[Milva McDonald]: Test one, two.
[Tseng]: Governance Committee, January 22nd, 2025. Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll?
[Hurtubise]: President Bears. Present. Vice President Collins. I see Vice President Collins. I'm gonna mark her as present because I can see her. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Scarpelli. Present.
[Tseng]: chair say present five present non absent. The meeting is called to order. Today we'll be discussing resolution 24-468 resolution to discuss updates to the city charter. This is one of three scheduled substantive charter. charter review meetings where we will review the recommendations sent to us by the mayor's office of the work that the Charter Study Committee has done. I know the chair of the Charter Study Committee is in the audience with us today. I did send out an official invite to this meeting through the CSC email address. I was thinking, because we have so much to work through, and just to remind folks at home, what we have to talk about today is the preamble, article one, discussing incorporation, short title definitions, article two about the legislative branch, and article nine, general provisions, section 9-6, which concerns itself with ordinances and the legislative branch as well, which is why it's in this meeting. Because there's so much to review and talk about today, I was thinking that we could cover the sections in order in the city charter draft that was sent to us. and take composition and compensation at the end, because those, I expect, will be very substantive discussions with a lot of input and discussion required. And I don't want the small but very important things to get lost in the substance. With that being said, do councillors have any opening thoughts or thoughts on the preamble or article one of the draft city charter? Yes. Let me make sure I can see. I should also note that we have representatives from the Collins Center today in the audience with us, too, to work through substance questions. Yep. President Bears.
[Bears]: Sorry, I missed that. Thank you chair saying, um, I want to, uh, thank my colleagues. Thank you for putting together these meetings. Thank the members of the charter study committee, the mayor and the Collins center for their work up to this point. Um, and especially for those who are here tonight, as well as member of the public members of the public who are interested in this topic. Um, we are, And I think I've said this a few times now, we're working on all three of the big three that Councilor Knight once told me the city council is responsible for this term. We've passed a budget ordinance and a budget, and we have another budget coming up. Obviously we are in, I think meeting 18 or 19 of the term of the planning and permitting committee regarding zoning updates. And we are here tonight on the charter. which is the foundational document for our community. And we are looking at the first update in nearly 40 years and bringing us into, I would say, the modern age of city charters based on what we're looking at here and before us with the proposal from the Charter Study Committee revised by the mayor. And by and large, I think this proposal is a really great proposal, a charter that the people can understand and something that I wholeheartedly support as a whole. Last week I submitted to the council and shared with the public very openly a series of amendments that I would like to propose for discussion tonight by this committee. And I am hopeful for the consideration and moving forward on them. But I also just want to note that part of the reason that I went about this the way that I did is that there have been fantastic discussions from multiple people all over the Internet talking about what they would like to see, what they wouldn't like to see, bringing forward new ideas that have added to my knowledge base and that I am going to bring to the discussions that we have tonight. As regards to the first article and the sections within it, I want to thank the study committee for putting together a thoughtful preamble. I really think it represents what our community is, as well as its rich history, as it says right in here, our city's rich history and where we want to go and what the purpose of a charter is. As regards to the rest of the article one and sections, I did have a couple of minor proposals around the definitions, but they do relate to the proposal around the composition of the city council. So I will not make any motions or discuss them at this time, but we'll discuss them when that topic comes up for the chair. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Councilor Lazzaro is next in the queue.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. I just want to acknowledge that from the perspective of one of my previous modes of employment was writing and having a really solid draft that is so foundational and so well-written and well-studied and has so much work that's put into it. I'm so grateful to have this to start with and so grateful to the committee and all of the work that they've put in. I agree that the preamble is really lovely. The first article, I don't have anything that I would want to edit, but I just really appreciate everything that we have to start with. I have a lot of things that I'd like to say later on tonight, but there's, I just, it's so much easier to start doing further work when you have something that's really good to begin with. And I just want to say thank you to the Charter Study Committee for that grueling work, all of that research, all of those conversations with the public, and all of the work that they did at the Collins Center, and express my gratitude for that. So thank you all very much.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng. I first want to acknowledge the fact that as one councilor, I was, when I first started my journey as a city councilor, I was firmly behind the charter change charter review. And as we started moving forward and we started seeing some of the changes and what it can impact, my biggest The piece that really turned me around to vote against the charter review at the time was really looking at ward representation. And I think it's because of working in a community that has ward representation and really having some situations where you saw the input of ward representation being looked at in some cases as special interests from section of the city to section of the city, but not what's best for the whole community. So I found myself being very stubborn and stuck on my beliefs. And what I think I needed to do was take a step back. And I know that reading all the information that Mr. McDonald's team has done with the charter review and talking to Mr. Jovino and different members of the committee and then reaching out to different colleagues from neighboring communities that have ward representation and truly understanding the positive impacts. And I think that I was so narrow-minded, my thinking at the time was so narrow-minded that I really need to expand and really look at the greater picture. And as I see this presentation, I realized that You know, if I could turn the clock back and if I could have helped by moving this forward back a few years ago when the commitment for the council was needed, I think I would do that today. But what I see in place is so impressive in the fact that we have people that were committed that reached out to probably one of the greatest support teams with the Collins Center and someone who I respect in the world of municipalities, former alderman in Melrose and former city solicitor Frank Wright and listening and answering, listening to how he's answering the questions and his team and I think that this is a great great situation right now. I love what we have, what we've crafted. I have some reservations as well, but I know my colleagues have shared some, and I think that the biggest takeaway from this is I'm a huge advocate now for 11 councils. I'm a huge advocate for ward representation for all eight wards. You realize as I talk to as I talk to people, even in the city of Medford, and we talk about getting people involved in the election process. And as I sit with marginalized people and they say, George, you know what? It's easy for you. You have a base. So when you run at large, it's easy for you to raise $20,000. It's easy for you to say you represent everybody, because I think I've done that. I wouldn't ever take away that I represented everybody in the city. And if I ever ran, if it was the time that I ran, I probably would run at large just for the fact that I enjoy the whole community, that whole battle. But talking to my fellow colleagues in neighboring communities, you understand how important it is for mostly marginalized people that have been underrepresented. And right now there's a battle going on in another room talking about zoning reform at Salem Street. And as a person who grew up off of Salem Street, my former neighbors have called me and said, George, why wouldn't you want ward representation with every ward considering Shame on you, because we didn't hear from you at Salem Street when it came to the ward. We felt like we weren't listened to. And this is why now it's a battle with the Salem Street zoning situation. And we're seeing that in pockets all over the community. What we're seeing at Tufts University with the 10-story building, how it's affecting that community. And I've talked to friends and neighbors there at St. George. Here we go again. The charter review is important because if we had a representative that we can go into in our own backyard that we see every day at the coffee shop, then it wouldn't, the information wouldn't have been getting out there. And one of the biggest things I've had, the negative pieces I've had is a lack of information that's going out to the community because the lack of a written newspaper, the lack of true communication across the board. And one piece that I found that made me feel secure in my process as I go forward with this is the thought process saying, you know what, we might not have a newspaper. but everybody in every small pocket of our community now will have someone that they feel like they can call. And so there are so many things I've learned, and like, again, I'm a big boy now, and I've learned a lot, good and bad, and I wish I could turn back the clock on some of the decisions I made, but when I see the information that's in front of us, I'm really excited. I'm really excited and I commend all of you for all the hard work that you've done. And again, if you've ever felt that I was an enemy to the cause, I don't think I was educated. I didn't educate myself to the cost because I was stubborn. So what I see in front of me right now, I can't wait to get this through. I can't wait to get this to the legislature. I can't wait to come back so we can get this on the ballot and see all these great changes. And I think we see a lot of things that aren't working in Medford and the divide in Medford. A lot of it's because we haven't done this, right? you're seeing how important word representation is across the Commonwealth. And it's time to, like I said to, my wife and I were talking, I said, Jesus, Dina, she says, it's time for me to grow up and put my big boy pants on and say, hey, listen, this is a great proposal and let's do everything we can to move it forward. So again, I commend your charter review team and our friends from the Collins Center, they've done so much work. are the actual experts in this field. And I think guided this platform to a very robust discussion. And again, so I could talk a buzzard off a meat wagon. So I just thank you. All right.
[Tseng]: I see President Bears has requested, but I wanted to make sure other city councilors had a chance to give comments first. Just to clarify, we're talking about the preamble and article one. Okay, I see none. President Bears.
[Bears]: I just wanted to also, I was remiss to not thank the Collins Center. They worked up a great comparison document that we received the other, I think yesterday or the day before, comparing what's in the current charter to the proposal. So I just wanted to thank the team at the Collins Center for putting that together. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Yes, thank you so much for that. That was very, very helpful. With Article 1, I did actually have one question about, a definition. I don't know if Chair McDonald or Collin Center, this is something you guys can help answer. I see that there's a definition here for local newspaper when you control F through it. There's some references to local newspapers, some references to local news publications. Um, I know substantively a lot of that shows up later on and like in subjects will cover in future meetings, but seeing that they're going to be spread through two different meetings, I was, I'd be remiss not to ask if that is some language that we should align through the charter document local newspaper versus local news publication. And in the definition itself for local newspaper it talks about newspapers with daily or weekly circulation and given the state of local news media. I didn't know whether requiring that is something that would eventually hold us up if local news sources were to disappear. I know there are folks at home, folks in the city working on creating local news sources, but I know those are still just in the works. Thank you. And if you can, could you give us your name and address for the record? And could you spell your name just so we can get it correctly? Thank you.
[Wright]: We can certainly take a look at, and if there is some disparity between the use of those terms within the draft document, we can certainly revisit that. To the extent your question relates to whether or not there is such a newspaper, generally, so long as a newspaper is available in the community, so that would include the Boston Papers, that would satisfy the legal requirement. There are often statutory requirements to publish in a local newspaper, particularly you've probably seen them for zoning or for probate in the state issues. And so those can be either if you have a local Medford Mercury or if, taking you back a few years, the old Medford Mercury, or you could use a Boston newspaper as well, the Globe or the Herald. So I don't know if that, I hope that's helpful.
[Tseng]: Yeah, that helps a lot with the question. Thank you so much. Before we move on to article two about the legislative branch, are there any other questions or comments, motions about article one? Seeing none, let's move on to Article 2. As the first section is about composition, I'll skip over that really quickly and move on to section 2-2, Council President and Vice President Election Terms and Hours. Do any councilors have any questions, comments, or motions about this section of the city charter? I just had a question for the Collins Center, if you guys already can answer this. Is it normal to put very specific powers and duties for the city council president in the city charter? I know something that the Charter Study Committee has been talking about is how currently in Medford, So many of these things are in separate places. And something that will help us understand the charter review process better is if this is something that is normally in a city charter.
[Contreas]: The answer is yes.
[Tseng]: Great. Thank you. Oh, could we get your name and address for the record, too?
[Contreas]: Maryland Country is the concept.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Do we foresee any trouble with the phrase, the president shall prepare the agenda, in terms of, I know currently the president works with the clerk's office to prepare the agenda. Is that something I know textually, that seems like this is the current language is quite limiting. Is this something that has been discussed before in terms of whether that would be a problem, the president working with other people, not Councilors, to prepare the council agenda?
[Contreas]: This is kind of generic language, and it certainly doesn't forbid involving the clerk.
[Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Bears]: I see President Bears. You can go to Councilor Scarpelli. Oh, OK. George, give me a second. Yeah, no problem. Great.
[Tseng]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. Thank you, Council Bears. I know that as I went through my notes, I did have a note. And correct me if we'll go back to this again. I was a little preoccupied. As we started looking into composition of terms of office and eligibility, I wanted to ask the Collins Center, I think that one of the constituents, people that have read this and called and asked opinions, with the mayor's four-year term, and the council too, and school committee too, the question they brought up, I said, well, let me ask if it's common, you see that two years really sometimes prohibits true government because you see that it's so short that you're finding that you're always politicking instead of doing what's right. And the question is, has that been entertained? Have you seen other communities do a three-year term where it's a two-year for school committee, three-year term for the council, and then four-year term for the mayor? It's just something that was asked of me, and I just wanted to get your opinion on that.
[Contreas]: Well, a three-year term is very difficult.
[Tseng]: Yeah.
[Contreas]: Oh, thank you.
[Tseng]: Give me one sec.
[Contreas]: You're good. OK. A three-year term is very difficult because you can't have a municipal election in the same year as a presidential. Actually, a state election.
[Hurtubise]: OK, state election. All right.
[Contreas]: We have communities that have three-year terms, but their elections are in June, so that they don't conflict with the dates of the state primary or the state election.
[Scarpelli]: That's great input. I appreciate that. I see what they mean. I understand what the two-year term is difficult, because it seems like you really, once you get going, as an elected official, then all of a sudden you have people that you've promised so much to and they've come to you and said, now it feels like you truly are looking at times at the greater picture of an elected official. That's what's the greater good of the community. So I appreciate the input and that's something I'll share with them if they're not watching tonight. So thank you.
[Bears]: see you president bears thank you Councilor Tseng um just a note uh we're going to come back to 2-1 and 2-4 okay um i just yeah and i appreciated the question i just want to make sure we stay on course have the discussion on those um i have as regards to section 2 or article 2 I have thoughts on 2-5, 2-7, 2-9, 2-10, and then I also have a thought on 9-6 and moving into section two. So.
[Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. Are there any other questions on section 2-2? Not seeing any. Section 2-3, prohibitions, are there any questions from councilors on this? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: I did have a quick question on section two, five, actually, sorry, two, five, subsection three.
[Tseng]: Councilor Lazzaro, I actually had a quick question about two, three. Two, three, you did. Could I do that one first? Yes. So in section two, three B, it says that the city council shall contact the officers and employees serving under the mayor solely through the mayor Um, I, so I know, I think all of us as Councilors know that we're contacting city officials city staff with understanding that they serve, they serve the mayor and the people of the city. I'm, I know, I also know that a lot of us as Councilors. directly outreach to a lot of city staff to ask for input, to ask for, to give suggestions and whatnot. Do we see this language, the language I just read out, as limiting that outreach or that interaction?
[Contreas]: Well, it's important to note that relates to section 2.6 when you're conducting an investigation, which is really different than you know, when do you pick up the trash on Maple Street? I don't think it forbids inquiries. It's when you're having an investigation or an analysis of something of, you know.
[Tseng]: I just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Yes.
[Bears]: I think the question is though, not in the case of an investigation or inquiry, I regularly communicate with the city assessor to set up a meeting with the resident to talk about their assessment. This would seem to prohibit me from doing that. Is that true?
[Wright]: In my opinion, no. The purpose of this is you cannot order Okay, great.
[Contreas]: Thank you very much.
[Callahan]: Thank you, and I so appreciate the, first of all, the work from the commission and also the Collins Center. I am not a member of this committee, so thank you so much for allowing me to ask a question. This is on the same exact point. I know that, for example, when we were working to try and reduce the rodent population, that the person sponsoring a piece of legislation was communicating with the staff in order to understand best how we can help the staff through the ordinance. The staff needed an ordinance to be changed. And so working together with staff to understand how we can best tailor the ordinance to meet the needs of the staff, that to me, like, I'm 100% in favor of nor shall any member of the city council give orders or direction. Absolutely, I 100% agree.
[Contreas]: But you're looking for coordination, communication.
[Callahan]: It just says, you know, the city council shall contact only solely through the mayor. And it seems like getting information on how to craft ordinances to best meet the needs of staff, that's, I just wanna make sure, again, we're all asking about this.
[Contreas]: We wanna make sure that it's. Maybe we'll look at this language
[Callahan]: That would be amazing. I just specifically, I mean, I wasn't the sponsor of rodent control, but I know how much, you know, that was something staff needed and that the sponsor of that ordinance needed to just hear from and worked with staff members to craft it carefully so that it met the needs of the city. So those kinds of things I think are important that we are able to accomplish. Thank you.
[Tseng]: President Bears?
[Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And I think, um, obviously subject if you want to take a look at it and come back, but it would seem to me that if the intent is to make clear that the council cannot order a city employee to do anything, um, maybe just eliminating everything between the comma after section two, six and the word neither. So eliminating the city council shall contact the officers and employees serving under the mayor solely through the mayor and because then it would just read, except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations pursuant to section two, six, neither the city council nor any member of the city council shall give orders or directions to any officer or employee, either publicly or privately. I don't know if that makes sense to folks.
[Contreas]: I would really like to talk to the author before I comment.
[Bears]: I'll make a motion to make that amendment pending further discussion and information from the representatives from the Collins Center.
[Tseng]: Can you email that to the court?
[Bears]: Or yeah, I can work on emailing it. Yeah.
[Tseng]: Great, we have a motion on the floor by President Bears. Anna's gonna email it to you. Okay, do we have a second by Councilor Lazzaro? Seeing that there might be a lot of motions at the end of this meeting, I think it would be wise to take this vote now, when you're ready, Mr. Clerk. I'll give you a second.
[Hurtubise]: President Ferris. Yes. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Blasaro.
[Bears]: Yeah, sorry. It would remove the sentence, the city council shall contact the officers and employees serving under the mayor solely through the mayor and but maintains the intent that we could not give orders or directions.
[Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Tseng]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed, motion passes. Are there any other comments on section two, four? Seeing none. Okay. Section two, five, exercise of powers quorum rules. President Bears, your mic is live.
[Bears]: Thank you. I just had one one item here under section two five subsection one that the regular meetings of the city council be held at a time and place fixed by ordinance. I would change that to the city council rules. Okay. Is that a motion? That that would be a motion, yeah.
