executive session, it's triggering that. So by using that reason, it already triggers that 40 hour notice.
[SPEAKER_15]: So our options. Right. So you wouldn't be able to enter into an executive session under this purpose without the notification to the individual rights that are about to be discussed. If that hasn't occurred, then you wouldn't be able to use that purpose to go into an executive session. We could have a regular meeting.
[Marks]: I don't understand why the city council can never meet an executive session. But the school committee every other week can, Mr. President. It makes zero sense to me. And why we can't discuss an executive session without returning an issue, Mr. President, which makes zero sense to me, too, and maybe cries out for the fact that this council needs to have a line item in the budget to have representation, Mr. President. for exact issues like we're experiencing right now, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: Again, as I've said, nothing, no names will be mentioned or any that we listen to. Mr. President, I move the question. Yes. I move the question. Go on. Yes. On the motion by Councilor Marks, seconded by?
[Scarpelli]: Second.
[Caraviello]: Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor?
[Scarpelli]: Aye. Roll call, please.
[Caraviello]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes.
[Falco]: to executive session for the reason that was stated earlier, we would have to give the people that are going to be discussed, individuals 48 hours notice, which means that the earliest we could go into executive session is Friday, Thursday, Friday.
[SPEAKER_15]: I know it's wildly unpopular. I just want to make sure that this council is following individual rights in the open meeting.
[Caraviello]: Sometimes we have to make unpopular decisions. Indeed. Please call the roll.
[Knight]: I mean, if the recommendations that we go into executive session, but that executive session happens, I'm just, I want to be in compliance with the law. And I don't want to turn this into an issue where there's an open meeting law complaint filed against the council when the nature and substance of the materials that the council received was so significant and important. Um, I don't want the, the underlying issue as to why we're trying to meet to be you know, taken away from, to be distracted by an open meeting law complaint that may or may not be sufficient. I know we've had our fair share of frivolous complaints in the past, but, you know, where it involves employee rights, I think we need to earn the side of caution. If that's the case, that's the case. But, you know, based on the fact that we did receive materials, that were before us, can the solicitor maybe provide us with a little bit of guidance as to how we can discuss this information while still protecting the individual rights of the subjects of the complaint? I mean, is there a way we can even talk about it without invoking individual rights?
[SPEAKER_15]: My suggestion would be to follow open meeting law guidelines. If you want to discuss this in an executive session, or even if you don't and you want to discuss this in an open session, you need to give notification to the individuals that are going to be discussed. They have the right to console or representative present, they have the right to have 48 hours advance notice of the meeting. This is all in accordance with the open meeting law.
[SPEAKER_07]: So, if the council elected to go into executive session for this purpose. How would the notification process take place would you be responsible for doing the notification with the city clerk be responsible
[Hurtubise]: Can I ask a question? So there is an agenda posted for a special council meeting on Saturday morning at 8.30. I have posted it in compliance with the open meeting law already. If I am to, would an email, would an attachment of that email to any parties impacted serve as notice or would it have to be a separate agenda, a new agenda? If I sent that, if I sent that email to the parties who were, uh, who, who may be discussed, uh, and said that you are invited, I'm providing this as formal notice with that sufficient or what I think it would be fine.
[SPEAKER_15]: I'll look into it more, but I'm glad you mentioned that because I'm not going to be here on Saturday morning.
[Scarpelli]: Mr. President, you know, I don't know how everybody else feels, but I think that with what we're hearing, and what we received and aligned with budget concerns. One glaring is what Council Marcus brought up, that do we continue with the budget considering what jumps to the top of my list now is legal representation for the council, nothing against the city solicitor. I honor and respect her opinion, but the truth of the matter is she still works for, she doesn't work for this department. She doesn't work for the council. So, cause I'm, you know, I trust what she's saying, but I also I'm questioning the validity of the other reasons to me. you know, personnel legal, you know, it just, it just, I, we're in a timeline with the budget, but I don't know if I'm, I, you know, I, I gotta think about whether I want to move forward with this budget. So that's what I'm saying. So if we can't meet Saturday with the city solicitor, with all this information, and without violating any open meeting laws. And this pushes the city business to a point where... Tuesday is the last regular meeting of the council.
[Caraviello]: And the budget must be passed or denied by then.