[Tseng]: We have a motion from President Bears to amend the words fixed by ordinance to fixed by city council rules in section 2-5B1.
[Bears]: And the clerk already has that language in the document I sent over. Great.
[Tseng]: Before, do we have a second for that motion? Yeah. Councilor Lazzaro?
[Lazzaro]: I have a question just about the process of amending the rules. We do that. We change the city council rules in city council meetings. But if it's in. If it's an ordinance, it needs three readings, uh, to change an ordinance. It can be. Um. Just as a reminder, or maybe just for the public record, if we can just quickly go over how we change the rules, we do that with a resolution in city council?
[Bears]: Through the chair. Yeah, the city council can change the rules of the city council by majority vote. But it doesn't require multiple readings.
[Tseng]: I know oftentimes it goes through, I believe now it's admin and finance. Oh, we haven't had to do it this term, but oftentimes it does go through committee first. Any other comments on section 2-5? Okay. Councilor Lazzaro has seconded President Ferris' motion. Let me check on Zoom. Seeing none. Yeah. when you're ready. Yep. Oh, okay.
[Lazzaro]: Yes, I had a question about 2-5 section B subsection 3. It says all sessions of the City Council and of every committee or subcommittee of the City Council shall be open to the public unless another provision is allowed by law. The only thing that comes to mind is executive session. I know that's allowed by law. It doesn't happen very frequently in our meetings, but I just wonder if that's something we would want to say officially in the charter. If it's not necessary, we don't need to say it. It just occurred to me to ask about it.
[Tseng]: Is that something the Collins Center would like to respond to?
[Wright]: In my opinion, it would just language captures the idea of this executive session. But if you want it to be more clear, we could look at it, but I think it would capture it. And then certainly that's state law as well.
[Lazzaro]: That's fine, that's sufficient. I'm comfortable with that, thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Are there any other comments on the substance in 2-5 before we take up President Bears' motion? seeing none from councillors. Mr. Clerk, are you ready for the vote?
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Great. President Ferris, would you change the language of prior City Council meetings to be fixed by ordinance item 2.5.B.1 to be fixed by Council rules? Is that correct? Yes. Second from Councilor Lazzaro. Thank you. Thank you. President Ferris? Yes. Vice President Collins?
[Van der Kloot]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes.
[Tseng]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. Section 2-6, access to information. Do any councilors have any comments, questions, notes on this section? Seeing none. Great. uh, section two dash seven appointments of city council. Um, do any Councilors have notes on this one? Uh, notes, questions, comments, motions. Uh, I see president bears.
[Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng, um, regarding this section, um, I had, well, one comment, which this is the first item that incorporates one of the charter amendments passed in the last term, six to one, subsection B. In the initial draft, I would propose that it be subsection C, but subject to appropriation, the council being able to have additional support positions. That was something we advocated for in the last term, and I appreciate its inclusion in this draft. My main questions and my proposal here is one, the city messenger position that wasn't included. So I proposed that it be included. And so that would be a new subsection B. And then I also noted that section A didn't include a residency requirement for the city clerk. I put a draft together that put it back in, but I'm interested to hear if that was not included purposefully or if there's another provision of Massachusetts general law that would cover residency or just the reason that that was not mentioned as regards to the city clerk. Thank you.
[Tseng]: There's a lot there. I know your most direct question is about the city clerk. I was wondering if maybe chair McDonald or the call center would be able to speak to that.
[Contreas]: I don't remember this coming up in the Charter Commission in the Charter Review Committee meetings and so it could be an oversight but I we do have concerns about residency requirements and in terms of it limits the application pool significantly and it can be perceived as sort of assuring that someone from within gets the job.
[Hurtubise]: Great.
[Bears]: Withdraw my motion related to residency for the city clerk.
[Tseng]: Great.
[Bears]: I haven't made a motion. That, once I submit it, I will not move.
[Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you. Before I move on, if anybody wants any information about my glasses, it's a new, very expensive company that I can share with you. It's called Broke. It's called Half Glass. It's called Broke Cheats. So I apologize for that, because I know my wife's watching right now. And when I come home tonight, she's going to smash me with one of the the 15 pairs I have at home. But the question I had was, I know that as we talked about this, I had a question that a resident asked, and I know it's by ordinance, but when we have boards and commissions, have you ever seen a charter, a part of the charter be put in more, anything that would recommend the concerns of residency requirements for different boards and commissions? Is that something that, we would put in our charter or something.
[Contreas]: You could, you certainly could. Yeah.
[Scarpelli]: Right. So I, if I could, that'd be something that I don't see it in front of me. So I think that where we can fit that, I think that that's been a concern where we've had commissions or boards of commissions in the city that residents might've been living here and we can understand if they moved out that they finished the term, but we're seeing a lot of people that, that we see people that have been on boards of commissions that don't even live in the city. So I think that, you know, finding that language and seeing if that's something we should visit, if that, we could see anything pertaining to that would be helpful. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Is there any, are there any motions or comments, questions? Yep.
[Scarpelli]: If I can, just make a motion to request friends from the Collins Senate to see if they can draft any, information that might be prudent for us to look at and maybe vote on for the possibility of resident requirements for boards and commissions.
[Bears]: Thank you. I would move to adopt the amendment to include the city messenger and the charter and then just renumerate, subsection B would become subsection C, subsection D would be, C would become D, and the city messenger section would be subsection B, and that language is also in the document.
[Tseng]: I believe we have two motions on the floor, the first one being Councilor Scarpelli's motion on the residency requirements for the call center to propose draft language for the city council on residency requirements for multiple member boards.
[Bears]: I'd be happy to try and make my motion with Councilor Scarpelli, so I just take one vote.
[Tseng]: And I assume you're seconding it?
[Hurtubise]: Yeah, it's all one.
[Tseng]: Do it all together. Are there any comments from Chairman Golds before we take that vote? Well, would you have any comments on that resolution or on that motion? Okay, great. Yes, the city messenger and residency requirements for multiple member boards, although that's for a future meeting.
[Bears]: Yeah, I think it is there, and I think it's two meetings away.
[Tseng]: Yeah, I think that was my recollection as well, but I'm happy to just vote on the motion.
[Hurtubise]: Mr. Clerk, are you ready? I am. Thank you. President Bears? Yes. Vice President Collins?
[Van der Kloot]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tseng]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. Great. Now section two dash eight ordinances and other measures. Are there any comments, questions, motions from, from Councilors? I know, There will be discussion later tonight on the composition, the proposed composition for city council. I'm assuming some of the numbers here will depend on the outcome of those conversations. I did have some more technical questions for the Collins Center, if it's all right. In the first line of this section, it says, no ordinance shall be passed finally on the date it is introduced. Is that date the first reading of the proposed ordinance? Is it when the councilor proposes, like comes to a city council meeting with ordinance text proposed? I know we've had situations where both are happening. Of course, the former being more common. The latter has happened in the city council before too.
[Contreas]: Yeah, but it refers to the former.
[Tseng]: Great. I know there's also discussion of emergency ordinances here.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Tseng]: it makes sense to me, the current language that an emergency ordinance shall be repealed after the expiration of 60 days. Is there much of a, this is something that's new to Medford, I think. Is there much of a discussion in terms of whether, of making that vote a repeal vote versus an affirmative vote to enshrine?
[Contreas]: You can replace the emergency ordinance with something permanent. So if that's the direction that you're moving in terms of addressing the issue.
[Tseng]: Great. Thank you. I believe that's all I had for this section. Are there any other comments or questions from councillors? George, I've, you has read for some reason, but you didn't have anything, right? Great, great. Great. Moving on to section 2-9. City council confirmation of certain appointments. Do any other, do any councilors have comments or questions on this? I see President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you. Thank you Chair Tsang. This is the second of the three charter amendments passed in 2020. three, I believe. And this regards the Council confirming the appointments of the mayor. The initial amendment that we had put forward that wasn't advanced to the legislature at the time by the mayor would have had us affirmatively approving all appointments unless otherwise noted by mass general law by majority vote. This has us having to take a specific motion to reject an appointment by a two thirds vote. I do know that there were some concerns by the mayor about having to send all of the appointments to the council and get affirmative. votes, I did read through the study committee report and found that that was relatively common. But in the spirit of compromise, I can understand that concern. And I would just propose changing the threshold from a two-thirds vote to a majority vote, which also seems to be very common across most communities. Thank you.
[Tseng]: I think that's a really good point. Uh do folks from do any other city councilors have thoughts on. Oh. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you and appreciate constantly has bringing us forward. I know that, um and the spirit of what I've seen with this administration. I think having that majority vote in my opinion is isn't robust enough. I some authority and more openness and transparency when it comes to positions. I know that one of the biggest things we've seen over the last couple of years is that the positions that are created that this council doesn't even vote for. And that's happened multiple times, not just with this council, but previous councils. So I think lessening that and giving the mayor's office more of autonomy to make these decisions without a more weighted process that really makes it accountable for the position that she's presenting. I think I would rather see the two-thirds vote for the fact that That meat is needed.
[Bears]: So I think my opinions, I don't disagree if I make sure I don't disagree with you. So this, the way it's written without my amendment is the council would need two thirds to reject. So we wouldn't see everybody. that we would only appointments would be made and then we would have 30 days to say we don't want that appointment and then it will require two thirds to reject that appointment. So it's not saying they would come before us. I actually agree. I support. Yeah, I would support if someone else wanted to move in that direction more. affirmative process where all of the appointments come before us. But in the absence of that, I don't think it should require two-thirds for rejection. I think it should require just a simple majority to reject an appointment. I apologize. I misunderstood.
[Scarpelli]: I just wanted to note that we... I'm reading the red line as I'm reading the original, so... Yes. I appreciate that. I withdraw. Thank you.
[Bears]: Yeah, I just wanted to... I completely agree with your sentiment on that. I want us to be able to have more authority as regards appointments.
[Tseng]: I know, so right now, just to summarize, we are debating or we are discussing changing the requirements that city council reject mayoral appointees with a two-thirds majority, changing that, amending that to just the majority, a majority to reject an appointee, just to frame this conversation. Do any other councilors have comments on that proposal, on President Bears's motion? Is there any comment from the Charter Study Committee, from Collin Sentry? Seeing none, do we have a second for President Bears' motion? I'll second. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Hurtubise]: I just want to read this back, President Bears. President Bears, would you include language that a rejection of certain mayoral appointments can be done by a majority vote? Yes. Is that how you want that? It's the recommendation that the state supports that. I'll second if the Council is compelling. President Bears? Yes. Vice President Collins?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Chair Tsang? Yes. I have five in favor, none opposed. Motion passes.
[Bears]: Thank you. Some of them would pertain if there was a change in the proposed composition. So I'll hold those, but we did receive a communication and I noted as well from the chair of the elections commission that the references to the city clerk in here should be references to the elections commission. And so I would move to make those changes, but I'm also just want to see if that is an issue or if the comment center representatives have any notes on that. If it should stay as city clerk because we technically adopted a law that said the Elections Commission shall act as city clerk and therefore there are Massachusetts general laws that reference the clerk and not the commission. But that seems kind of convoluted.
[Wright]: We can certainly revisit state law and make sure everything's in compliance. Get to the point where we bring together the final draft.
[Bears]: Okay, great. Yeah. I just think we did hear that note that, I mean, we have the elections commission model. We adopted the mass general law provision. I can't remember what it is now, a couple of years ago. So we have an elections commission running the elections, not the city clerk. So I'll just move to put that in our notes to the call center as they, so that they can make sure that that is accurate in the final draft. reflect the system that we are operating under.
[Tseng]: Sorry, Councilor Collins is telling me that my mic was not on. For Councilor Collins, President Bears has made a motion to request that the Collins Center look at section 2-10, make sure that the references to the city clerk and the election commissions reflect the system that we operate here. I did have one more substance-based question for the members of the Collins Center or the Charter Study Committee. I know that there, so there's a reference to, so there's a less than 30% mark. for filling the vacancies. This is something that I find reasonable, but I'm curious how he arrived at 30% as a number. Chair McDonald? Oh yeah, could you come to the microphone so folks at home and other Councilors can hear? Thank you.
[Milva McDonald]: Hi, Milva McDonald, 61 Monument Street. As part of the discussion, we looked at other charters and we talked about it and that seemed like a reasonable provision, so we included it.
[Tseng]: I see. Are there charters that go, maybe this is a question that the call-in center would know more.
[Contreas]: There are some that go to 40%. It's 30, there are probably a couple at 25.
[Tseng]: I see, so 30 is more of like a median number?
[Contreas]: Yeah.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments on section 210 from councillors?
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Tseng]: President Bears? Oh, sorry. I did the wrong mic.
[Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I just, I would have some concerns at 30% if the composition of the council were to be as proposed by the study committee, because there'd be a lot of one-on-one races for seats. And I would think that in that situation, a 30% result would be not representative. So I just want to note that composition wise, that would be a concern for me. Yeah.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you. President Bears. Um, it's my opinion is similar. I didn't want to, um, well, I can't make any motions from the chair, but I also didn't want to make any proposals before we moved before we talked about composition. Um, because I think a lot of this, this does hinge on that. Are there any motions of councils are, um, I actually have a question on that.
[Lazzaro]: The, so If a vacancy occurs in the office of Councilor at large, that position is filled by, is it pulled from one of the ward Councilors based on votes received? I'm confused about. Or one of the people who was running for at large, as long as they didn't get less than 30, but you had to have been running for at large.
[Tseng]: It's my understanding that it's the latter. OK. The call center is confirmed, just for folks watching online. Got it.
[Lazzaro]: Got it.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I know vacancies is something that we talked about in my charter study committee interview way back when. We talked about different ways of looking at it. I know there are a lot of arguments that cut in favor of keeping it this way as well. I know the main criticism with having the next runner-up fill the seat is that, as President Bears referred to, the next runner-up might not be representative of the will of the voters. But there is also a worry that we would end up having to run a lot of special elections. That costs money and time and operational energy at City Hall as well. So something to consider as we move forward, but I do think that a lot of this does hinge on the conversation about competition. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Scarpelli]: If I can, I think that with the professionals from the Collins Center, 40% sounds like a lot. What would you recommend? What have you seen that really works and where that middle ground where the, you know, extra one-on-one elections that might cost the city money.
[Contreas]: To me, it's the process, but... Well, I think there's also really concern about low turnout at special elections. So that's not representative of what the electorate might want. At least in choosing the runner up, if they got 30% of the vote, at least you know that they attracted some attention.
[Scarpelli]: Right.
[Contreas]: And people thought that they could serve.
[Scarpelli]: Right. And that's my fear. We're seeing what's coming out in local elections recently in Medford, you know, with 60,000 residents and 40,000, 35,000, 40,000 voters and only 13,000, 14,000, 15,000 coming out. I think that would pose a problem for the process, you know, going any higher.
[Contreas]: Right, those who participated in that election.
[Wright]: It's votes cast. Yeah, it's votes cast, okay. And keep in mind, it's for the remainder of the existing term. So they're not getting a full term.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[Wright]: They're only completing a two-year term. And they do not get to put on, if they run for the seat after the end of that term. They are not candidates for re-election. We will not say that.
[Bears]: President Barras, to that point in your research, have you found there to be a significant difference in incumbency bias between someone who has the label candidate for re-election and someone who doesn't, even if they were serving?
[Contreas]: No, I've never seen a study on it.
[Wright]: There's a perception, there is a perception, and there also can be, in some communities, a designation that candidates for re-election are put at the top of the ticket.
[Bears]: Right, which I think this charter gets rid of.
[Wright]: Right.
[Bears]: Yes. I'm just wondering how much, if you had any knowledge on how much that benefit to incumbents is literally the label on the ballot or being able to put Councilor X on their literature or just being in the meetings.
[Contreas]: I think just being on the council, it's a familiar name.
[Bears]: Right.
[Contreas]: You've seen it. It's familiarity, I think.
[Bears]: Yeah, that's just where I think, I understand why to say, oh, they wouldn't be able to put that on the ballot, but I don't know that that I'll get to my point around that when we talk about composition of the council. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that the current text of the ordinance or of the draft city charter is that if they don't reach that 30% threshold, not that we would hold a special election. So if we amended that number, it wouldn't be that we hold a special election. The current draft charter says the remaining members of the city council would appoint to fill the vacancy for the rest of the term. That's in subsection C. Just to clarify that point for folks at home. That is something that we could change as a council, right, but I don't hear any appetite to do that. Yes, President Bears.
[Bears]: I would just note of all of those options that being selected by duly elected people versus low turnout special election versus low threshold of voting. being a selection being made by the rest of the council is probably the most representative of the will of the people in that situation, because the people elected the other Councilors. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you, President Ferris. I know we have one motion from President Ferris on the floor regarding... There's the Elections Commission, right? Do we have a second for that motion? Sure. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Hurtubise]: President President Bears with the council language of elections to ensure the language we use reflects the system that we operate method. Yeah.
[Tseng]: Seconded by councilors. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Hurtubise]: present bears. Yeah. Vice President Collins.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: That's a little Lazzaro. That's a script. Kelly. Yeah. Chairman.
[Tseng]: Yes. Five in favor and unopposed motion passes now on to the fun part. If that wasn't fun enough. Oh yes. Yeah. Sorry. 9.6 slipped my mind. One more fun section before we get to the big topic items. Are there any comments on section 9-6? Oh, sorry. President Bears and then Councilor Wood.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And I appreciate you including this in this meeting. as I was going through a section 9-6 in the existing charter's periodic review of ordinances. And to me, ordinances are the purview of the legislative branch. Of course, the mayor has the ability to sign or veto, but the ordinance authority lies with the legislative branch. And to me, I believe that we should move this section 9-6 to section 2. I relabel it section 2-11. and then I would make two minor changes, which would be that the city council shall provide for a review. Right now it says the mayor and city council, and I would just change that to read the city council, and that the review shall be made by a special committee to be established by ordinance. I would change that to be established by a vote of the city council.
[Tseng]: Okay, we have a motion from President Bears on a number of amendments, but namely that the special committee be established by a vote at the City Council. Do we have a second for that motion? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Bears]: Before we take that- It would be a motion to adopt the language as I propose.
[Tseng]: Yes. Okay. And we all have that language from the agenda packet. Councilor Lemie?
[Leming]: Thank you, Chair Sang, for letting me speak. Just To clarify for the folks at home, neither Councilor Callahan nor I are on this committee, which means that we can't vote or make motions, but we are at the invitation of the chair able to speak. The one concern that I had was eliminating the part that says the mayor and city council is that you likely would need some support from the executive branch when advertising for the positions that go that would go into that. So it would help to, you know, have the support from the executive branch to be able to put out feelers. I fully support having it be confirmed by having them be confirmed by a vote of the city council, though. So that's just that's just one thought as a potential consequence of removing the mayor and city council, keeping it just city councils that I think would be you do need some staff support for this kind of thing. I would imagine. Um And also the city solicitor would be Under under the mayor as well. So that's another concern I would have with removing that explicitly. I did have some questions about this for the call in center. If I'm if I'm able, um So this struck me as a, so two questions. One, is this something that is typically in ordinances in other cities? And if so, what usually results from that? So have there been, are there usually like pretty substantial changes that come out of this? committees, periodic reviews. Are there any specific instances you can think of where this might have affected policy in the past? I just feel like a little bit more historical context would help me out with this one.
[Contreas]: Okay. This is very common in charters that you go through a periodic review of the ordinances following a review of the charter. What we're trying to guarantee is that those two documents stay in harmony you know, for the time, but you understand what I'm saying. We don't want one to say one thing and one the other.
[Leming]: So the real point of this is to make sure that the ordinances are consistent with any updates to the charter.
[Contreas]: Right.
[Leming]: OK.
[Contreas]: And the other is you can then update from any references to state law, any changes to state law that affect your structure and organization that would be in the ordinances, that would be a time that you could make that change.
[Tseng]: Okay. Thank you. I know there was a question for Councilor Fleming about the proposed motion, President
[Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, given Councilor Lemmy's comment, I'm happy to amend my proposal to not strike the words mayor and, and then I also just noticed that I also should have changed that the special committee shall file its report with the city clerk on a date specified by a vote of the city council instead of by ordinance. So I would just further amend my proposal based on Councilor Lemmy's comment and based on that.
[Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Tseng]: Could you? I'll email it. Councilor Callaghan, and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Callahan]: Thanks. I just had one quick question, which I think Councilor Bears may have just answered. It's not clear to me who is on the committee or who puts people on the committee, but it sounds like what Councilor Bears is suggesting is that it says, this review shall be made by a special committee to be established by a vote of the council. So that would be the council that is I just wanted to understand what that. Thank you.
[Bears]: This is a suggestion to amend
[Lazzaro]: If the intention of this would be to make the ordinances be in alignment with an updated charter, maybe it could say, with every change to the charter, may there be an update or a review of ordinances to align with the charter. This section looks like, and it does say at five-year intervals and each year ending in a seven or a two, it doesn't say every time you update the charter, you'll review all the ordinances to see that they're in alignment with the charter. So there's no implication in this language that that is why it's here. To me, I read this and I thought it was saying there's a special committee appointed to read all of the local ordinances of the city and review them, which I always understood to be the work of city council and what we're doing. on a regular basis anyway. So I thought this was at best redundant as a section to work that's already being done. So maybe I think my amendment to President Bears's motion would be to say, upon review or changes made to the city charter, and then the rest of this section.
[Tseng]: It's my understanding from the Collins Center's earlier comment that it's not just for city charter changes. It's also when Massachusetts state law changes.
[Healy]: As the state law changes.
[Tseng]: Yeah.
[Contreas]: And it's mostly to do with your structure and organization. It's not a comprehensive review in the sense that you have to go through every licensing arrangement, especially if it hasn't changed.
[Tseng]: I think what would be helpful to folks at home and for Councilors is, because Benford hasn't had something like this, at least not under the present form of the charter, could you give us a look into, I think you've described the role, like what they would be doing, but what does this committee typically look like? Is it composed of lawyers?
[Contreas]: Sometimes it's composed, not totally of lawyers, but usually a lawyer, maybe a current Councilor, a former Councilor, someone with familiarity with the work, maybe a member of the planning board or the school committee, just willing to get different voices in the sense of their perception of how this ordinance has or has not worked. Is it meeting the intent when you have to? anybody seeing any glitches or hitches that you could propose to modify.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I think that helps a lot with with our understanding of what this is meant to meant to be.
[Van der Kloot]: Okay.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I know President Bears has requested the mic. I also did have a question for Okay. I did have a question for President Bears in by changing the first It's the first reference to the ordinance to a vote of the city council. I know. And then two sentences from there, it says on a shelf file, it's report with the city clerk on a date specified by ordinance. OK. Give us a second. So.
[Contreas]: Yes.
[Tseng]: Great, on President Bears' motion, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. President Bears, oh, sorry.
[Bears]: This motion would move section 9-6 to article 2, make it section 2-11. It would then change the words by ordinance to by vote of the City Council, both in the second sentence and the fourth sentence.
[Tseng]: Do we still have your second on that? Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Hurtubise]: present bears. Yeah. Vice President Collins.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: That's a little bizarre. That's a scrupley chair saying yes.
[Tseng]: Five in favor. None opposed. Motion passes. Um, back to the fun part. Um, I know President Bears, um, sent us a proposal. I recognize you. This would be on the on composition. Section two dash
[Bears]: Can I make a motion actually regarding section 2-4 first? Okay. I would just move that we move section 2-4 to a future meeting and to discuss sections 2-4, 3-1 and 4-4 as a single conversation at a future meeting.
[Tseng]: So that's 2-4, 3-1, 4-4? Yeah. President Bears has moved to discuss, to move section 2-4 to another meeting for discussion, and to discuss it along with 3-1, 4-4, which I understand are all about compensation of the council, the mayor, and the school committee.
[Bears]: Great.
[Tseng]: Do we have a second on President Bears' motion?
[Contreas]: Second.
[Tseng]: Seconded by Councilor, Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro, did you have a question?
[Bears]: Great.
[Hurtubise]: President Bears? Yes. Vice President Collins?
[Collins]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Chair Sang?
[Tseng]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. Great, back to 2-1, composition term of office eligibility. Do we have any comments from councilors? President Bears?
[Bears]: Thank you, Chair Tsang, and just given the length of the meeting so far to get through the smaller stuff, I figured this is gonna take a while, I think. And also I think it seems to be the main point of discussion around the proposals that I put forward was around the composition of the council. So just to set the frame here, the charter study committee recommended to the mayor and then through that to the council, city council composed of 11 members, eight representing each individual ward of the city and three elected at large. And something that I discussed in my conversations with the Charter Study Committee and something that I've had a lot of conversations with the past few years has been what the composition of the council should look like. And part of the proposal that I put forward tonight, which is to amend that proposal to have to follow what the Charter Study Committee proposed for the school committee, which would be a city council of seven members, three elected at large, and four from districts, which would be composed of two boards each, stems from three factors. One are my principles, two are the data, and three are my experience serving on the council and serving in the leadership of the council for the past three years. I think we've had a lot of conversation in the state and in the country about how should we elect elected officials. And we're one of only actually I think three countries on a federal level that elects our legislatures by first past the post single district voting. And I think one of the great advantages of the system that we have now, and I'm not advocating that we maintain an all at large system, is that everybody faces a competitive election. There's one district. Everybody's running against each other. There's no sailing through. And there was a great New York Times piece talking about proportional representation. That's a model that the Cambridge Planning Charter uses. And you see, through that model, the election of people of differing ideologies representing different bases of voters. Another conversation that's been discussed is a multi member districts. We also had the statewide ballot question on rank choice voting. And all of those are different ways to try to elect people that is not a first pass the posting. And the reason for that is that a first pass the post single district system tends to have less than ideal outcomes. And I think what is being proposed or was proposed with having a single district first past the post war districts might lead that direction here in the city as well. I have always been a strong supporter of more localized representation. I just think that there are different ways to have ward representation, different ways to have district representation than just saying our only options are all at large or all ward or a hybrid where you have only at large and only ward systems. So I think the charter study committee's proposal for the school committee and the reason that I went in that direction with my proposal is that it was already in the draft. I'd love to have a bigger conversation about more unique and interesting opportunities and options like proportional representation or ranked choice voting or multi-member districts, but those weren't surveyed, those weren't discussed, those weren't put forward as options. I went into the product, the work product of the charter study committee itself and found something that I think met the goal of having more localized representation while also maintaining some of the benefits of the at-large system and while avoiding some of the downsides of having so many of the council seats filled by first past the post single member districts. And that's why I proposed what I proposed. I mentioned a few different items here in my initial memorandum representation. This does bring us to local representation very much so compared to the existing approach of all at large council. accessibility-wise, it would be, I think, easier for voters to understand having a district Councilor, a district school committee member, and then the at-large members. They'd have less voters to, you know, less officials to keep track of, in some senses, or not exactly knowing which side of which street they lived on means that this is their Councilor versus that Councilor. Certainly from an efficiency perspective, there wouldn't be a need for more Councilors, chamber renovations, the meetings being longer because more Councilors are talking. I'm less married to those arguments, although I think they are just facts. And that is to say that I'm not opposed to a larger council. I just don't think that a larger council should be made up of first-past-the-post single-member districts. And some of the great discussion that has happened since I put these out and discussions that I had with lots of folks over the past two, three years, I want to note as well, from a representation perspective, you would have under the ward system of having eight wards versus four districts, significantly different weighting of individuals votes. If you're a voter in ward two or ward three, where you have very, very high turnout, your vote would be much less valuable to the selection of a Councilor than a vote in ward one. And I think that's an issue. I think the district moving to the district model mediates that somewhat. You'd also, from a representation perspective, if you look at, for example, racial demographics, there's essentially no difference in racial demographics between the Ward 6 seat and Ward 8 seats being separate and them being combined. There's somewhat of a difference in the Ward 7 seat versus combining the Wards 1 and 7 seats, but it's, I think, less than five points or maybe less than 10 points of a difference. And then I have talked to councillors as Councilor Scarpelli did in neighboring communities and other communities around the state that have a hybrid ward council representation. And there is a concern about competitiveness of running. You have a lot of uncontested elections for ward seats and I think again, that's one of the main concerns in general with first past the post single member districts is essentially you have two people running against each other. And, um, sometimes no one will run for that seat at all. And you'll have an uncontested race right now in Medford. I can't even remember the last time there was an uncontested race for city council, because I'm pretty sure all the elections in the past 20 years, there's been more than seven people running. Um, I've also heard some concerns about similar to what Councilor Scarpelli raised earlier that I think he, you know, he said those were his concerns before and he feels more alleviated by them from his discussions, but around prioritizing what's happening in one eighth of the city versus the whole city. And I've heard that as well as a concern from people who serve on bodies that have this type of representation. So I believe that this proposal that I put forward moves us significantly towards local representation of neighborhoods of the city without going down to such a small district and maintaining more of a balance between at large and local representation. So that's why I put this forward. I'm really interested to hear the thoughts of my colleagues. Certainly I'm happy to entertain amendments. And I would say that the, you know, the piece of this that I'm least concerned about is a bigger council. I'm not against a bigger council. I just am against a bigger council being formed exactly in this manner. So I hope that we can have a discussion of a model that fits the goals that all of us are seeking and fits, quite frankly, the way that most legislative bodies are elected in most of the world and most of the country, which is not through most of them being elected in first-past-the-post single-member districts. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears for your comments. I have Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Leming. Going to you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. As I, like I said, I really focused on really looking into this process because it was one of the pieces that really limited me from moving forward with the chattel review. And now as we're seeing the The body that has worked on this, the professionals that have worked on this, and the committee that's gone out to the city and the community and worked diligently with the community have drafted a proposal that I think is what the community is asking for, the residents are asking for. I think I mentioned the key pieces that I think understanding the representation for all of our wards is so important. I think when we talked about the ability for someone that's marginalized that might not have the opportunity to run at large. having a better chance running an award, even running in the district. So having a better representation, maybe seeing a council that looks a little different than we see today. And I think that's what I've heard from council, from community members. And I think that when we look at this and I looked across the state, I believe there's only three out of the whole state. I believe there's only three, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's only three that have a seven body council when you look at this format. I think what you see is a council of ward representation and at-large members. And I think that's a huge involvement and openness and form of transparency, communication, and reachability to every corner of our community. So I think what the Charter Review Committee has put forth with the 11 members, I think it's important. I think that that's something that I think the, tell me if I'm wrong, but the majority of the community has said to me, and this is why I know so much about it, because I was against it. I was against ward representation completely. So now when you sit and talk and the understanding of every single ward, imagine telling one ward they're not represented. Okay, but no, no, the district, but it's not the ward. And this is what we're seeing right now because we're the divide in this community. We do have a huge divide in this community. And one of those divides is people feeling that they don't, they're not listened to. They're not, they don't have anybody that they feel they can go to. And especially when you see the demographic method now, we have a lot of new method residents coming in that have grown up in communities that have ward representation. So that comfort level is gone. So they've eliminated themselves of being part of that process. So I think we're seeing so many pieces that this fits. And changing what is put forth I think would be a frightening thought because here's the piece. We saw with the override question that this community was divided. What we're seeing right now, what I'm hearing from both sides saying that this is something they like, it fits. It's something that you meet, you can really go and I think this would be something that they could support and move forward. I will tell you the comments that I've heard from residents saying if we go to seven, doesn't that sound like and against conspiracy theory but unfortunately this community runs on. Doesn't this sound like it's just an organization wanting to keep the numbers down so they can control this council? And I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that this is the perception that goes out. And this is where, when it comes down to a vote of charter change, charter review, and a vote, this is where we won't get the support. Now, again, I say this publicly. I don't believe in that. But these are the questions that have been brought up that said, when we go to the vote, let's give the city what they've been asking for, what the professionals have brought forward, what the committee that has worked so hard to go to every corner of the city and draft this. And I think that that's very important. When we look at the different compensation piece, I know we've held that off and we're gonna revisit that again, but I've listened to some community members that had said, you know what? We're in fiscal crisis, we're having financial difficulties in Medford, even with 11 people, how would you correct it and say, well, you know what? By moving toward representation, your schedule isn't as busy. I'm not reaching out to every corner of the city. So maybe the compensation could be lowered because it would be less work in theory. So I mean, there's so many pieces that you look at this and say, well, this is, it fits. because ultimately what we want is we want this community to vote for it and support it and move forward to change what we need in our community. This is just a piece that I think is very important. You know, we've said it a thousand times, and every member here, I've heard it and I've seen it on the campaign trail, that really having a representation of a more diverse council, right? What could support a more diverse council but getting people that are marginalized, giving them the opportunity to really control the opportunity to win a seat. Not a bigger district, not a bigger community at large, but looking at a ward. That's achievable for everybody. And I know I joked with Councilor Beaz earlier, but we're hearing it, you know, you wouldn't really have in our revolutions text Councilor Scarpelli. I did get an email that they asked if I can read it. And this is something that our revolution members put forth that many people voted for them because of this and that's what was said was our revolution metric advocates for transitions methods current at large electoral system. to award-based representation model. This change aims to ensure that each neighborhood has direct representation and the city government promoting equitable participation and addressing the unique needs of diverse communities. And their 2023-24 method people platform, ORM, our revolution method, emphasizes the importance of the city charter reform to implement ward representation, therefore enhancing the inclusivity, inclusivity and responsiveness of local governance. So I remind my colleagues that this is what you ran on. This is your platform that you ran on. And to come in today, this is what leaves the city divided. This is what then comes in and says, you know what, then I know this committee did great. We want to see some change, but you know what? It seems disingenuous, to be honest with you. So they sit back and say, what? I'm not gonna vote for it. And I'm gonna tell my families that are saying, well, instead of voting for the change of charter, why jeopardize this with something that works? And maybe the call in Senate can prove me wrong, but there's a reason why we do 11, right? There's eight members, every ward is represented, and then the three at large. And correct me if I'm wrong, the majority, if not, most of the state that has the ward representation has this form, correct? I mean, like I said, I thought there's only three that have such a limited district process. So, and again, I urge my colleagues to follow the advice of the professionals, follow the advice of the people that have been in the streets in Medford, not nationally, not different parts of the country, but in Medford, what they've done for their work to reach every corner of Medford that came out and said, let's do this. This is something that I feel strongly about, and I think that we should support this and leave it as it is. So thank you, Mr. President, I mean, Mr. Chairperson.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. I wanted to organize my thoughts. So I wrote some stuff down that I wanted to talk about. I've changed my mind back and forth on this issue a number of times. When I was running for office, one of my primary issues was word-based representation. I think it's really, really difficult for a new candidate to run for office across the whole city. It's really expensive. It's really time consuming. So it's hard when you have a job. It's hard when you have a family. to run for office for the first time in a city of 60,000 residents when you've never done it before. It was very difficult to do. I still believe that it would be easier to run in one ward than it would across the whole city. I think it would also be easier to run in two wards. All of that being said, The more I've looked at it and talked to residents and talked to members of the Charter Study Committee, it's becoming more clear to me that It's become clear to me that the work of the study committee has shown that the residents and the emails that I'm getting and the conversations that I'm having are telling me that the residents are interested in word based representation and that this would increase the number of city councillors significantly and would make our meetings which are already much too long, prohibitively too long, which is also a barrier for people running for office. These meetings are a problem. Um and with 11 city councillors, they will be Way too long, and that is something else we will have to talk about, which is a rules change, which we have tried to implement and It hasn't changed very much. These are things, these are all things to talk about, but if we want to make these roles accessible to our residents, all of these things need to be talked about together. Medford is an outlier in a few ways. Maybe one of the ways is that our city council is small. Another one of the ways is that we do public participation on every agenda item. When you do public participation on every agenda item, it makes your meetings very long. That means that we are up in here until 11, 12, 1 in the morning. I have kids. I have another job. Everybody else has another job. Many of us have kids. We have things going on. We have obligations at home. So if there are 11 of us with no restrictions on city councilors talking and no limit to the time that we're here, This is also a barrier to people running for office. So when we talk about expanding the opportunities for people to be involved in their city government, we have to really talk about the actual barriers that people face. Um, in order to increase diversity in our elected offices, we're not going to go to somebody's door in the ward where we know it's more diverse and knock on the doors, the people of color and the women and the queer people and say, Hey, we need you. You have to come do this. job that's really difficult, you have to stay up really late and get abused by the public. You have to do it because that's your job. It's not fair to do that to people. It's not fair to ask that of people without protecting, to some degree, people that are serving in these roles. So I think if we really care about having people come and be representatives and be involved in local government, It's about much more than just what I think the Charter Study Committee and I also, when I was running as a candidate, came in with what we all did with a pure heart saying, let's open up this opportunity, which I still think that we probably should do. Is our pure heartedness was to say, let's make this easier. Let's also make it better. Let's also pass the ordinances that make this a welcoming place. Let's also make everything about City Hall accessible and genuinely good and safe for everyone, all of it together. It doesn't happen just with one element falling into place, but with all of these elements coming in together at the same time. I keep going back and forth because I feel very conflicted about it. I think I will probably decide to support word-based representation based on the communications that I've had with people this week and last week. But I would have a lot of thoughts about what would have to go along with that in order to make it feasible in my mind. I respect that this came from research and surveys and communications with the public. So thank you. I understand that.