[Marks]: So Mr. President, if I could, then I was under the impression like when we had our emergency meeting on Saturday, That meeting was for the sole purpose of discussing scheduling. And we had a meeting. We discussed potential scheduling, which led to tonight. That's correct. I was on the impression tonight we were going to get some guidance from the city solicitor about potential next steps. And that's all we were going to discuss, potential next steps. Now, knowing what we hear tonight, Mr. President, I don't feel comfortable being in a room with other parties, Mr. President, without having representation, legal representation on behalf of the council. So I would ask that whatever meaning we do have, that we invite legal counsel outside legal counsel to the meeting to represent the method City Council, Mr. President, because I'm sure other parties and entities probably have their own legal counsel. Uh, and that is, uh, so I was hoping tonight we would get that, uh, you know, go ahead from the city solicitor to go ahead to whatever we feel comfortable with. Without discussing allegations, without discussing names, without violating anyone's rights, Mr. President, because this council is not in the business of violating rights, but we are in the business, Mr. President, where we're presented with allegations to make sure we take them seriously. And I think that's what we're trying to do as a council. But if my hands are tied that we can't meet, without I don't understand why a body, a legislative body that's elected by the people can't meet. And I understand the open meeting law. Believe me, can't meet to discuss with our attorney, Mr. President, next steps that the council will take. I don't understand that. And I still can't fathom why we can't do that.
[Knight]: So, um, vice president, I don't think that this is that is saying we can't meet. I think what the solicitor is saying is that we can need, we just have to wait 48 hours to notify the- So respectfully, when did we ask for this meeting?
[Caraviello]: Saturday.
[Marks]: No, when did we ask? We asked Saturday for this meeting.
[Caraviello]: Am I correct, Mr. Clerk?
[Marks]: When did we ask?
[Caraviello]: It was scheduled for Tuesday and then rescheduled for today. Yeah. Right.
[Marks]: Because the same solicitor said- So it's been, with all due respect, two to three days, and now we're hearing that we really shouldn't be meeting.
[Scarpelli]: Right, am I missing something? A point of information, if I can. What is the posting? What was the posting that was sent out? For this meeting? What did we send out? Can you read that back? The reason for the purpose of the meeting?
[Caraviello]: The purpose of the meeting, the rescheduled, the purpose of the meeting is to discuss allegations of a legal and personnel nature received by the city council.
[Knight]: So what would the notification requirements be if we were to notify? Does that be certified mail, certified letter? Does it have to be hand-delivered? What would the process service requirement be?
[SPEAKER_15]: I think in the past, emails or direct mail correspondence has sufficed.
[Scarpelli]: So if I can. If we were to retire an executive session to discuss the process of concerns of legal personnel matters without the topic, but just the guidance of what the process is.
[SPEAKER_15]: But that's what I'm giving you. See, the problem is you cannot enter executive session without a specific purpose.
[Scarpelli]: Right. I'm not, you know, obviously I'm not an attorney. I'm just, I'm not done yet. I'm just trying to figure out again, if it's not about, if it's just about getting guidance of the legalities of how to proceed, not to discuss what the process is, what the situation is. Am I not making sense? I'm just trying to figure out why we can't move forward with this.
[SPEAKER_15]: I think what you're asking is whether or not you have the ability to hire outside counsel.
[Scarpelli]: That would have been one of my questions tonight.
[Marks]: I know we have the ability because we've done it in the past. I was hoping to get guidance as the first step tonight.
[Morell]: I understand why it would be an OML violation to go into executive session as you're explaining it. I'm just frustrated that we're finding this out right now, as opposed to finding this out like Saturday, you know, when we had the time to invite the people. So that's just where my frustration lies right now, where we could have invited the parties to attend and had this meeting. But that's, so that's just where, and I absolutely understand what you're saying. I thank you for explaining it, but I'm just kind of frustrated that we're finding it out now, as opposed to earlier when we could have planned. I understand, I do.
[Caraviello]: I think Councilor Falco's first, I'm sorry. Vice President Knight.
[Knight]: So ultimately the purpose of us to go into this executive session will be to discuss the complaint that we received and the individuals mentioned into it, right? That's the purpose of the meeting. In order for us to do that, because individuals are mentioned into it, individual rights would kick in. So because of that, we have to give 48 hours notice. for us to meet, and we have to notify those individuals that they're going to be discussed and give them the right to attend the meeting?
[SPEAKER_15]: Correct.
[Knight]: Do we have to give them the right to participate in the meeting?
[SPEAKER_15]: They have the right to hold it in an open session if they so choose.
[Knight]: Hold it in an open session if they so choose. Okay. So, going forward, right, I think we're all, we all want to do something. We all want to have the meeting, right? We have the city solicitor here saying that there's a process that we need to follow, so why don't we just follow the process and get to it. So the earliest we could meet will be Friday. That sound correct?
[SPEAKER_15]: At 520, yeah.
[Marks]: 48 hours. 520 Friday. So how do we do that and have legal counsel representing us?
[Knight]: Well, I think the first thing we do would be we have the meeting to discuss the complaint and the individuals mentioned in it. The city solicitor will be there to provide us with what our obligations are now that we are informed of that. And if that means seek legal counsel on the outside, then that's what we'd be taking up the vote on that day, whether or not that's the direction we want to go in.