[Leming]: Thank you. I'd also just suggest as a potential compromise here, and I understand that this option wasn't really investigated too much by the Charter Study Committee, but having a 5-4 system, five at large, four district based as a possible in between option. I can't make a motion for that, but I think it does. I think that that would address some of the concerns with some of the words being too small and also expand the council, which I hear which I think a lot of residents have really been asking for. I do agree with my colleagues on some of the issues with expanding the council, namely the length of meetings. So I would support a change to the council rules limiting individual councilor speaking times that would only go into effect after the expansion of the council, if that were the decision that this body ended up making. That would be that those rules wouldn't necessarily go into the charter itself. But I strongly believe that it would help to make meetings more efficient and keep a keep a cap on the time that these meetings end up going to. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Thank you. Um, So I definitely am in favor of having a hybrid system that has some wards or districts and some at large. To me, whether it is four districts, eight wards, each of our wards has two parts, that would be 16. That to me is not as much of the question in terms of do we have boards or districts? If we have four districts, we have eight wards. To me, we are still using, like forming these more local elected offices, which I am in favor of. I do definitely appreciate a lot of what President Bears has said about first past the post, single district. Those genuinely are, not the greatest way to elect people, not necessarily the best representation of democracy. They also lead to long incumbencies because it is far more difficult to oust an incumbent. I was very curious. I know that in Massachusetts, we do We are a little bit of an outlier currently, especially with seven at large, but also in terms of the number of city councilors that we have for the size of our population. And I was really curious to look outside of Massachusetts. And if I could share my screen.
[Tseng]: That might have to be from the clerk. Oh, there we go.
[Callahan]: Thank you. I'm sorry that this is so small. And this should only be, hang on. I only wanna share that one. Let me see if I can do that. This is the one I picked, but it didn't, oh, I see. Oh, okay, great. Okay, so what I did was I went ahead and I looked at other states and other cities, and I mean, I literally just went to Chattopiti, and I asked Chattopiti, please give me 10 cities in New England that are around 60,000 population. And I said, please give me 10 cities in the South. I said, please give me 10 cities in the West, 10 cities in the Midwest, and I just, Like, you know, there was no picking of which cities these were. These are, I believe, a quite random sampling. And they're all, you know, somewhere around 60,000. And I looked just to have an understanding of other states and other cities that aren't Massachusetts, and how many city councilors they have per population. So there's a range. I think population per city council ranges from about 4,000 to about 15,000. There's a lot of, you know, there's a big range. There's a large, there's wards or districts, and there's a lot of hybrid. There are a few that are purely wards. And what I thought was interesting is that at the number seven, and this has, I think it ended up with 48, because there was one that was 99,000, I got rid of that one. So there's 48 listed here and we just so happen in population per city councilor to rank 24th, which is exactly in the center. And again, this is a pretty random sampling of cities that are close to 60,000. So I just wanted to sort of provide that as what I think is know, looking, it includes some in Massachusetts as well. And Massachusetts does tend to have far larger city councils per population than other states. Maybe we want to be more like other cities, maybe we think that other states and cities in the country also understand how to do a democracy. I personally don't have an opinion either way. I don't think that Massachusetts is necessary. The way we do things is necessarily better. I don't think the way other states do it is necessarily better. But I just thought it was interesting to kind of take a look at a random sampling of cities across the country that have approximately our population and what their size of city council is and also what their sort of composition is. So I just wanted to provide that. Thanks.
[Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. In the order I saw, President Bears, Vice President Collins, and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Bears]: Thank you, and I appreciate that information as well. It's good to see, and two of the examples I saw in there were Revere and Weymouth, and you had a much more balanced distribution of at-large and district Councilors. Weymouth, I saw in there six, I believe six district five at-large, or maybe it was six at-large, five district, but again, right. And again, district, not ward. I want to make a point that this is local representation, the proposal that I put forward. We had a survey that went out that asked about one way that that could look, and people said we'd like a hybrid between local representation and an at-large. We didn't ask about a number of other ways that that could have been formulated, and we don't know what the survey would have said. other than to say that the survey said they want a hybrid of more local representation and at large representation. People did not want to stay at all at large, by and large, although I think some percentage did. People did not want all local representation. They wanted some form in the middle. And this proposal maintains that. I think it, I've seen a bunch of people who are very anti our revolution, Medford, who say we should stay at all at large. You know, I've seen a number of people who feel differently about that from different political persuasions. I don't think this is about politics in the most base sense. I think people have a lot of different opinions about how this should look. But again, my principle that I have said since I started running, a principle of the Our Revolution Mentored Platform was more local representation and not just having at large representation. And I stand fully with that. And again, another one was about more diversity. The demographics difference between the ward, going to all eight and doing four districts was not really statistically significant demographic difference in that makeup. The idea of a five at large four district, fine with that, too, if making the priority being a larger council, which I know the Charter Study Committee noted, and Chair McDonald has noted online, that having a larger council would make more sense in terms of our comparable communities in Massachusetts. I'm not against that. I just proposed what was proposed for the school committee in the Charter Study Committee's recommendation. And my main concern remains having more of a balance than three to eight of essentially a giant multi-member district for three councilors, which is a more fair way of electing people, and eight single district first past the post elections, which may in fact countervail our priorities for more diversity and more representation if we end up with people incumbents winning those elections and sitting in those seats for 20 years unchallenged because that happens a lot in communities that have a lot of small districts. And again, I just want to note the other point that I made earlier. If we have a bunch of small districts, given the traditional turnout in this community, we're devaluing certain votes and highly more valuing other votes in the city. And I think the district model proposed, whether it's three at large and four district or five at large and four district, it's a better balance between the two. It avoids some of the pitfalls of having votes weighted so differently against each other. And I just think it would serve the community better. That's why I propose this. It's my basic principle of why I propose literally everything I ever do here. So to anyone who may question that for whatever purpose, you're wrong. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Councilor Scarpelli, give me a sec.
[Scarpelli]: It's not Councilor Collins.
[Tseng]: Oh, sorry, sorry. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, Chair Sine, I appreciate that. I really appreciate the discussion on this. So far, I know that this is, you know, we come to this discussion after months of work and outreach and diligence and research by the members of the Charter Study Committee and the Collins Center. And I just want to, again, state how much I appreciate all of that hard work and that collaboration so far. So my thoughts on this issue, again, going to restate some of what was already said by my fellow Councilors. Of course, we could see from the data that respondents who did respond to the survey favored ward-based representation when compared to all at large. I do think that it is significant that district based and other models were not given as options for comparison. That's not a criticism. It's just simply that I don't think that that means that this council should have this discussion as though those options are not also on the table because we have a responsibility to do our due diligence and make amendments or approve. or approve the proposal based on what we think will be best for the long-term future of this community. My bottom line is I think that the proposed amendment regarding composition still represents a very, very big improvement towards more localized representation, making representation much more localized than it has been in a very, very long time, perhaps ever. I know I think we all know, we all concur that running in a smaller pool in some ways reduces the barriers to running for office, especially financially. You have to fundraise less. Fundraising is very difficult. But I don't think that we should discuss this as if that is the whole story. to improving representation and making representation more proportional to demographics. I don't think that ward-based representation is a panacea. I certainly don't think that it's a panacea for making marginalized populations more equitably represented. I think that for us to pursue that as though it's a silver bullet, would be a misguided reason to pursue a ward-based representation. Running is inherently difficult for millions of reasons, and I do believe that it will take decades or more to truly equalize the playing field. And I think my bottom line on this is that wards do not deserve simple representation full stop. What wards deserve is compelling and competitive elections each and every time. And I have concerns that the proposal that we're currently looking at from the Charter Study Committee, I'm very concerned that those elections would not result in compelling and competitive elections each and every time. My research has indicated to me that in quite small wards like we have in Medford, the pool of candidates tends to be very small. It's very common for incumbents to go unchallenged. And for incumbents, when they do decide that they want to retire from those elected positions, to privately appoint a successor, put off their announcement until the last moment, which all but ensures that other challenges do not have the time to jump in the race and have a real shot at participating in that competitive election. And I don't think that that is democratic. I don't think that that is our shared goal for more competitive and more locally representative offices. Lastly, I'll just say, you know, I know that this is this is a big deal because this is the guiding document for the city. And hopefully I am really confident that we will arrive at a document that all of us can feel, you know, like any product of compromise that we can all feel a little bit good about and a little bit wistful about. But as city councilors, it is our responsibility to apply our perspective and our good faith opinions to this process, even in perhaps especially when it's unpopular. It's certainly It's certainly more politically expedient to do what is popular, but our job is to research and advance what we think would be best for the community in the long run, regardless of the impact on us as individual electeds and individual future candidates. And that's the reason for my opinion on this matter. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you, President Collins. I got Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Callahan, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. And again, I look at this presentation as something very important for the goal of this initiative being strong enough that the voters will pass and support what we bring forth. What we've done is we've had the opportunity for a group of people to go out and get the information from the people. Then we brought in the professionals from the Collins Center to support and guide. And this is what's come out. I've heard some of my colleagues look at this, and I've got to be very honest with you. We say it's not political, but I hear a lot of double talk. I'm actually sitting back shocked that I'm saying, I can't believe that I'm saying what I'm saying. And I'm hearing this from the people on your own platform that you've said, quote unquote, like directly, that the importance of a city charter reform is implementing award representation. I'm just confused because it seems like a lot of you are backpedaling for the platform that you were elected to. And at the same time, when it fit that dialogue, you've also said, well, these are the people that I knocked on their doors. And those people, I have to support them. So I have to push that agenda through, even though sometimes it's not best for the whole community, but these are the people that helped you. You've said it and elected you. Now, maybe you could say it's not true, but I'll say it over and over again. The power of video is amazing. These are things you've said and done. I didn't pull this up. I had a member of the revolution send this to me who didn't want to jeopardize their name or their friendship with some of you that said that they're very difficult to see this. I have some counsel saying that the difficult about this is really running the meeting and being organized. Well, that's not the charter. That's our city council rules. That's our policies we can change. I'll tell you one, and I can go to the meeting video as well, that when the council voted five to two to eliminate meetings every Tuesday night, and Councilor Caraviello and myself voted against it, the councilor that's here tonight mentioned that if we see it's not working, then we'll go back to the every Tuesday meeting. Because I hear that as a problem, because the meetings are running longer. And it seems like the message is being muddied, or it's taking too long. Well, that's a city council rule. That's not a charter rule. I've heard a councilor tonight talk about, well, imagine this, some of the wards are too small, so they don't need representation. Wow. Well, a fellow councilor said that there are some of the wards, we could play it back, but some of the wards are so small, that we maybe might not need ward representation in such small wards. I wrote it by word. And then you hear, we're looking from the improvement, it's better than what we have. I'm hearing council say it's better what we have. Is that what we're here to do? Just to get better or fix what's been wrong here. And again, this is coming from a place where I was against it. Now I feel like I'm standing on an island saying, am I hearing myself? We've been praising Mrs. McDonald and her group and how hard they've been. And they've gone, they went out and talked to Medford residents. They want to see Medford results. They want to see this. The professionals at Collins Center said, this is what works. And then we have Councilors bringing up numbers from Wyoming and California showing us numbers. Who cares? We don't know their breakdown. I'm worried about Medford, Massachusetts. And from what I gather, there are only three communities in the state of Massachusetts with this form of government that only look at district representation or such a small representation. And then the biggest piece that we've said over and over again, and it sounds like because it doesn't fit the narrative, we're avoiding it. This will give us a more diverse community council. Of course it will. Well, we have a slow turnout. Well, imagine if we have an award representation. Have we seen, maybe the Collins Center can help us. When you see organizations go from at large to award representations, I'm assuming that voter turnout will be larger because now, you have people that are identifying certain groups and certain people that will then run. With the ward representation being that you don't have to encompass yourself throughout the whole community, time-wise, or raise enough money to run at large, we're giving our, or even a district, we're giving our residents an opportunity to be part of this great option and be a voice. So I know it sounds critical and maybe I'm attacking, but This isn't anything that my fellow councils haven't said in meetings. And here I am coming back and saying, am I in a bizarro world? And I'll say this again. We're trying to pass a piece of legislation here that will go out that the city is gonna vote on. This is something that's popular. This is something that everybody I talked to on both sides, it didn't matter. They appreciate the ward representation. They appreciate that all eight wards will be represented. That's something they can go to the election booth in November and vote in support. Why would we now finally get to the finish line and try to honestly look like you're trying to control it? Because that's what it sounds like. Look, this is what it sounds like. It sounds like you want seven people so you can control it. because when you open it to 11 people, maybe you don't, you lose the majority. So that's the disrespect that happens time and time with this council. Listen, there are things that I don't, I don't like my fellow council say, but I would never disrespect and openly laugh like that. This is what we have. This is what we have at this council day after evening after evening when, when my fellow council is the chair of this meeting. So again, This isn't anything that I made up. I just explained what my fellow Councilors just said. I just reiterated what my fellow Councilors have said in the past. I just read a passage from the people's platform of our revolution that this council all ran on a slate, that they preached and ran on ward representation. I didn't make this up. So I know you're angry because it doesn't fit what you just presented. and it might not go your way, but let's look at the big picture. We want this passed now. And as one council that understands, and you look at the full picture now and do your homework and understand it and really not be angry at what I've lived through and say, have an open mind and look at it. And I've had that open mind. It's allowed me to talk to a lot of people. And the eight wards being represented with the three out loud members is something that I would support. It's something that the professionals from the call center support. And it's what the people that have gone meeting after meeting throughout the whole community. And I know because they've called me a thousand times getting input from neighbors. When we talk about let the people speak, I think the people, it was clear, it's right here. Now this is being put forth by a Councilor for truly, I'll be honest with you, I don't see the weight in your presentation of why seven or district representation has been more beneficial than a true ward representation of all of our whole community.
[Tseng]: So thank you, Mr. President. Before I move to Councilor Callahan, I see a lot more hands raised here. I just wanted to correct the record on some things. And I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this proposal. I'm still considering different perspectives. On the quote from the Medford People's Platform, I could not actually find that exact quote. What I did find instead was, we commit to implementing a city charter review process to change and expand the way Medford elected officials to ward representation instead of just at-large seats. And I think it's important not to leave out that last operative clause. There are things said about what councilor said, what I do think there is a difference between saying that board representation is not the best way to serve a district, which is what I think the councilor was saying instead of that Ward doesn't deserve representation. Those are two very different statements. With regards to the meeting times, I did actually do, I looked at the data about it, and when you take the meetings since 2020 that are more substantive rather than procedural, are actually, after we went bi-weekly, our meeting lengths are pretty much exactly the same. Only six minutes longer on average under the bi-weekly system. So there's not a lot of difference there. And I believe the call-in center is here to answer our questions and not to advocate for any particular policy or choice. Although we do have members of the Charter Study Committee who are here to do that. Councilor Callahan, Lazzaro, and then saw President Bears and then Councilor Collins. Also, I understand that there are people here for public comment. We will get to that.