[Marks]: But there may be other legal counsel there as well. So we won't have any representation, and other parties may have legal counsel. And I don't feel comfortable being in a room without having our own legal counsel.
[Knight]: So then that might be right. That might be the vote that we have to take that on that Saturday on that at that meeting. Right. You know what I mean? What's that? What are our obligations now that we have this?
[Marks]: I don't know why we have to have outside parties in a vote for us to have legal counsel. Why do we have to have outside parties? Why? Why? Why can't this be done? Mr. President, can we do it just on the floor today? If you want to do it on the floor on or maybe you can ask the city solicitor. Is that something that we can do just on the floor today requesting outside legal counsel?
[SPEAKER_15]: You would need an appropriation to do so. But yes, well, we don't.
[Marks]: We don't make appropriations, so that would be up to the city administration. So, um, you know, maybe that's the direction. I just don't feel comfortable being here with parties that would not at liberty to discuss anything right now, and having them have legal counsel and us not having any legal counsel. Because it's going to get to be a very legal process, I assume.
[Knight]: I mean, I think that's what we're looking for ultimately, legal guidance.
[Marks]: That's what I was hoping tonight we were going to get, right? That's what I was hoping tonight was going to happen.
[Knight]: I think we did. I mean, I'm looking at it as we did get the legal guidance. The legal guidance we got was don't go into executive session because you didn't notify the people because individual rights kicks in.
[Marks]: Yeah, but that doesn't help us with an attorney. Right, that helps us not violate the open meeting law, but.
[Knight]: Right, and guides us with the process to get the meeting so that we can move to that goal of getting the attorney. You know, and we have to go through the process, right?
[Marks]: Right, well, I thought we were going through that process.
[Falco]: Mr. President. Mr. President. Councilor Belco. Thank you. So could we, if we wanted to make a motion to hire outside legal help tonight?
[SPEAKER_15]: You can make an emotion to request an appropriation for the mayor to do so.
[Falco]: And then it would be up to the mayor to secure the appropriation to actually go out and hire.
[SPEAKER_15]: Correct. Look, what I can tell you is this.
[Falco]: So we would, if I may, and I apologize for interrupting. So we would at least be making some progress towards getting to that point. We would have outside legal help to help us down this road. If we did that, at least did that piece tonight. waiting for the appropriation that comes from across the hall, I guess, but I'm not sure how long that would take, but it sounds like we could at least go in that direction if the council wanted to, if I'm understanding that correctly.
[SPEAKER_15]: Right, so here's what I can tell you, and I know my opinion is wildly unpopular, but I cannot comment on ongoing personnel matters. What I can tell you is that this is being handled and will be. going to an outside third party investigator, separate and apart from myself, because I understand what everybody's saying. I am part of the administration. I get it. I understand your trepidations, which is exactly why I have been recommended and will continue to recommend that this matter went to an outside third party investigator.
[Caraviello]: So you said that the letter that we received over the weekend is being handled by an outside investigator, is that?
[Falco]: That's correct.
[Caraviello]: Is that what you're saying?
[Falco]: If I may. Could you tell us how that process began or how that started.
[SPEAKER_15]: Sure, few weeks back, upon receiving a first email request by the Maya. She had asked me to look into just look into third party outside investigators to start with. I started to gather the information. Sorry, my mouth is really dry. I started to gather the additional information and then narrowed down my options, making sure that it was fair and impartial. Someone that nobody knew of, somebody that nobody ever heard of, someone that was separate and apart from the city, obviously, and made a recommendation. listed down to two candidates. And earlier today, the mayor had agreed to the first candidate, which was Attorney Green, I believe from an outside law firm.
[Caraviello]: So what's the name?
[SPEAKER_15]: Attorney Green.
[Marks]: Mr. President, are you able to outline for what purpose this private investigators being hired?
[SPEAKER_15]: All of the purposes that
[Marks]: are you able to? Are you able to outline that now before us?
[SPEAKER_15]: Unfortunately, I can't. This is out of my hands now, right?
[Marks]: So we don't know what's being investigated. We don't know to what extent, Mr. President. Eso I think that's why, you know, we have to do our due diligence as well. Um, you know, and there could be, uh, on multiple ongoing investigations, Mr. President. But I don't feel comfortable with that response, to be quite honest with you. Because I'm not sure what the response involves. And were the parties notified about this meeting that was held? Do they have the same rights to show up at City Hall? The two department heads, were they notified? Were they privy to this? Excuse me, Councilman Marks.
[Caraviello]: Mr. Viglione. Other side, please. With your camera. You know the rules. On the other side of the window, please.
[Marks]: Do they fall under the same requirements?
[SPEAKER_15]: What parties?
[Marks]: The parties that are involved. were they notified of, I'm sorry, of whatever meeting took place with the city administration regarding the hiring of an investigator with the, uh, it wasn't a meeting though.
[SPEAKER_15]: It was upon my recommendation, but it had to take place in a meeting, right?
[Marks]: It didn't just happen in the hallway, right? It was a meeting called meeting and more of a request.
[SPEAKER_15]: We never met on the topic per se.
[Marks]: Okay. Well, Mr. President, at this point, I think we should proceed as we were going to proceed.
[Bears]: Mr. President.
[Marks]: That would be my recommendation.
[Bears]: Councilor Biez. If we were to enter an executive session that was duly noticed, and we were to ask you what our next steps would be, would your answer likely be that you can't comment on ongoing personnel matters?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes.
[Bears]: Thank you.
[Marks]: So Mr. President, if I could, considering our next discussion is regarding the budget, Do we have to notify anyone regarding a request, a formal request by the council for legal council appropriation? Or can we just, as part of the budget discussion, include that into the budget discussion? Because when we offer motions on the budget, they're not posted in advance, naturally.
[Caraviello]: Well, this evening at six o'clock, the first thing on the agenda will be the law budget. the law department, because that was scheduled for this evening.
[Marks]: Okay, well, that may be.
[Caraviello]: You can offer that appropriation as a line item, I would assume, going forward. What information?
[Scarpelli]: Legislative budget, or it wouldn't fall under the legal budget, correct? So it wouldn't matter what we're doing next.
[Marks]: This is a legislative budget. Unless we create a legal line item for a council legal representation, which we can. And one doesn't currently exist. And what we were told is something that we can do as a council. We have that authority.
[Caraviello]: I'm always guidance from the floor with you want to continue on top of a spurs and a question for the system.
[Knight]: We seem to be an uncharted waters here yet certain one aspect of the complaints would surround personnel issue. Another aspect of the complaint surrounds financial issue. So The financial issue, I think, is something that certainly warrants investigation. And my request would be, through you, what steps do we have or rights do we have as a council to further investigate that matter where it's not a personnel issue? It's an administration, a government issue.
[SPEAKER_15]: Aside from requesting an appropriation to hire outside a third party, that's the only option I see. It's the only thing I can think of.
[Caraviello]: Can we add it to our council budget and the legislation when we do this department on Saturday, if there's no appropriation from the mayor?
[SPEAKER_15]: There's DLS guidance on this. Let me check it first.
[Caraviello]: Because I said, we haven't done this department's budget yet. And we could add that on Saturday as a line item.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[Caraviello]: Yeah. Yeah. All departments. But I said, we haven't done the legislative branch yet. That'll be on Saturday. So I'll assume that we can add that item to our budget and as an appropriation.
[SPEAKER_06]: No.
[Knight]: When an allegation is raised of financial impropriety, and it's brought to the attention of the council, what obligations legally does the council have in terms of action?
[SPEAKER_15]: Again, outside of hiring a third party investigator, which would logically be the next step, right? Because right now you have complaints.
[Knight]: I mean, we can't not act, right? So something's been brought to our attention. It's well documented. balls are not going to do something right where they're going to be complicit and the information received and do nothing with it or we're going to look at it right. So how do we do that how do we look at what how do we go about doing that as for this appropriation we're still not going to be able to be in a private session right. I mean it still has to go through the an executive session still needs to go through that individual rights process.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes.
[Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. If we wanted to, could we just refer to a government agency?
[SPEAKER_15]: Of course you could.
[Falco]: Like right here, right now?
[SPEAKER_15]: You could, but again, what agency and what are they investigating? Because there has not been an investigation yet.
[Falco]: But couldn't they conduct their own investigation?
[SPEAKER_15]: I suppose they could.
[Falco]: I mean, I think that's what, if I'm correct, government agencies have divisions that are usually there for that. That's their purpose. So when I look at this here, we all have the information that was given to us, that was emailed to us. And so, I mean, I look at there, I think a number of options have an independent investigation, which sounds like something like that is already about to begin. That wasn't originated here by the council. I heard there's a lot of talk of doing that, it sounds like. But the other option is just moving this right out to a government agency. To me, that seems like it's an option. And if I may just finish really quick, because when I look at this here, I feel like we have data, we have information, and I feel in some ways we're complicit by not acting on the data that we received. And I do feel that and there is some aggravation that we should have been, not prepared, but there should have been a meeting tonight to discuss all of this. And I understand the open meeting law and whatnot, but I also feel like I do have concerns, ongoing concerns, and I'm trying to be careful how I say this so I don't violate anything with what's going on in the four walls here. So that's why I'm thinking, If that's an option to outsource this to a government agency and that's what they do, we should think of that.