[Callahan]: Thank you. I just want to note first that I independently also came up with a thought of what Councilor Leming suggested, which was for the four districts plus five at large. So I thought it was amusing that you independently came up with that idea. I also am fine with a larger city council. And then I just wanted to say that I'm not on this committee, and I so appreciate the opportunity to be here. I will not be able to vote today. I do actually have another appointment, and so I will be leaving. But thank you all so much for your incredibly thoughtful comments and proposals. I, for one, genuinely believe that everyone here is doing their absolute best to come up with what is going to be the best for Medford. Not slightly better. I think there are, I think we should listen to what councilors say. We should take what they say as what they mean. And I certainly, when I do have an opportunity to vote in the city council meeting, I will be voting for the thing that I believe is the best possible charter that we can have for the best representation in the city of Medford. Thank you so much.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Now recognizing Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. I just wanted to, as a point of information, correct something that was said earlier. It may have been missed because One of my colleagues got up and walked around while I was talking, but I was trying to address some of the nuance to this. I like ward representation and I will be voting for ward representation, but it is nuanced and complicated and it doesn't automatically equal a more diverse council and it doesn't automatically mean that everything is solved. And I think that it will require a lot of work from all of us. And that is what I was trying to communicate. I will be I think I will be voting for it. And I'm just I think that we deserve our that our residents deserve and open and honest discussion of the nuance. And I don't begrudge the Charter Study Committee for not presenting the public with like 14 different options for ways to organize government that are not commonly done in America. I think it would have been great if we could have tried that. But I also think that it's rational to not. So this is what we have. Another thing I want to draw attention to is that there is a section of the charter draft that we have, which is Article 9, the general provisions 9.1 mentions charter changes. This charter may be replaced, revised, or amended in accordance with any procedure made available under the state constitution or by the general laws. And then there's another section about periodic review of the charter that mentions every 10 years. You can go back and review it. I don't think it's necessary that we wait 40 years in between reviewing the charter. We can try something. We can review it. It should be reviewed every 10 years. This draft says, review it every 10 years and every 10 years thereafter, like after 10 years and 10 years thereafter, if it's not, if there's something that happens that occurs with a model that we try, it can be reviewed and changed, it's written in. I think that is much better than what happened the last time around and I think we have observed in this country some of the drawbacks to a lot of the models for government that we've tried. There are obviously a lot of problems with elections in this country, a lot of problems with our legislative bodies. And it can be really frustrating. And I'm not sure that we can solve all of the issues right now in Medford, but I What I feel I've been presented with is a clear preference from the public for what was offered by the Charter Study Committee in this respect. I agree that the district option is a greater recommendation opportunity for representation than what we have right now. But since every communication I've received from a member of the public, almost every communication I've received has said, I would like to see eight ward based Councilors plus three at large. I think that's what I have to say that I will support.
[Contreas]: Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro, I think I have President Bears and then Vice President Collins.
[Bears]: Thanks. I just want to be very clear. I'm not worried about the politics or the elections of any of these models. And I'm quite frankly, really sick of the politicization and the putting words in people's mouth that happens on this council by my colleague. I mean, we're having a discussion about what is a model that would work best for the community? What do we think gets us the best long-term outcomes in terms of good governance for this community? It's not about winning an election. Who's gonna win this election? Who's gonna win that election? It's not about saying that Matt thinks some words don't matter when he never said that. It's not about, you know, you're quoting a platform I helped to write. Right. And you're not quoting it in good faith. It says, I understand what's under you. I've read it. I wrote it. I helped to write it. And thank you. And it said, this is a version of word representation. It's a version of word representation that will be the school committee will have. That's what I'm proposing. And I laugh when I laugh because the absurdity of completely misreading and misstating what I've said and what other Councilors have said and what has been written down is just beyond the pale of having a respectful dialogue in this body. I support a new charter. If this discussion goes the way it seems like it's going, I support a new charter, but the way that it had to get here and the fact that the things that had to be brought up to try to spin it and tweak it and turn it in that way is just so beyond disappointing and beyond frustrating. Because again, the data, who cares, right? We said, who cares about data? I care about data. and the data shows that we would be on the very small end, not just of Massachusetts, but of the country in terms of if we go to word-based representation, Councilors per population. I think that's an important data point. I think the data point that's been raised about the fact that it, whether it's district or ward, doesn't affect the racial demographics of the districts, but does affect the fact that you might end up with uh, you know, long term incumbencies in very small districts or some people winning award seat with 2500 votes and some people winning award seat with 750 votes and then saying, so does that mean that some voters matter less than some voters matter more? That's just a data point. I'm very confident in the ability of everyone here to win elections because we've done it many times. I think we could have and all at large model and win elections and all ward model and win elections. But I just can't stand when the words are being put in our mouth. So it's just really frustrating. Another thing that we talked about was, do we want to fix what's been wrong or do we want to make things better? I don't want to make things worse. And the reason that I put this forward is that I in good faith think that there's a way that the way that this is written out makes things worse. I would support a 15-person city council with seven at-large and eight wards. That's ward representation and an even number of at-large seats. My biggest concern is having a ward-based representation of all eight wards as individual wards with only three at-large city councilors brings in some of the worst practices of elected government in this country and in the state and ruins and takes out some of the best. That's my issue. I think more balance between those two things is a good thing. I don't think at this point that this is going to be well considered, but I'd be willing to do another survey with a few more models and see what people actually support. Cause I don't think we really know. And I don't think we've had a conversation about all of the costs and benefits of making these choices. That's why I put forward what I put forward for no other reason. And I really, really resent the implication to the contrary. And I think quite frankly, that bringing all of the politics into this is what poisoned it and will poison it in either direction. So I really hope that that's something we can get away from on this council as it continues under this form or any other form, because This is a good faith conversation based on data and principles. And when we bring in all this other stuff that nobody brought up except to malign their colleagues, it just leaves a horrible taste in my mouth. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Councilor, Vice President Collins, and then Councilor Scarbell.
[Collins]: Thank you, Chair Tseng. I appreciate that. I have some comments that I wanna add, and then I'm going to also make a motion at the end. You know, I would love to get back to a place where this conversation is productive and civil, like it was at the beginning of the meeting. But first, I do have to say, I find it a little rich that one Councilor will start the meeting talking about maturing and being open minded. And then the instant that their colleagues start to disagree with them, the conversation turns to personal attacks and blaming colleagues for rending the city apart. I just wish that we could have civil and productive conversations about this. and I don't think that's productive. I'm really respectful to the conversation at all, not after all of the work that has been put into this topic. No one said that some wards do not need representation. What was said, not by me, is that some wards are so low turnout and some wards are so high turnout that it would create a huge disparity in some residents' votes among others, counting some very, very highly, and other votes would matter much less numerically, and that's not fair. I don't think that we should be trading one form of unrepresentativeness for another. And if we're going to, I at least think that we should be able to acknowledge it and acknowledge that it matters and talk about potential mitigating solutions. I hope that people will take it to heart that I am willing to potentially disagree with people with whom I share values because I have honest concerns about the current charter provisions as proposed, and I am willing to face criticism over that. I simply think that we should prioritize genuine representation and genuine efficacy over well-intentioned, but I think less effective, appearances of representation. And I don't think that we can accomplish that by simply adding numbers to the council. And for reasons that have already been stated by me and by others, I don't think that the simple ward-based system is the best way of doing that. I know that we have received a lot of feedback about the award-based versus all-at-large options. Again, I think that we need to consider that these were the only two options presented in the survey, and we should consider those data points in the context of that. There weren't other data points on the table or on the survey. Something that guides all of my decisions on the council is knowing that people, all people, myself included, it's human nature to overly weight feedback that is visible to us, like opinions that we happen to have heard, people that we happen to have heard from, and forget that other opinions that we happen to happen to have heard, that we didn't ask for, that are not as visible, that didn't hear about a survey, that don't have opportunities to come to city council meetings. It's human nature to overweight the information that we have heard. and kind of forget that other information exists. I bring this up not just because for me it is a really useful reminder when I'm making any decision on the City Council, but also because I think it's incredibly relevant to this project, because the work of the City Charter, especially talking about composition, is about better representation for those people in the community who are not as visible, who don't have access to our normal communication channels, who don't know how to get in contact with their city councilors, who do not vote. To me, that is the goal of this section of the city charter, is try to get better at that exact mechanism. I believe that a district model is our best option for lifting up and better representing people who are currently underrepresented, even in light of the feedback that we have seen, which was based on the two options presented in the survey. And I think it's very relevant that this is a project that has been worked on by people who are highly involved. And it's our job to approve a product that will work the best and the most fairly for people who are already highly involved and for people who have not been able to be highly involved, for people who are underrepresented. All that being said, I do think that this is a good moment for compromise. I think that a lot of good points have been made. I've been very clear that I think that the district-based model makes the most sense. I'm also not opposed to a larger council, not at all. It's not my preference, but I'm not opposed to it. Councilor Leming earlier entertained the idea of sticking with four district councilors, but expanding the number to five at-large councilors. I would be happy to offer that in the form of a motion to President Bierer's proposed amendments if he is willing to accept it as a friendly amendment. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, Councilor Scarpelli, and then Councilor Bears.
[Scarpelli]: Mr. Chair, to my colleague that referenced the Council that got up and walked out while she was speaking, I want to apologize. I've been sick, so I ran out of water and I felt a little faint, so I had to go get water. So I apologize if I disrespected any member of the council to get water. So I apologize for that. For my colleagues that seem to be offended that I'm bringing politics into politics, sorry. But I don't align with you. You are a slate of six that vote in tow. You usually vote in tow, but you all vote together. on your agendas. And that's known. That's nothing that's a secret. I'm trying to attack anybody. But my position as a city councilor is to be the voice that people call or express a concern or the way they feel or they want to be represented. So when I bring a topic forward, if it hurts your feelings, I'll do respect. I don't care. My goal is to make sure that everybody's view is represented. So I know my council colleagues are upset or feel hurt or the reason that I disrespected them. I'm just sharing what has been brought to my attention by constituents that I'm expressing it night after night, because it seems like I'm the only one because some people just aren't listening. And this is why our community is in flux right now. So when we look at this situation right now, where we are right now, the council brought up some changes and supported it, some with facts, some with his own beliefs, his belief system, which I respect. That's his belief system. That's his due diligence looking forward in his decision. Myself, I looked at it totally opposite, but I will not, I will not apologize to share what has been asked of me by constituents, maybe constituents that don't even vote for me. So my personal opinion and my motion is we stay with the original presentation by the Charter Review Committee with the 11 representatives, eight board, three at large, and again, we can look back at this tape and listen to what everybody has said and what I expressed from what they said. This isn't made up. This isn't a dialogue to make this like some kind of a clown show. This is an expression of one council's view in comparison to six others. And I will not apologize for that. And unfortunately, my friends, This is politics. This isn't, hey, kumbaya, let's all sit together and say, let's all do this, let's run together and let's have one vision and make Medford what we believe in. No, because that's not how it works. It's a very different complex world we live in in Medford. And the thing that people come back for over and over again is they feel that this council isn't listening. And all I'm saying is, We have a committee that's worked their tails off months after months, night after night, getting the information that presented to the professionals and that presented to us. And all I'm saying is the belief of a council making a change and my beliefs from what I've heard from constituents or my personal belief and understanding is that the ward representation of all eight wards are represented. and to throw in pieces like, well, you know what? They'll be there forever, or not enough people will come out in that ward, 2,500 people. That's the way of the world. This is how we work through things. To say that we won't have enough people, not enough people come out and vote. Well, maybe these are the changes that will bring our constituents out to vote. Make them feel like they're part of the solution. Have them feel vested. Make them feel part of the community. So again, thank you for allowing me to speak.
[Tseng]: President Bears and then Vice President Collins.
[Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No one is asking my colleague to apologize for what he believes or for his position on this. Specific things were said that were then mischaracterized to make a point. and I don't take your words and then say, oh, you actually said this other thing that you didn't say. That's the only thing that frustrates me here. That's why, I mean, I didn't say that. It's not about anything like that. I don't think you should believe what you should believe or be able to say, Councilor Scarpelli. But I do think that saying that another member of this council said that some words don't matter when he didn't say that is just beyond the pale. I also want to say that we have a statutory role in this process as members of the city council. There were many times I can think of many votes and I appreciate that councilor Scarpelli's mind has changed on this matter. where a lot of people came up to this podium and said, we think this is what's best for the community to have a charter change. We need a charter review process. We need this council to pass a home rule petition so that we can elect a charter commission and do a charter change. And all of those voices didn't change that mind of that council or other Councilors who voted against it for multiple terms. I also want to say that You've heard of multiple differing opinions from the six people who supposedly all believe the same thing tonight. We don't obviously believe the same thing. We've all said, we believe in different pieces of this. So that's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about, I'm sorry for bringing politics into politics. Of course this is politics. I'm talking about misrepresenting the information and the facts on the matter and the things that people say to score political points, to try to make something seem like what it isn't. because that may serve some sort of purpose, or it may advantage your position, or maybe you'll end up getting the result that you want. It's not something that I do. We can go back and look at the tape. I'm very, very, very consistent in saying that I do, I say what I think should happen, and I try to represent those values and those principles based on the facts and the information that I have at hand. I did want to ask the Collins Center a question about what it looks like in terms of the competitiveness of elections in districts where you have, in cities or other communities in Massachusetts where you have systems like this. Do you see that having, or do you have any data to talk about what it looks like, how many races go uncontested in ward seats versus an all-at-large model? how long incumbent terms are in models like this versus models where there's more competitive elections. Do you have that data available to you? And also, if members of the Charter Study Committee would like to talk about discussions that may have happened in the Charter Study Committee around what this model would mean for competitive elections, incumbency, et cetera.
[Contreas]: We don't collect electoral information.
[Bears]: Sorry.
[Contreas]: We don't collect electoral information. Okay.
[Bears]: So competitiveness of the different models wasn't considered as part of the discussion.
[Contreas]: I know. And not that I recall.
[Wright]: I can only speak from my personal experience.
[Bears]: I'd be happy to hear personal experience.
[Wright]: I was a seven term Alderman became city council, um, until I decided not to run. of the six times I ran for re-election, three times I had appointments.
[Bears]: So about half the time. Right. And again, I talked to my colleagues in Somerville. I talked to my colleagues in Malden. I talked to my colleagues in Everett. And were you in a ward-based seat?
[Wright]: I was in a ward.
[Bears]: Yeah. A lot of ward-based seats go uncontested. Under the current model of the city council, no one ever goes uncontested. Those are the facts. And I'm not saying let's stay at all at large. The people don't want that. But I'm hearing that we don't have data on competitiveness. We didn't discuss competitiveness. And I think having competitive elections where the people in office are challenged to maintain their seats. is essential and that we should have a form and a structure of democracy that encourages that. And I think that if we're going to move in a direction where there's going to be potentially more uncompetitive elections, that we need a balance there. And I think saying that we're going to have a model where eight of the seats may often be uncontested or at least uncontested half the time, and only three of the seats would be contested more regularly is not a good balance for the competitiveness of elections. And those are the questions that I would like to see looked at more or for us to have a discussion here about looking at a model that has a little more balance considering that we didn't consider those questions and we don't have the answers in front of us. I wanna be challenged, run against me. I don't think this is a model that encourages that. That's why I put this forward. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, Chair Tseng. I appreciate that. I appreciate those comments from President Bears. I think that gets right to the heart of the issue as I see it. One last point on this through the chair. If my fellow councilors' opinions earlier were in good faith about outcomes and not about politicking and taking shots to make perceived opponents look bad, I think that then he would be sticking to the substance at hand and not derailing this conversation. With lies about us voting in lockstep and other false narratives, I also encourage people to run the tape or look at our duly promulgated council records. And people will find that the Councilors on this body who share an endorsement just disagree with each other all the time, which I believe is how it should be. I appreciate the discussion so far. I have made a motion that the five district Councilors and five at large Councilors be considered as part of President Bear's amendment. I would request that we move on to public comment and then take votes on motions. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Vice President Collins, just to clarify, do you mean four districts and five at large?
[Collins]: Yes, that is what I meant to say. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I also want to move to public comment. I do have a number of questions for the Collins Center, especially the members of the Charter Study Committee, who I think it's important to hear from. Yes? Okay, great. In, I know a big goal behind going to a hybrid system, word representation system is this idea, this, you know, desire to get a more diverse city council. In my research into word representation, into different types of representation, there's a big change, a shift in terms of how diversity is viewed as a result of making these structural changes. I think pretty much everyone agrees that at large. An all-at-large system is not good for diversity because it dilutes the votes of minority groups. And we've seen municipalities across the state be challenged for that. But there's also been a rising concern, and this is based on research in the American Political Science Review in the law of, I think it's politics, economics, and organization, where people are worried that creating smaller districts. districts that tend to be majority and minority actually cuts against racial equity in that it makes fewer politicians responsible for or accountable to minority voters. And I was wondering if this is something that the Charter Study Committee discussed in its consideration of diversity, especially with regards to race. Okay. Yeah, Chair McDonald did answer the question. She said no. It's just a concern to me because it is what political scientists now, I think, have found to be the main mover in terms of racial justice is voters' accountability, or politicians' accountability to voters. So that is something I do want to consider strongly in my consideration of the different options that we have here at the table. And one unseen strength of the alternative proposal, which I do have my questions about too, is that you keep the racial proportions quite similar comparing, for example, the historically black community in West Medford in Ward 6. Combining it with Ward 8 doesn't change the percentage much at all, and it makes an elected more accountable to those voters. Similarly, in Ward 7, there is more of a difference. And I am slightly more concerned about that one, but it does make the Councilor serving Ward 1 also accountable to minority voters as well. I did actually, I had some open-ended questions about the survey as well. Could you, Chair McDonald, since you know the survey process better than I do, help run me through a little bit of what that process was like and what the results were?