[Knight]: But on that point, Mr. President, I think it's, you know, the complainant's right if they want to pursue it through an outside agency that they can file a complaint there as well. I don't think it's the council's obligation to file a complaint for, you know, you know what I mean? If there's an individual that's mentioned in the complaint, I think, you know, the materials that were before us kind of spoke a little bit about pursuing outside agency investigation. It didn't necessarily indicate that that was the next steps that the individuals were going to take in these complaints. But, you know, I think we're going down, maybe not us, but me, I'm going down a slippery slope with individuals and this and that and the other thing in the complaints. So with that being said, I'm going to rest my case. I certainly would like to convene an executive session to discuss this matter. I certainly feel as though If it takes us – have it to give a 48-hour notice, then that's what we have to do to go forward and continue with this discussion that we need to have. If that's the process, that's the process. It is what it is. That's the world we live in. So I'm certainly open to moving forward in that direction. But I don't know what anybody else feels on this. I don't want to take any action that's going to effectuate impact individual's rights here in the community. I'd rather err on the side of caution. These are public employees that do have rights, and, you know, we have to make sure we respect that. So if it just takes 48 hours and a letter of notification, I don't see what harm that causes.
[Caraviello]: So if we would go there, so we would be able to meet at Friday at this time?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yep, 28 hours in advance.
[Caraviello]: So we would have to meet on Friday at six o'clock p.m., correct? It's gonna take me 20 minutes to produce the notice. Yeah, so clerk has to produce a notice. Well, then, Councilor Baxter.
[Bears]: Mr. President, I agree with what my colleagues are saying, that we've received documentation of a serious nature and that we should have some ability to address it. However, it does seem to me that that's in conflict with the legal role given to this public body under state law. And it sounds to me like if we were to enter executive session to try to discuss next steps, the answers we would receive in that executive session from a solicitor Scanlon would likely be the same answers we've received here and now. I guess, would you be, if we were to enter executive session duly noticed under purpose one, do you expect that you would be able to provide us guidance on legal next steps beyond saying support a third party investigation or refer it to a legal?
[SPEAKER_15]: What's that? Yeah, that literally everything I said tonight would remain the same.
[Bears]: And do you feel like there's any additional information you'd be able to provide an executive session that you can't provide here?
[Marks]: No. So, I mean... Let's go into executive session on Friday.
[Bears]: I mean, that's fine. It just seems to be that at the end of Friday, the result will be the same, which is, we can say that we want to support a third-party investigation. We want to hire outside legal counsel, which would require appropriation, which we certainly wouldn't have before next Tuesday. Maybe, amazingly, we would. I just don't expect that to happen. I just think our hands are tied here a little bit, which is difficult, but I just wanted to lay that out because I think we just need to be on the same page that we may enter an executive session Friday evening and leave that session with no more information than we have right now. So we might want to think about how we can act given the information we currently have given that reality.
[Scarpelli]: step. I say we move forward to Friday's executive session at six o'clock. I would invite the proper parties and make sure all of our legal responsibilities are in place and we move forward and get some understanding. Because from what I was told is that because this council did get something in that nature is something that we have to, we're obligated to follow through on our end. whether the central administration feels that they see something that they want to have their own investigation, that's theirs. But I think that that's our job as city councils. We have to answer to our constituents and that's why I'm, Steve, is your motion still on the floor?
[Marks]: Just one question for the city solicitor. Would there be any prohibition for the council to bring on free legal counsel? Like if we found an attorney that wanted to represent us without going through a process of asking for an allocation from the mayor, would there be anything that would preclude us from doing that?
[SPEAKER_15]: I suppose not. It's a little offensive to me, but.
[Marks]: To find a pro bono attorney, you say? You were just saying that we have the ability to bring on an attorney, right?
[SPEAKER_15]: With an appropriation, sure.
[Marks]: Right, so this is not reflective upon you, it's reflective upon us bringing someone on. And if the appropriation doesn't come in a timely fashion, then it doesn't suit its purpose. So I would say if we're able to bring on free legal counsel to advise us, right, Mr. President, at the beginning, in particular for this Friday meeting, I don't see any harm in having legal counsel there to represent this council, Mr. President.
[Scarpelli]: on working with the council for this issue to show up on Friday's meeting, is that acceptable? Is that the question?
[Marks]: More or less.
[Scarpelli]: I'm waiting for an answer. I don't know if anybody has an answer.
[Knight]: Mr. President, should the council elect to hire outside legal representation for the purpose of investing a potential criminal matter, what obligations would the administration have to cooperate with this person? I mean, other than providing documents that are under the over-meeting law, what other requirements would they have to participate in any type of investigation where it would be the same as an investigation because we're a public entity in a public body, you know, they're required to participate in this investigation that's been initiated by us. We're with the legislative body.
[SPEAKER_15]: I mean, are they required? I don't see why anyone would obstruct an investigation by any means. Employees are always cooperative, in my opinion.