[Milva McDonald]: You mean the process of creating the survey?
[Tseng]: Yes, both. Both creating the survey, but mostly the results and what you got from the results.
[Milva McDonald]: The feedback we got was that we wanted the survey to be accessible, so not too complicated. We asked about major questions that voters are most concerned about, which is the composition, term limits, things like that. The results are all in the final report. So, I mean, I can get them, but you all have them, right?
[Tseng]: I think broad strokes, I'm familiar with the policy recommendations of the survey results. Could you remind me about the composition, what questions were asked, if you have that off the top of your mind?
[Milva McDonald]: Whether, for council, you're talking about? Yes, for city council. Whether to remain all at large? to be ward-based, hybrid-based. I mean, we can't be all ward-based, because we only have eight exclusively ward-based, because we only have eight wards. So that's not really an option on the table. Anyway.
[Tseng]: Thanks for clarifying that. So we didn't ask about the district system or?
[Milva McDonald]: The combining of the wards? Oh yeah, combining of words or... No, that was something that came up in the discussions about the school committee to address the challenges of making school committee, applying word representation to the school committee, because that would have increased the body size. I see. And so that's how that came up.
[Tseng]: One point I do find compelling is this idea that we should mix, standardize both sets, the city council and the school committee to use a similar election system. I'm worried that, I mean, I think something big I hear when I knock on the doors of people who don't necessarily turn out in local elections is just general confusion with how local elections work, who's voting for who, Who, you know, who's up. Um, could you explain to me the reasoning behind making city council and school committee, like the compositions different.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, it's. very common cities all over the state have a different composition for city council and school committee. So I think voters can figure it out. I mean, they do in most other cities or many other cities. You know, I think this is laid out in the final report, but I don't think we saw a call to increase the size of the school committee. But we also recognize that the community still wanted board representation for the school committee. I actually was not on the school committee subcommittee. And I think when you have that discussion, maybe Paulette Van der Kloot would participate. She chaired that subcommittee and they had extensive discussions. So I would actually prefer to let her speak more about that. I can tell you in general, because obviously they came back to the full committee. And we then discussed it, so I can tell you more in general, but if you want more specifics of how they reached that, she did give you a more detailed answer. But that was the gist of it, was trying to incorporate ward representation without necessarily increasing it to a body of 11, which we felt was appropriate for council, but not for school committee.
[Tseng]: I know Ms. Van der Kloot is on the Zoom, but I know we also, Ms. Van der Kloot, I see your hand raised, Mr. Clerk, if you can.
[Van der Kloot]: Councilor Tseng, did you want me to go ahead to address that?
[Tseng]: Yeah, very briefly. I know we're covering this on a different day, but I was just wondering about the mismatch.
[Van der Kloot]: Well, I think we certainly considered all the different options. We were concerned that not everybody, you know, if we looked over historically at where school committee members, what uh wards they had lived in and we we were concerned in and and the way that our particular uh city there um we don't have a school in each ward so we were looking at school placements and how that worked and it it doesn't really correspond in any way and we were concerned i mean um Sometimes there aren't that many people interested in running for school committee. It's a very taxing job. It takes a long time. In the past, the stipends were always considerably lower. We don't want someone running for position just because they want to collect the stipend. And so after we discussed all of the different options, and then we started trying to say, well, if we were doing ward representation, what would happen if we had wards where no one wanted to be on the school committee? And we were concerned about that. You know, after many different looking at this, this to us seemed to be an opportunity to certainly increase representation from different districts in the city, but also minimize other potential problems.
[Tseng]: Thank you, Ms. Barracud. And thank you for your service to the city. Thank you. It's always a joy seeing you. I think that's a helpful explanation. And I know you all looked at data about this. I don't know if the call-in center is more to contribute about this. Is there usually a big gulf between the number of candidates who run for city council and school committee?
[Milva McDonald]: Yeah. they don't collect that information. I do just want to say that the discussion about competitiveness, we didn't look at that. That's not, but what we did look at was representation of the wards. And we looked back to 2005 and found that two wards in the city had no Councilor from those wards. So they had zero representation and that two wards that those were words one and four and two words two and three had disproportionate representation. And in terms of the competitiveness, you know, like I said, we didn't look at that we didn't research it, but. I can say anecdotally that in my approximately 30 years living in Medford, I've never seen an incumbent city councilor lose an election, and I wouldn't call that competitive. So I just wanted to say that.
[Tseng]: Thank you. That's helpful, too. Quickly, going back to the survey, I am curious about, because I used to work in survey research and public opinion polling, I'm curious if you know the demographics or have that information, percentage like renter, homeowner, racial breakdown, income, anything like that.
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, we did some of those, and they should be in the final report. Some of the graphics didn't transition well, and so there's actually a new version on the website, I think, with better graphics that you can check. But Jean Zotter worked on that a lot. So if you wanted more details on that, you could speak. I don't know if she's on Zoom, but she collected a lot of that information and presented it.
[Tseng]: I think I saw Jean earlier. Oh, yep. I see Jean's hands raised. Good.
[Zotter]: Hello, everybody. I'm trying... Good to see everyone. I'm trying to look in the report. I think, Justin, your question was about the demographics of the survey respondents.
[Tseng]: Yep, that's correct. I just wanted to know what the breakdown was in terms of things like homeowner, renter, income, et cetera.
[Zotter]: So not everybody gave us demographic information, but those that did tended to be older. So 45 years or older, that was approximately 54%, which is higher than the city overall. 81% were homeowners, which is higher than the city overall, which is around 53%. 52% were female, which is similar to our city demographics. 79% were white. which is higher than the city overall, which is around 70% white now. And 74% were non-Hispanic, which is higher than the city overall. So it was skewed a little bit towards probably people who have more income, are a little older, whiter and non-Hispanic.
[Milva McDonald]: Jean, if you don't mind, if I could just add that one of the reasons, as she mentioned, not everybody gave demographic information, but one of the reasons we chose to collect it was so that we could try to do outreach to populations that we didn't get as many responses from. And Jean was an amazing organizer of listening sessions around the city. And we tried to go and we, I mean, it's all in the final report. So you can sort of see, but I just wanted to add that.
[Zotter]: Oh, thanks, Melba. We did. We held 15 listening sessions across the city. We had discussions, so it wasn't meant to be reaching a ton of people. It was more to have discussions with smaller groups of people. So 91 residents met with us. We had 11 in person and several virtual. A couple of them, we offered interpretations in Spanish and Haitian Creole. One, we had an ASL interpreter. We tried to reach groups that we weren't seeing in the survey, and that was very helpful and informed our recommendations.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I think that's helpful information. I appreciate the outreach that the committee has done to reach groups that weren't represented in the survey. I just also, you know, As someone who's into polling, I want us to be careful with how we're assessing the data as well, especially given that the homeowner to renter ratio is so far off from what the city ratio is, which is 53% to 47% instead of what seemed like 80% to 20%. But that's just to help me understand. Could you outline for me a bit I know we talked about in our interview a very long time ago, the idea of exploring different types of electoral systems, so multi-member districts, proportional representation, rank choice, and all of that. Could you help us understand as a council where those conversations went and why those weren't chosen?
[Milva McDonald]: We wanted the charter to succeed with the voters and at the state house. So we didn't necessarily look at alternatives that aren't used. Ranked choice voting did come up. That is something that we believed would see a hurdle at the state house, especially because Medford during the state question voted for ranked choice voting only with a small majority. So I think, you know, the success of the charter, the ultimate success of the charter was a consideration for us.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I know Councilor Call, or Councilor Callahan brought up the spreadsheet with comparing us to different municipalities around the country. Um, I think a question that comes into my mind is just, what is, why are we choosing one over the other, right? If we have a bigger data set, it seems to make sense to, to hew to that, but Was there much consideration of different municipalities of similar size in different states? And is there a reason why Massachusetts was the standard?
[Milva McDonald]: Could you just repeat? I'm not sure I cut that.
[Tseng]: Councilor Callaghan showed earlier the spreadsheet of different states, right, and of some in our state with the calculations of councillors per capita.
[Van der Kloot]: Right.
[Tseng]: I'm curious. Was that data considered in the committee's study of?
[Milva McDonald]: Yes, we had a spreadsheet of cities in Massachusetts. We didn't look at other states. We don't know what the interaction of municipal governments with state government is in those states. There's just so many other factors that could come into play. So we stuck to Massachusetts.
[Tseng]: Thanks. That's helpful to know. I think that more or less, I have questions for President Bears, but I suspect in the public comment period, there are gonna be questions about that proposal as well. So I wanted to get to public comment first. Yes, President Bears has some questions.
[Bears]: Thank you. First, I just wanted to state that some of the concerns that former member Van der Kloot raised are exactly the reasons that I have concerns about the model. But I have just two questions for you, Chair McDonald, if I may. In your research from past elections, did you find any council election that went uncontested?
[Milva McDonald]: I believe not. You know, I don't have it in front of me, so I can't say 100%, but I don't think we did.
[Bears]: Thanks.
[Milva McDonald]: To be honest, I mean, just there is a graph in the final report that represents the number of Councilors who ran from each ward and then who won. So there is information about that in the final report.
[Bears]: Thank you. And, you know, just given the discussion that we've had tonight and given the discussions that I've been having, would you or leadership of the Charter Study Committee or in partnership with us and the mayor be willing to survey specific options for hybrid representation at this point so that we could determine more specifically what the intent of the people who was surveyed with about the different options that have been proposed?
[Milva McDonald]: I don't think that would be my decision. So, I mean, I think that would have to be between you and the mayor. I don't, I mean, you know, We've officially finished our work, so I don't know. I just don't feel like I can answer that.
[Bears]: If we were to move in that direction, would you be open to being consulted in the process?
[Milva McDonald]: Possibly.
[Bears]: All right. I just think we actually mostly agree on this. We all agree on a hybrid model of some at large and some local representation, and I think we've spent 90 minutes plus, two hours, and maybe even longer than that, arguing about the specifics of it. And we don't actually have a lot of data beyond the fact that people want a hybrid form of government. And it might behoove us to try to do a scientific poll to actually ask—give people specific options about what that could look like.
[Milva McDonald]: Well, are you referring to multi—I mean, the— Sorry, it's getting late. The options you talked about before.
[Bears]: Not proportional, not rank choice, none of that.
[Milva McDonald]: So what are you talking about exactly?
[Bears]: Like the district versus board.
[Milva McDonald]: Just simply district versus.
[Bears]: I want to consult on what we would specifically ask.
[Milva McDonald]: Okay.
[Bears]: But it just seems to me that we basically all agree that there should be a hybrid model where there's some level of local representation and some level of at-large representation, but that beyond that specific question, the residents weren't asked about different models that that could look like. And to be frank, and I understand that some people disagree with this, the Charter Study Committee chose two different options for the two different legislative bodies of the city. And so
[Milva McDonald]: But we explained why.
[Bears]: I understand why you felt, why this committee's recommendations felt that they could be considered differently. I just think that the reason that I put forward what I proposed is because I saw what you guys wrote for that school committee.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, we wouldn't be the only city that has this configuration with a different configuration for school committee. Lowell, for instance, has an exact, you know, they have eight wards. They have 11 ward Councilors, one from each ward, three at large, and then their school committee is broke down with districts at large. And they have a seven-member school committee as well.
[Bears]: I mean, there's a bunch of different configurations across a bunch of different cities. Right.
[Milva McDonald]: I'm just saying it's not unheard of.
[Bears]: I'm not suggesting it's unheard of. I'm just suggesting that—I'll leave it at that. I think we could get more information about the specifics and ask the voters, because I I just think there are some pitfalls that have been for the school committee correctly identified in the formation of the composition of the school committee that I'm very concerned would be very similar for the council if composed differently. And I think it's worth trying to have a deeper answer to that question. So I might propose that. path forward, but.
[Milva McDonald]: I mean, there are timelines also. So that's something to consider as well.
[Bears]: Absolutely. Thank you.
[Tseng]: It's my understanding that Daniel Bullocka, who was on the, Danielle, who was on the CSC has a comment about that question. Mr. Bares. President Bears. Danielle, give us one second. Oh, there we go.
[Balocca]: Yeah, I don't want to speak for the whole committee, but the way that I think about the difference is that I liked Paulette's proposal because it fits nicely in with the way that I think about school districts for the elementary level. And those folks representing those different districts, I'm not sure if that's exactly how it works out in the wards, but that made a lot of sense to me. I do appreciate like everyone like everyone's thoughtfulness about how both of these models would have their benefits and and maybe their risks. I see like having the two different models being a way to try this out and I think councilor Azar said this earlier is like we're also hopefully committing to a regular review of the charter. I think that an incumbent in a two ward district versus a one ward district I don't see the competition being very different. I also think that No, you know, I think, you know, we don't know how this will work out and I think, increasing the size and increasing the, the number of, or like, you know, going toward representation. In my mind, would, would help in, in, not just racial diversity representation but economic as we talked about but. I also think that there's a lot of competition in Medford when it comes to ideas like we see that in this meeting today we see them in all these meetings where like I, I just have a hard time thinking that with the way that we see like people running for or people running against those people that like there aren't going to be people running against. people in current seats. I also think that there's a different way of approaching that, which is to address their term limits. So, we wouldn't have to worry about somebody being in a city council seat until they decide to retire if we decided on different term limits. But again, I think that it sounds like everybody here is considering moving towards this more representative system. I think that This was one of the more important elements of the charter review to me was moving to a more, to me, the most representative that we could be. And I still do think that what we proposed is that. But yeah, thanks for listening. And that's all I have to say.
[Tseng]: Thank you, Danielle. Thanks. I realized that I have two quick questions for the committee members who are here. Was there much conversation about the prospect of gerrymandering?
[Milva McDonald]: I'm sorry, of what?
[Tseng]: Of gerrymandering wards. I know in 2020 it was different because of the pandemic, but normally wards are drawn at the local level, the maps move up to the national level, is my understanding of things. And I know in 2020, this council did entertain three different maps to draw the wards.
[Milva McDonald]: It's the census data.
[Tseng]: Yes, it's based on census data, yeah. I know a big concern at every level with these districts is the idea that we might gerrymander. I think to me, an unspoken, something that we haven't brought up with alternative proposal on the table here is that we do have districts that are harder to gerrymander. And I am slightly worried that with smaller districts, with a greater number of districts, we'd be able to or politicians are more likely to gerrymander those districts?
[Milva McDonald]: I feel like that's a question for the Pollen Center, because they have more knowledge about that in general.
[Wright]: Thank you. Well, gerrymandering is something you would look at on a case-by-case basis. Somebody would have to challenge gerrymandering. First, initially, just think about the process. The federal census comes out every 10 years. The city gets the data. What I've seen is the city clerk ends up drawing up a map of the new wards because the ward lines will change based on where population has shifted within the city. And then that map will come to you or a variety of maps showing that. So at that point, this body, however it constituted, would look at it and make a decision as to which map best represents the residents of the city. And in doing so, ideally, you would approve a map that is not gerrymandered. And if it is, then it would be subject to challenge. So. it would go to the Secretary of State as well. They would look at it. The only thing else, if I can add one thing, based on everything I've heard tonight, and Mr. McDonald touched on it, is you're on a timeline to try to get this on the ballot for November, and you will need to get this through the legislature, which means you're gonna have to work with your state delegation, and they're gonna have to shepherd it through. And if you're going to create anything that the legislature hasn't seen before, or is not consistent with what they usually see, I would suggest you take that under consideration. I'm not making any predictions as to what the legislature would do with any, excuse me, with anything. My voice is changing apparently. But, you know, I'm sure you all have the practical wisdom of realizing what can happen when somebody gets to the legislature that they're not used to seeing. So, you know, that's kind of just a word to the wise.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I mean, I, yeah, I was just gonna say state representatives have offered to me to remain in contact about ideas that we might have as a city council too. President Bears.
[Bears]: Just to follow up on that, would you consider if we were to adopt the three at large for district or five at large for district for the council for that to be unusual for the legislature to see?
[Wright]: I don't have statistics on what they've seen across the state as far as that goes. I think to the extent there was some discussion about having, as I understood what was being discussed, more than one representative, like a district with two.
[Bears]: Oh yeah, multi-member district or proportional representation.
[Wright]: That, it's my understanding, only exists in two communities right now in Massachusetts, one of which is looking to change its form of government.
[Bears]: Yeah, I don't think we're considering that at this point.
[Contreas]: Yeah, I don't think we're considering those options.
[Tseng]: One more question for the members of the Charter Study Committee. A big discourse that in Medford for a while about moving towards a ward representation system is the studied, there are a lot of studies about how ward Councilors can oftentimes putting it more ugly, become thieves of little fiefdoms, and determine how the success or failure of development projects in their neighborhood. There's, I believe, a 20% correlation with regards to 20% fewer projects being approved, permits being approved in ward-based systems. I was wondering what kind of conversations the committee had about that.