[Knight]: You know, say the council hired an attorney to go and investigate and the attorney wanted to talk to somebody and the person in the city hall said, I'm not talking to you. No, you have to. No, I don't. I'm not talking to you. They're not compelled. Are they compelled to participate in any way, shape or form?
[SPEAKER_15]: Not compelled per se, although presumably be noted within the report that is provided by the investigation.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Bailão.
[Bears]: A few more questions. Do you believe we could convene in an executive session tonight under purpose five of the OML exemptions for executive session?
[SPEAKER_15]: No, purpose five is to investigate charges of criminal misconduct or the filing of a criminal complaint.
[Bears]: So it would have to have been filed, there would have to be a charge on file.
[SPEAKER_15]: Correct.
[Bears]: All right. Are you aware of how the current independent investigation is being funded? What line item is being used to pay for the existing third party investigation?
[SPEAKER_15]: No, it's it just happened today.
[Bears]: Okay. Do you know when that might begin.
[SPEAKER_15]: I would hope by this evening.
[Bears]: Okay. Yeah, I mean, to me, I would move that or I would, if Councilor Marks's motion is to enter executive session in 48 hours on Friday evening, I could support that as long as it's duly noticed. I also think we should move tonight to say that we support a third party independent investigation into the charges and that we requested appropriation for an outside legal counsel. I think if we take those three actions tonight, we're making a clear step forward within the constraints that we are under. by the open meeting law and general statute and the predicament of the city solicitor as part of the administration, which I think is a constraint on our ability to act as well. So that would be my suggestion as moving forward. I would also suggest that we move forward with tonight and tomorrow's budget meetings to stay on track with that.
[Caraviello]: on some oxygen. You have a motion on the floor.
[Marks]: I do, Mr. President. Just a question. Uh, when Kim, when you mentioned about giving ample notice, um, to the parties involved, who does that include?
[SPEAKER_15]: The individuals to be discussed and counsel if they so choose.
[Marks]: So who would that be? In this case, the individuals discussed.
[SPEAKER_15]: Unfortunately, I can't name names without violating individual rights, which is
[Marks]: So we don't even know who we're talking about then. I mean, no, really. We're in a meeting where we can't discuss names. We can't discuss anything. So if the parties wanted to waive their rights, they have the ability to do so, correct?
[SPEAKER_15]: Correct.
[Marks]: And would it be parties that brought the claim or would it be parties where?
[SPEAKER_15]: All individuals to be discussed.
[Marks]: all individuals. So you couldn't have certain members waive their rights. For instance, if the two department heads said, I want to waive my rights and the council has the ability to speak whatever you want to speak, that wouldn't be enough for the open meeting. There would still be a violation of the open meeting because the city administration didn't waive their rights. Do you know what I'm saying? There's two sides, one side saying we waive our rights, we have to get the other side naturally to waive their rights, correct?
[SPEAKER_15]: No, I'm not following that. If one party were to waive their rights, so to speak, which essentially whatever that means is they could opt to have it an open session completely. Is that what you're saying? If someone else were to waive their rights, but another individual chose not to?
[Marks]: Right, because there's multiple parties here, correct?
[SPEAKER_15]: There's multiple individuals.
[Marks]: Multiple individuals.
[SPEAKER_15]: That can potentially be discussed.
[Marks]: Right. So if some of them waived their rights and said, we have no problem with the council bringing this up, you know, we don't want to be present. We have no problem with them discussing this. That doesn't suffice because we need everyone to waive their rights.
[SPEAKER_15]: Honestly, I've never been presented with that question before. I'd have to look more on it. I'm not sure that's ever happened.
[Marks]: Okay, I'm just, okay, Mr. Pratt. I'm fine moving forward with the exec on Friday and the amendments that Councilor Bears put forward. I'm fine with that. So you wanna make, Councilor Morell.
[Morell]: I just have, it's a question similar Councilor Marks, maybe it's a little more. If parties are unable or unwilling to attend on a Friday, but they were noticed and invited, are we still able to, discuss them or no?
[SPEAKER_15]: No, not if they're not, unless they were to wait their right or to say, you know, please carry on. They're not able to attend. I mean, that's separate and apart from, you know, stating that, you know, carry on with the meeting.
[Morell]: So there's like a potential that could last for 10 years. We could invite all, yeah, we could invite all these people and we can't get them to come. So we can't discuss it anyways.
[SPEAKER_15]: Well, I would advise you not to discuss the individuals that aren't able to attend. but we could discuss the ones that are able to attend.
[Morell]: I know it's getting, I mean, we're just still just talking in numbers. I know it's getting, you know, we're wavering to the hypothetical, but because we're talking a number of parties, I just want to understand, you know, if similar to what Councilor Mark was saying, if some of them cannot attend, but some can, are we able to discuss those who are in attendance or can we not discuss anything? I wouldn't recommend it. Okay. So there's a likelihood that we put out this notice we invite these people we still can't have the meeting.