[Milva McDonald]: We did look at that and we asked, we looked for the research and we asked the Collins Center and we only found one study. If there are more, we didn't find them and we couldn't, the Collins Center didn't know of any either. And we also mentioned that in the final report that that was the finding that you quoted, but there were also caveats, which included that it was a, it was mostly looked at towns and that more study would be warranted for the kind of area, areas like Medford cities, and also that he didn't, the author didn't consider potential benefits of ward representation, including increased diversity. So it just didn't, it was one study, looked at one thing, and it wasn't a really broad, there wasn't much broad agreement on that. and the issues of representation and the potentiality for increased diversity, more accessibility to running for office were just more compelling to us.
[Tseng]: Thanks for that summary. If no one has, if no other Councilors have any questions for the call center or for the members of the CSC, I'd like to move to public comments. I know there are folks here who've been here for a while. So if you're in person, please line up behind the microphone. I see some hands on Zoom as well. Mr. Gervino, you've been standing for a while.
[Giovino]: Thank you. It's good to have the opportunity to speak. Can I ask for your name and address? Ron Giovino, 326 East Porter Road, Medford, Mass. I appreciate the opportunity to be part of this forum, to be able to talk to the public on this very important issue. And I think this is one of the most important pieces of our work. I was a member of the Charter Study Review from the beginning, participating in both the Ward Representation Subcommittee and the School Committee Subcommittee. along with many listening sessions, ice cream at Wright's Pond, interviews, and of course, all our meetings. I do wanna say publicly that without the leadership of our chairperson, Milbaugh McDonald, who kept us in line, kept us with the one theme of creating a faceless, apolitical document, a living document that would be able to be changed in the best interest of the city. We didn't take this ward representation piece lightly. And I think, you know, I can break it down into very simple terms. We want our neighbors to feel like they have a neighbor at this council. And that's what it comes down to. Every one of you who represent the city also live in the city. and you go downstairs and you go get your car, and you see four neighbors who have access to you. There are parts of this community that don't have access, and that's what we wanted to give them, access to talk to somebody in their neighborhood. And for me, and I can only speak for me, that was the theme, to give each one of those neighborhoods slash wards that ability to not only have someone to go to like you know their Salem street discussion St Clair discussion tops discussion, who do I call I don't know you, who do I call. And they'd know, Ward 3 rep, Jim Jones, that's who I need to call. And Jim Jones also knew that those folks that were talking to him, that were keeping him in office for the next term. So there was a natural togetherness that represented them in the city. And everybody deserves that. And as we know, that doesn't happen, it hasn't. 2005, there's some wards that have zero representation. And we thought that was not right. The other thing that an assumption that all we're doing is putting one of 11 people on a city council for the entire city. We're not giving ward reps powers. There's no superpower. All you are is one of 11 votes, nothing more, nothing less. And to assume that you all live in your neighborhood, do you make Cherry Street your priority when you're up here making laws? No, of course not. And that's what we expect from our ward representation. And that's why we think it's very important. The district discussion that happened with the school committee, and when I'm here talking about the school committee, there's a thousand other reasons why we went district. not the least which is some folks have children in schools in different wards. So there's a lot to that. And we'll talk about that when that comes up. I think what we have to look at is exactly everybody who's voting should have someone they know here. who is at least not voting for them, not doing things specific to them, but talking to them both ways. I can talk to my ward two rep, the ward two rep can come to me and share information. It just makes sense. Going to 11, just one out of 11, it just made too much sense. The discussion about open wards, Well, we believe that this is such a positive change in the city. It is going to foster a new generation of new people who don't have to worry about raising $20,000 to come here, who don't have to go to parts of the city they're just unfamiliar with. They can sit at church. They could sit in a community center. They could sit at a basketball game and say, hey, Jim, why don't you run? And that guy gets to run and he gets to come up here and do great things for the city. Those folks are not around. Where are they? This gives them that opportunity. So my message that I wanna share, and again, I'm not speaking for the committee. I'm speaking for somebody who was here for two years, listening to my fellow committee people and understanding what the goal was. And the goal is to foster representation to everybody. So everybody knows. that if there's something going on in my community, I know somebody on the council. And I think that we have to not talk about the negatives of money and other things. Let's just assume that this is a new opportunity for new, fresh ideas and new people to come in and win for the city. And instead of looking at Wyoming or Alaska Do what I did, call Gary Christensen over in Malden. Let him tell you what the ward system over in Malden does. You don't have to go far. Go have lunch with Gary, he'll tell you. He tells you a lot. He tells me why he doesn't want to be the president of the school committee. He's a great mayor who has some great ideas. And so instead of, let's just talk about the people here. And I think, you know, two purposes. One is that districts don't accomplish that goal. Districts still leave a hole for four people, four wards to not have any representation, still leaves that opportunity. When you're combining eight to four, that means four wards can still go with zero representation. And we don't like that. The eight One to each ward satisfies that. And trust me, being here for 66 years, I have a pretty good idea that when people in Bedford see need, they step up and do it. And if it's even 20 people, that start a drive in a community. I think that's what we're all about. And you guys are all safe. This isn't about you. This is about the living document 20 years from now that's been reviewed three or four times and changed. Let's give this one a chance. I think the people are excited about it. They were eating ice cream and talking about ward representation two years ago. Now they formulated opinions, and another survey is just going to tell you that. So, I'm talking to the folks at home, because ultimately they're the ones who make the decision on where the city goes, and its charter, I appreciate your time, and I appreciate Milva, and all the other members of the committee who really worked very hard, not for their any political purpose, but to make the city better. So, thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I'm going to Zoom. I see Paul Geraghty. Name and address for the record when you're unmuted, please. Thank you.
[Paul Garrity]: Hi, my name is Paul Geraghty, 40 Cedar Road here in Bedford. I appreciate the work of the Charter Committee and I do appreciate the amount of thought and diligence being given to this subject matter by the City Council. But in listening to the discussion tonight, I'm coming away with two thoughts. One, is the weight of the committee's thinking to have competitive races, is the weight of the committee come away with the best policymaking decision structure possible? And As Ron Givino said previously, I really do believe that innovation and good decisions come from the most unexpected places. I feel that the more voices that are in the conversation, the better the final outcome can be. So again, I'm hearing, you know, do we want to have competitive races or do we want to have good real-time policymaking process? In my opinion, I think going to the ward representation is the way to go. And we do have the safeguard that in time we can go back via the charter to say, well, we made a mistake. Let's go back, rethink it and change it. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Going in person, name and address for the record. Thanks.
[Hays]: Sharon Hayes, 69 Ripley Road. I'd like to start by saying I am opposed to the amendment. I totally support the ward-based representation as written in the proposed charter by the Charter Review Committee. So many things I wanted to say, but after waiting three and a half hours as a community member, it's hard now to put my thoughts together. One thing I wanted to start by saying is someone who's been pretty engaged and involved in Medford politics for a number of years now. There has been a lot of talk about ward representation going on again for a number of years. And that was the only model I ever heard of from anyone in the community or any of the other elected officials that I worked with or had any other engagement with. There was constant talk of ward representation, of the value of ward representation, of the fact that we have a lot of people in this community who are not engaged, who are, don't feel connected to our elected officials or our government in general, policymaking, things that affect them. So I see that as one of the values or one of the major value of potentially of ward representation. if you know that there's someone that you, a face you recognize. Everyone said this, so I don't need to keep reiterating it. But again, that sense of connection seems to be a big thing that's being talked about everywhere right now across the country. And anything we can do to build up that sense of connection so that we can get more people involved in what's going on, we have a serious lack of civic engagement everywhere. So why we wouldn't be looking for better ways to try to get people more involved, I'm really not understanding. You know, I've lost my train of thought. One of the things that concerns me about the presentation of this amendment, is the potential for a conflict of interest when City Council is getting involved in such a way of what feels to me personally like almost dismissive of the work that we as a community charged this group with doing. I read a blog post from Councilor Leming and also saw him speak at one of the Charter Review Committee meetings where he commented on that and said, you know, If there were to be a conflict between what something that the Charter Committee recommended and a major conflict with what the City Council felt was appropriate, that really there should be deference given to what the Charter Committee, the conclusions they came to. Because if they were charged with doing this, they've been doing this for two years. They have become our local experts on this. they've consulted, they've got data, I was gonna use a perm, they've got tons of data on their website for anyone who wants to look and see why they reached these conclusions and what information they used to come to these conclusions. I'm concerned and troubled by the fact that I'm seeing a city council who now, you know, is suggesting that perhaps their experience should count for more than what the charter committee came to the conclusion after their many months of this. So I really hope you guys will truly consider the fact that this does seem to be what the community wanted. And yes, there could be many other models that could be looked at. Again, it was thoroughly and clearly explained why they didn't choose to look at those other models. So, you know, I really hope that we will go toward representation because I think that's what has been talked about. That's what people wanted. People wanted to have the ability to have more connection. I can personally speak as someone who ran to say that running a citywide election definitely is an expense in resources, time, money that would be different if we had some people running for those who would be able to run a ward based, which one would expect. would bring more people willing to run. So, you know, I think we don't know. We don't know how ward-based will work in our community. We do know that up to this point, a model that's not ward-based has led to some real disparities both in the number in disparities between wards and people who will run, people who end up in office. We also know that we see fairly low voter turnout by wards. So I think that's the gist of what I wanted to say. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. And I just wanted to clarify that. I think most members of this committee have expressed their gratitude to the Charter Study Committee. I know members of this committee have also said that all in all, this is a great work, but it is our job, our statutory job to scrutinize and ask questions. And I think if you look at the questions, at least I've been asking, I've been trying to get an understanding of what have I not seen in the final report? in trying to understand the thinking behind the proposal at hand. I see John Moresky on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please, once we have you unmuted.
[Moreshi]: I'm John Moreshi, I live at 26 Sherman Court. And full disclosure, I was a member of the Charter Committee until a combination of a new job and a new baby made it just too hard for me to keep up. That being said, I'm only speaking for myself. I haven't spoken to the committee about this and my views are my own. To start, I've spent my life in public service, and I've had to push back against cynicism from family, friends, even coworkers. I'm not cynical about public service or public servants, but this amendment does make me feel a little cynical, and that hasn't changed the whole time I've been watching the debate. I'm not trying to cast dispersions on actual intent, but the appearance, I think, is the elevation of self-interest by the council over broad public interest. And intended or not, I think that's the result. There's no perfect system, including the proposed system. And I wanna echo Milva regarding competitiveness in our current system. Turnout in municipal elections is low, and wards like mine, Ward 1, are unrepresented already. I'm skeptical we're actually losing much by going with the committee's recommendation on that front. And to echo Ron, representation by neighborhood is crucial. It's a crucial value in this change, and we shouldn't lose sight of that. Elevating one definition of competitiveness as a value above all others will miss the mark. So I think ultimately the real tell here is that there aren't efforts in cities with a ward at-large hybrid structure to change that structure, as far as I'm aware. So whatever problems exist with that structure, they don't outweigh it. Are wards a perfect unit to use? Absolutely not. But there's no perfect line to draw. Wards are an existing unit of government in Massachusetts. People know them. It's logical to use them. Why add another layer of complexity with districts? Councilor Bears mentioned the vast majority of bodies don't have ward elections, and Councilor Callahan looked at other states. I'm very skeptical of the utility of these comparisons, as was noted earlier. Government structure is so different in other places, county government most immediately. So I would just say we know what communities like ours do, communities with our issues and concerns and state and county structure. They do what the Charter Committee recommended. Nothing is perfect. There is no best. We could debate or survey forever. We know this model works in communities like ours. We know people want it, and I'm confident that it is better than what the city is doing now. So I hope this amendment is not adopted, and the Charter Committee's recommendations are successful. And one thing I have to add, because it came up a few times, the solution to long meetings cannot be less representation. Thank you very much.
[Tseng]: Going in person now. Name and address for the record, please.
[Goldstein]: Hi, Sam Goldstein, 29 Martin Street. So yeah, thank you to members of this committee and to the Charter Study Committee. Although I do want to say not so much to member Eunice Brown, who commented on Facebook on December 17. Zach and Matt are big effing pricks. If Zach turned up dead, I would not mind a bit. No, I do not want to thank that person. I do have a lot of thoughts on what's being discussed tonight. I think that a big piece of this is, let's put it in a maybe odd way, meaningful granularity of representation. We have a lot of cities, or at least some cities in the state, that use a district model, including Boston and Lowell, to my knowledge. And it seems to work in those places. It's not as though there's no precedent for this. I am particularly concerned about, and just a moment, please. Wards 7 and 4 in particular, Ward 7, I did some math the other night. In the last municipal race, only 740 people voted in that ward. In contrast to Ward 6, where there were 2,319 voters. To put it straight, the weighting of a vote in seven versus six, it's a factor of about three, right? This means that people in some places will have significantly heavier weighted, more heavily weighted votes than in others. Ward one, only 1,342 voters in the last muni versus ward three, where there were 2,607. You know, this is a factor of two. I do think that combining these boards into districts helps to make up for some of this. I think this hasn't really been discussed concretely tonight, but it is a concern of mine that like, We are actually talking about constructing a system that will or would give people votes that are significantly more meaningful than other people's. And just for a little perspective, in Ward 4, where I do live, I live in, I believe it's 4-2. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, please. But basically, the other precinct in the district is occupied mostly by Tufts University has a high population because of the student body of Tufts University. The students at Tufts University do not typically participate in municipal races. So, you know, we're dealing with, you know, I think, an issue that is, to some extent, going to be built in here. And I don't think there's a way to reconcile that issue, given how votes are apportioned. Apart from the district model, which has been proposed, I think that there is some kind of law of, I don't know if it's exactly the law of averages, but basically evening out these discrepancies. I also, you know, want to make the point that I think it's sort of peculiar that we would have two bodies, the school committee and the city council. And this point's been made before, but two bodies that are essentially representing the same population in essentially the same way. and then structure them into distinct ways. I do believe that these should, you know, have identical compositions. If possible, I think that's a lot easier for voters. I think it's a lot easier for people. And I feel like there have been arguments made for why one is like legitimate, but not the other. And I think just lastly, I'd like to end on the point that, you know, we're fixating, I think a lot on the semantics of what a ward is, And, you know, there's a point here to the point of like meaningful granularity right, we want a unit I think that is small enough so that people feel like they can know you know who their representative is in a more meaningful way, while also, you know, not making that unit so small that we have these like you know, multiple districts that are sort of these edge cases here. I mean, that's, I've named two particularly small districts. That would be two out of eight. That's a quarter of these seats that would be, you know, I think too small. So yeah, that's my piece. And actually, I'll just end on the fact that I think that the city, and not just the Charter Study Committee, but broadly, ought to take a more scientific approach to polling and getting information from the public. I think these ad hoc surveys that go out to personal networks are not a, not a tool of good policymaking. And I think that there are, you know, meaningful and meaningful ways to survey the public that do a better job of getting, you know, input across the population and not from like, you know, biases based off of like who's plugged in enough. Thank you for your time.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Moving back to Zoom, Paulette Van der Kloot. I think the clerk still has to let you, yeah, there we go.
[Van der Kloot]: There we go, thank you. Councilor Tseng, I just wanted to come back for just a second to say I became a little nervous as I was listening to the discussion that all of a sudden the comparison was to what the school committee subcommittee proposed. in our particular part of the school committee. And it is different than what was proposed for city Councilors. That was because we did see that there was different roles and really in some ways different populations. I wanted to say that I came slowly toward representation, but ultimately voted and supported it because as a member of the committee, and having attended many of the information sessions, and listening to people and talking to people in other communities, as well as having the discussions that we'll talk more about in terms specifically about the school committee, I heard from our citizens a great interest in having ward representation. I think, and as I served on the committee, you know, you could go nuts doing this because there's always one more thing you can do and one more thing and make it better. And I absolutely believe that we're really all interested here in trying to come up with a good, positive solution. And we all understand that it's really time. So there's, you know, the weighing between how much do we go back to the drawing board and do another something and another something and how much we move is, you know, the question is there. I just want to let the committee know that I came to appreciate ward representation, even though as someone who had ran and served our city for a long time, I loved representing the whole city, but there was much to be said for those other discussions and I don't want the fact that we chose something different to put forward to you for the school committee to hamper the discussion or make anybody think that I was not a proponent for what the committee put forth overall. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Going back in person, name and address for the record, please.
[Haggerty]: Hi, Anne Haggerty, 11 Sagamore Park. First, thank you very much to the Charter Review Committee, the Collins Center staff, and the City Council for putting this out and really evaluating it. I think you all have good goals in mind, and I appreciate what everybody has added to the conversation. Um, Denver does have a voter participation problem. It's not alone. The state does and the country does. Um, I think there's a lot of reasons for that. There's a lack of information available. Fortunately, I'm hearing some news about a potential digital newspaper that might come out. making candidates available. It's always been hard to find who's running and what do they stand for. Recently, it's been hard to find that. So kind of developing that as a mechanism to learn more about people, I think would be great. A couple of questions. The data referenced, I think Zach, you referenced some data about districts being similarly made up. Is that available on like six and eight are similar in structure? Um...
[Tseng]: I can answer that question.
[Haggerty]: Oh, I'm sorry.
[Tseng]: Yeah, the question should go to the chair. I'm sorry. But I can also answer that question for you. Yes, it's all census data. The most easy way to play around with the data is on a website called Dave's Redistricting.
[Haggerty]: Dave's Redistricting?