[SPEAKER_04]: Well. Information is present isn't isn't the open meeting what the requirements also around notice notice only.
[Knight]: It's we need to notify you that we're talking about you. If you want to come. Come, if you don't, don't. If you can't be there, you're not there. But I don't see why we'd be beholden to their schedule. We're saying, we're giving you the $40 notices provided in the law. The law says we have to give you the notice. That's all we have to do is give you the notice. If you want to come, come. If you don't, don't. Reach out if you can't make it and tell us you want to reschedule. But I don't think you can just ignore it and just wait for it to go away. I don't think that that's an option.
[Morell]: Is the representation about open meeting law or something else, though?
[Knight]: Well, I mean, the open meeting law is really about notice, right? That's really what it surrounds is what's it's about, you know, what needs to be posted in.
[Morell]: Notice within 48 hours. I get that, but is there another legal statute regarding representation that we're wading into? Or this is purely open meeting law we're talking about?
[SPEAKER_15]: This is all open meeting law that I've been discussing. These are all the rights within the open meeting law within an executive session.
[Marks]: I think that makes sense. That's not what Kim said. Right. That's what you said, but it's not what Kim said. What? He's saying as long as we notice people, it doesn't matter if they show up or not, as long as we notice.
[SPEAKER_15]: Well, I mean, you have to give proper notice. They can opt not to attend, sure. I think the question was- Right, but then you said we can't discuss them. Talk about an individual if they're not within that meeting. I would just err on the side of caution. That's all I'm saying, council. We're talking about individual rights.
[Marks]: Absolutely, but I'm just trying to figure out if we can't discuss them, then why are we having the meeting? Right, I mean.
[SPEAKER_15]: Right, that's a valid question.
[SPEAKER_04]: I mean, I don't know how we'd be able to identify who gets, so who do we, how can we right now determine who even gets notified to come to the thing? You can't, I can't speak about that. We can't name names, how does that work? We need a lawyer.
[Marks]: We have one.
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes, apparently not me. No, we have one.
[Marks]: No, no, no, it's not upon you. We need someone to give us guidance and I don't, So no, it could be the same person.
[Knight]: I'd like to offer a motion then that when the clerk does provide notification of the meeting, that I notify everybody who's mentioned by name in the documents.
[Bears]: Council members. I mean, I think we are getting guidance to be quite frank. I understand it's not the guidance I think any of us want to hear, but it is the guidance we're getting. I guess my question would just be, if we were to discuss individuals on a properly noticed meeting who did not attend, would the only, would there be an outcome other than having an open meeting law complaint filed against this council? Could the council be subject to litigation?
[SPEAKER_15]: Other than- We could be fined.
[Bears]: We could be fined by through the- By the division of open government. Right, through the open meeting law.
[SPEAKER_15]: Correct.
[Bears]: Right, but so, there could be an open meeting law complaint filed, we could be fined. Could other litigation be filed other than that?
[SPEAKER_15]: Potentially.
[Bears]: Potentially, okay. Yeah, that's the answer I thought you'd give. It's just an open question, right?
[Unidentified]: It is.
[Bears]: People can pretty much sue over anything. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: So, Councilor Marks, you have a motion on the floor.
[Marks]: The motion that I put forward was to meet in exact on Friday at 6.30, I believe, depending on the time now.
[Caraviello]: With the amendments made by Councilor Bears.
[Marks]: With the amendments made by Councilor, three amendments, I believe he put forth.
[SPEAKER_06]: I'd also like to further end the amendment, Mr. President, with addition to legal counsel, outside financial audit might be appropriate as well, whether or not there's a public account of some sort that we could also take a look at related to the finance aspect of the complaint.
[Caraviello]: So you have constant nights and also bears you want to repeat yours. Also bears you want to repeat your amendments to the clerk, please.
[Bears]: Yeah, my amendments. I think it's to it was that we support an outside third party investigation into the legal and personnel matters received by the council. And, yeah. and that we request that the city, that the mayor appropriate funds to the council for an outside legal council, council with an I, council with an E, respectively. My third suggestion was just that we continue forward with budget meetings, which I don't think needs to be a part of this. Okay.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Marksley, you comfortable with that? I'm comfortable. So the motion by Councilor Marksley is amended by Councilor Bears and amended by Councilor Knight. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Falco. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Knight]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Knight]: Yes.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Yes. Send me affirmative motion passes.
[Marks]: Uh, here and on zoom. Mr. President. Uh, who would like to speak?
[Caraviello]: Good evening. My name address of the record, please.
[SPEAKER_11]: Evening Councilors. Uh, Mike Durham, director of veteran services, 85 George V has to drive from 100. Um, just been advised by my attorney to let you know that we are totally fine with you proceeding in an open forum. Um, I believe Alicia is on the zoom call right now to confirm that as well. And, uh, our attorneys in route so you can speak to him directly. Do you have any questions for me? Um, questions for Mike.
[Knight]: just to let you know that we're going to be convening in 48 hours time to discuss the matter in an executive session. We're going to be notifying you and your counsel as well as other individuals mentioned in the complaint as to the time and date of the meeting and we hope to see you there.
[Bears]: without getting into specifics, that I think we all take these, the documents that we received very seriously. And personally, I would just thank both of you for your work for the city. I don't think I can say more than that right now, but we take this seriously.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Any further questions? Alicia, did you want to speak? Mr. Clerk, could you please unmute Alicia Downey, please? She's up on the top. She's on her iPhone. I see a picture of her.
[Nunley-Benjamin]: Good afternoon, councillors. I echo what Michael said and I heard what was said in the council and I did receive the email for the open meeting law notice that went to everyone along with the posting that the clerk did. So we are aware and we do waive.
[Caraviello]: Okay. Thank you. So we're going to reschedule this for Friday, correct? To protect all parties? Yes, Mr. President. The clerk is going to go downstairs and do a filing for Friday.
[Marks]: Mr. President, just to clarify, if we could, even if we wanted to discuss this in an open meeting, I think the city solicitor said all parties had to agree. Is that correct? Okay. So, so even though some of the parties are waiving their rights, Mr. President, I believe all parties have to be notified. That's 48 hour notice. So, um, that's going to preclude us from discussing this at a public session. Sure. I shouldn't.
[Hurtubise]: I asked the city solicitor for some help in, in, uh, making sure that I provide this notification in the proper way, because I don't want, I want to make sure that rights are protected here. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_11]: Go back. I just wanted to say that, um, there was enough time to hire an independent investigator and have outside consultations. But, um, I guess not enough time to appear before this body tonight. Uh, I understand your decision, but I want you to know I'm happy to have this out in the open. Everything looks better in the light. Thank you. Thank you.
[Caraviello]: Okay. So Mr. Clerk, I know you're behind the gun right now.
[Falco]: Can I ask one last question? It's actually for the city solicitor. If I may, I believe you mentioned that there was an attorney already hired to spearhead an investigation. So with that attorney that was hired How do we know that there aren't any conflicts in the hiring, I guess? Okay, so you did the due diligence to just go through the process and make sure that they had no conflicts with regard to what they were going to be investigating and who they were going to be investigating.
[Marks]: Mr. President, as I stated, we don't know the scope of the investigation either. Right. Right. So we know there's an investigation. We don't know to what extent. And I think that should be something that, you know, we're made aware of, Mr. President.
[Bears]: Mr. President, would it be possible for this council to receive a documentation of the scope of the third party investigation or whatever agreement has been entered into with the investigator? No, no, no, I gotcha.
[Falco]: If I may, if I may, Councilor Bears, could you? Councilor Bears, if you could please repeat that question, I didn't quite hear it.
[Bears]: It was, is it possible that the council could receive a copy of the scope provided or requested by, of the third party investigator or a copy of any legal, you know, legal agreement, memorandum of understanding, whatever the document might be, contract between the city and the third party investigator.
[Hurtubise]: What was the solicitor's response?
[SPEAKER_15]: I think it's fine. I'm not sure it would state. I'm not sure I would have anything in writing at this particular time that would state the scope. It was more of a verbal conversation. What I could provide is a letter of retainer, I suppose, but it wouldn't specify your particular question.
[Caraviello]: Well, it comes to this question. The independent counsel is obviously charged with some uh duties or scope so all right there has to be something and the same has been true mr president with other investigations done in the community uh and the attorney wasn't hired just to do nothing so they've they've been charged with some scope i i mean i would respect the scope would be to conduct an independent investigation based upon the information that i provided right
[Bears]: I guess I would just respect the request, whatever, any written agreements entered into between the city and the investigator, either that have already been entered into or that will be entered into, be provided to the council, a copy be provided to the council. And then I'd make that a formal motion.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Bess, seconded by Councilor Morell. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. All right. Okay, Mr. Clerk. Motion to adjourn?
[Marks]: Motion to adjourn, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: On the motion by council, motion to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Bears. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. For those in the audience, the clerk is going to need a few minutes to get some stuff done. So we're probably going to be delayed about 30 minutes, OK?
|
total time: 6.36 minutes total words: 904  |
total time: 6.6 minutes total words: 1037  |
total time: 1.82 minutes total words: 365  |
total time: 10.73 minutes total words: 1788  |
|
total time: 8.19 minutes total words: 1670  |
total time: 4.11 minutes total words: 534  |
total time: 3.76 minutes total words: 590  |
|