[Tseng]: Dave, like the name, Dave's Redistricting. OK. They have the city broken up by precinct, by ward, by census block as well. And you can piece together a map, and you can use that to look at the data.
[Haggerty]: I like looking at data. The other thing I wasn't clear on, if there was a hybrid district and at-large camp election, how did people, or even with the ward-based ones, how does it work? Do candidates run specifically for a ward or at-large seat, or do the at-large seats get filled with the next highest from the ward-based?
[Tseng]: No, they would run for separate seats. So a candidate running for an at-large seat would only be in that election. And a candidate running for a ward-based seat or a district-based seat, whatever it may be, is only running for that election.
[Haggerty]: OK, great. Because the turnout is different from ward to ward, as noted by the previous person speaking. Interestingly, two of the wards that were mentioned with the lower turnout, which would give it a higher weight, if you would, don't have any representatives on the City Committee right now, City Council. So Ward 1 and 7 are not represented, right, if I'm correct? So I'm in favor of expanding the number of voices that are contributing to the discussion, to get more diversity, to get better ideas, and also to have a ripple effect and kind of hopefully energize the community to get involved, to start voting, to run for office. I'm afraid we're kind of predicting outcomes that may or may not happen. If somebody runs unopposed, we don't really know. So I was wondering if it was possible to—it was great. I love what Emily—Councilor Lazzaro pointed out about being able to reevaluate the charter after 10 years, I think. Could that be done sooner? Like, could you—could we come to one framework and see how it works, and then reevaluate it in less than 10 years if it's not working?
[Tseng]: I think the Collins Center might be the best people to answer this question. I mean, from my own perspective, we all know how long it took us to get to this point, too. But yeah, from a legal perspective.
[Wright]: We don't offer legal opinions.
[Contreas]: Do you want to take it? Yeah. The charter provision that guarantees a 10-year review is simply that, that you do a 10-year review. You can open the charter at any time to a proposed amendment. That's in Chapter 43B, Section 10.
[Tseng]: And for the proposed amendment process, is that process similar to what happened this time around, or is that?
[Contreas]: Yes, it will look the same. If you have a special act, you can only amend by a special act.
[Tseng]: So we'd have to go, we go through the whole charter study committee process or, or the, I know there's another process.
[Contreas]: You can hold your own hearings and make your own decision. That's optional.
[Wright]: Yeah. And the mayor and then you'd send it into the legislature. Like any other special act, the homework petition.
[Tseng]: Is it common for city councils to review their city charter with in less than 10 years spans?
[Contreas]: It's fairly rare, but it has been done.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Does that answer your questions? Thank you. Yes, President Bears. Sorry, give me a second.
[Bears]: Did that amendment also then go to a referendum?
[Contreas]: If it's a change in composition of the council, yes. It couldn't take effect without voter approval.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Wanted to make sure that was true. Thank you. I'm going to Zoom. I see Gene Zotter next. I'm going to just put the record once we get you unmuted.
[Zotter]: Good evening, Jean Zotter, 36 Saunders Street. I was also a member on the Charter Study Committee. And I just want to thank the city council for their thorough and thoughtful consideration of our report and the thought that you're putting into the makeup of city council. I just I wanted to say why I voted for ward representation. This is just from me and not representative of the whole committee is I was very committed to ensuring our city council was more representative of the racial and ethnic diversity we have in the city. Medford in 2010 was 78% white. It is now 68% white and we seem to be on a trend where we are becoming more diverse. And we do have one ward, Ward 7, that is minority majority. based on the 2020 census data. And so if you do go down the route of not going with the ward representation, but some other configuration, I would urge you to maybe not just adopt what the school committee did, but to look at the wards and ensure that you're not diluting what could have been maybe a minority majority ward. The other reason I voted for ward representation and not some other configuration is I was, I really want to see Medford have a full charter. It's really hard as a resident to know how our government is made up. It's been four years since we've had a charter review, charter revision. And we were advised by the Collins Center that if we did something different like that, that it might get held up and might not pass through the legislature. So that was the other reason. Thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration.
[Tseng]: Thank you, Jean. Do we have any more people in person wishing to comment? Name and address for the record, please. Thank you.
[Dixon]: Glenn Dixon, 61 Monument Street. My views are my own, not my wife's. I just wanted to make a couple of points, which Gene briefly outlined, but I want to emphasize it. The districts that you're talking about And I'm for the ward representation also. But if you went with those districts, those districts were drawn around where schools are, not around how it's going to best represent the city in terms of a city council. So it doesn't really make sense to use those districts. So then you get into the problem if you have different districts designed around what's best for the city council as opposed to schools, then you're getting into even a more confusing situation. So that's one point. And the other point that I would like to make is somebody else briefly touched on it also is that it is inherently a conflict of interest for you to be changing this part of the charter. Whether you feel like you're being totally objective and doing what's best for the city, the perception is that, and the reality is, do you have an interest in this? So the perception of the city is not gonna be the same as, no matter what you proclaim, there's gonna be doubts. So I, you know, certain things in the charter which affect the city council, its power, its salaries, Those things should be left alone, in my opinion, because the Committee was made up of a wide range of views. They spent a lot of time. They thought about this. They don't have any personal stake in whether they're going to get elected or not, or their slate is going to get elected, whatever. So the perception, no matter what you say, is going to be that. And in most parts of government, I know the Supreme Court, if there's a perception that someone in the Supreme Court has a conflict of interest, they're supposed to stay away from that. And I think the same should apply here. The perception is going to be that you have a conflict of interest in some of these matters. And the committee really did not have conflict of interest. So those are my two main points. Districts are not set up, we're not set up for the city council, they're set up for the school committee, making sure there's a school in each district, because a lot of the wards don't have schools. And then the conflict of interest. Those are my two main points. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. On the conflict of interest point, I mean, I think the city council is built into the process for a reason. There are things that we're considering that the Charter Study Committee, I think has said that they haven't considered and these aren't necessarily political. That's my understanding of it. I'm moving to Zoom, Jess H. Name and address for the record, please, once we get you unmuted.
[Healy]: Hi, Jessica Haley, Four Lock Road. I'm in favor of the different wards being represented. I think what we may also see is if each ward has a person that they're interested in voting for, that they'll come out and actually vote. I think what we may be seeing is we have a lot of people running on one slate, and if people are not in line with their views, they're not going to bother voting for them. So they're not gonna show up to vote. I think this would also help with not everyone just running together and people actually interested in certain parts of the city that they're in and they can make a bond with the people in their neighborhood. So I'm definitely in favor and I appreciate what the charter did. And I think you should follow their recommendation with all the work they did. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Are there any more people? Oh, okay. Yeah, could... Okay. Mr. Andrews-Holland, can we unmute him? Okay. Name and address for the record, please. Hello? You're on, we can hear you. Name and address for the record, please. You can hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
[Andreottola]: Anthony Antriotola, 75 Lawrence Road. Thank you. It's been a long night and I just wanna say, I also was a member of the charter study committee and our committee did a lot of work, but I must say that I am someone who participated in a number of the listening sessions and I got a lot of information from My neighbors and people I met along the road. And when we talked about ward representation, we never talked about the number 11. And I also want to just say that districts are wards. they're two wards combined. So district representation is ward representation. And this is something I brought up early in the process that my colleagues had no interest in exploring anything other than the number 11. The number 11 came from a model that was used was the city of Lowell, who has eight wards and three districts. three at-large Councilors, but their wards are double the size of Medford's. And what makes sense in Lowell doesn't necessarily make sense in Medford. And something that Chairman Zhang, that you brought up, when we talked about marginalized communities and getting more participation from groups that are underrepresented in Medford, when we talked about wards, we never really looked at something that you brought up about if we go look at wards that are more, have a greater minority, are we in fact giving them more representation and power or are we kind of, leaving them in one area where they may be able to get a little bit of representation instead of being represented throughout the city. I think that's something that needed exploring, which I brought up early in the process, which, again, my colleagues chose not to explore and were The three and eight was the number from the beginning and no other discussion of any other configuration was entertained. In some of the listening sessions that I participated in with the community, especially one with the Mystic Valley double NAACP, the discussion really was how do we get ranked choice voting. in the city. And when I mentioned it to my colleagues, it was something that they had no interest in even talking about. So I know I've also been, I've been getting emails, got an email saying that, you know, I shouldn't even come and state my position or my views and what I've experienced. But I felt they needed to because Medford's real important to me. And my neighborhood is very important. And I think our government is important. And you have a big responsibility. And I think it's important for you to consider five and four. That's something that I thought would work best for the city. And I really wanted my colleagues to take a look at it. And like I said, I was the only one that thought of of a different number. And I just wanted to say that out loud. I don't usually come and talk at city council meetings and I don't articulate my feelings well on Zoom, but I just wanted to come and use my voice because people told me I shouldn't and that didn't sit well with me. But I think you're on the right path. I think it's your responsibility as City Council to explore other options than what was presented to you by the Charter Study Commission. They did a lot of work and great people, and I give them a lot of credit, but they didn't look they didn't take a big look. It was very, and I think it was such important work and people wanted to get it right and they wanted to get right where they should, that they neglected to really kind of take some of this stuff into consideration. And I just wanted to I want to say one other thing about what you said earlier about commissions and other groups and having a residency requirement. I just wanted you to realize that some of the commissions and boards have employees of the city, like the police chief, who is a non-city resident. So if you go in that route, there are some changes you would need to make to allow for that. And there were so many things that I wanted to say and so many points I wanted to make. And waiting, I've lost my chain of thought. But I just wanted to say, please consider everything. And the pressure from the community about 11 is something that you should take on. It's your responsibility as elected officials to do what's best for the city, even if you do get some negative blowback, because our city deserves you know, the best change. I think someone else said it today. And, you know, I believe that's a city council that's larger, but it's balanced. And I'll just leave it at that. It's late. And thank you for listening to me ramble.
[Tseng]: Thank you, Mr. Andrew Tolan. And let's go in person to Chairman Connell.
[Milva McDonald]: Thank you. Melvin McDonald, 61 Monument Street. I want to thank Anthony for speaking and sharing his thoughts. I do just want to say that we all on the committee have different perceptions and different experiences, but we did consider other numbers besides 11. I could bore you with the details of that, but I don't feel like I have to do that. I think it shows up in the minutes of our meetings. We did not simply only consider 11. Other than that, I think we did take a comprehensive look and I think our final report shows that. So I feel like it speaks for itself. The one thing that I did wanna point out because there's been talk about voter turnout and numbers were given about voter turnout in particular wards and the wards with low voter turnout correlate directly with the underrepresented wards. When candidates run for office, they naturally go where the voters are, so it becomes a, a cycle. And one of the hopes is that with representation. voter turnout could increase. So I just wanted to point that out, that the low voter turnout correlates with the underrepresented or zero represented in the last couple of decades' wards. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Going now to Zoom, Ms. Sheila Ahrens, name and address for the record, please, once we unmute you.
[Sheila Ehrens]: Um, hi, it's Sheila errands. I'm at 19 Monuments of Monuments Street. It's been it's been a long evening 19 Sagamore Park. That was my old address. Sorry. I wanted to just say, can you hear me?
[Tseng]: Yes, we can hear you.
[Sheila Ehrens]: Okay. I just wanted to say I lived in Somerville for many years and we had ward representation there and I found that it worked very, very well. I had a city Councilor that I knew would be receptive to any sort of questions I had or needs that I had and I could go directly to him or her. and have my voice heard. So I think it was very, very effective. I also want to thank the folks on the committee. I know that they put in so many hours. I was initially involved before they weaned down the number of people on the council. And quite honestly, I would have never been as dedicated as they are as far as the amount of time that they spent on it. So thank you, thank you. I know it was really done because they care about the city and want what's best for it. So I'm just trying to think of what my other thoughts are, because it is late. But anyway, I guess basically that it worked very well in Somerville and it's really wonderful to be able to make a connection with someone who represents your ward and that you can feel like you can get have changes made and have a voice as opposed to having just at large Councilors. So I highly recommend that the city council look at that and put their support behind all of the work that the committee did. Thank you very much.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Going to Zoom, Eileen Lerner. Uh, can you give us your name and address for the record once we unmute you? Thank you.
[Lerner]: My name is Eileen Lerner. I live at 3920 Mystic Valley Parkway, and I want to say that I really support the work of the Charter Commission. I'm just so impressed by their public service, their commitment, and the result. And I think it's, um, It's just a great example of democracy in action. And just for that one argument alone, I recommend that every city councilor pass this, the new charter resolution on to the state house, because you can't, it would be so awful to have this great demonstration of democracy that went on in our community. Albeit it wasn't perfect, nothing is ever perfect, but it's a first step, you know, and improving things. And as has been pointed out, there's, in this charter itself is provision for periodic reviews. So it's not anything that's cast in stone, it can be improved on. But as people said, the main thing is ensuring more representation than has ever happened before in Medford to the people that live in Medford. And it seems like in view of what happened in Washington the other day, that we ought to be cognizant of giving people more representation and encouraging community because we're all gonna need it. We're all gonna need it a whole lot. So thank you to the committee. I just, I'm in awe of all of you. Thank you so much. And to the city council, please, put your support in back of this fine work. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you, Eileen. Are there any more folks either on Zoom or in person who wish to comment on this publicly? Seeing none, are there any Councilors who wish to speak? Seeing none, I just wanted to reiterate that I think that this has been, for the most part, for 99% of this discussion, a good faith discussion about the merits of the different proposals that we have on hand. I think it's important to recognize that the critiques that we might have as councillors of any system and from the residents are based in good faith efforts to try to understand how politics works, period, but also how the decisions we make can create ripple effects and unintended consequences. And as Councilors, it is, I think, in our thinking, in our line of work to think through deeply about these concepts and to bring our lived experience there. That is to say, I really want us to hew away from personal attacks, either on this side of the rail, but especially from the public to that. for councillors having a difference of opinions. I know that there are a lot of councillors here who have very different opinions on this one topic. And I just wanted to put that out there because I know that this is a deep, rich, and oftentimes tense conversation about something that's gonna be so impactful and so meaningful moving forward. Speaking from the chair, there are a number of factors that I think should be answered about the proposal we have right in front of us before I'm ready to support that one in full form. And I do think that the proposed amendments, for the most part, address those concerns. In particular, I'm the only person of color on this city council. I was elected on a platform of racial justice and diversity. And so I take that very, very heavily when I consider how I'm gonna vote on this. And it's really important to me that the proposal that passes the city council at the final step is one that really does result in an effect of racial justice, rather than just tokenizing and saying, we have one, you know, one Councilor from the majority minority ward and that's, and we're all good. Because that is something that happens. And I do go back to my, this idea of, This idea that when politicians are accountable to more voters in general, especially from minority groups and underrepresented groups, marginalized groups, that is truly the better way, the more effective way to reach racial justice. That being said, I am still open to word representation. I think this is, this is, you know, the big substantive meeting that we're going to have on this. I don't think it's the end of the discussion, and I know that Councilor Callahan and Councilor Leming have made it clear that they want to contribute to this conversation. I mean, just by showing up, they've done that, but they also, I believe, want to vote on this as well. I'm afraid that voting no on this tonight would foreclose that possibility of letting them have their chance to vote on it as well. And that's why tonight I'm gonna, I plan to vote in favor of it. That's just me speaking as a councilor from the chair. Thank you.
[Bears]: To that end, I'd like to further amend my motion, which has been amended by Councilor Collins, to refer these recommendations to a final committee of the whole meeting to consider all of the proposed recommendations of this committee after the three meetings of the Governance Committee. Thank you. So, do we have a second on? I'm just amending my initial motion. I don't know if there's a second on my initial motion but my initial motion was to make this proposed change and then Councilor Collins amended that to be five at large and four from districts instead of the original proposal and then my final is that this this along with everything else that this committee recommends go to committee the whole for final consideration. Great.
[Tseng]: Mr. Clerk, do you have that?
[Hurtubise]: President Bears, what I have is that you amended your motion to refer these recommendations to a final committee of the whole meeting to consider all the proposed recommendations of this committee. Yes.
[Tseng]: Yes, President Bears. I keep seeing my name instead of yours, and I'm like, what?
[Bears]: I got you. To further clarify that we hold a committee of the whole to consider all of the recommendations voted on in this committee. So we voted on some recommendations, amendments earlier in the meeting, the smaller ones to the different sections. essentially that we, once we've gone through these three meetings where we split it up, we have a meeting where we review the amended red line draft based on the votes of this committee.
[Tseng]: Councilor Call, sorry, late. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Do you, should we be voting throughout in that case, and then taking all of what we've voted on and bringing it to committee of the whole Finally, are you asking President Bears to suffer. I don't know what, how, how that would work.
[Tseng]: President Bears.
[Bears]: So, basically what I'm just saying is that I think at least as I was understood in this process, up until this point, the recommendations of this committee would have gone directly to the regular meeting. I think it makes sense to have a committee of the whole prior to a final vote of the regular meeting so that we can hear from our two colleagues not on the committee in a committee meeting dedicated solely to this topic. And then the regular meeting vote would be based on something that the whole council had reported out of committee.
[Lazzaro]: but we should keep voting on these motions as they come up and then presenting this in committee of the whole and then that goes to regular.
[Bears]: Yes, in that committee of the whole that we take all of the motions from this committee and create a red line draft and then we can consider that in committee of the whole before it goes to a regular meeting.
[Tseng]: Is that good? Any other comments or questions from councilors before we take this vote? Oh, is there a second on President Bears' motion?
[Collins]: Second.
[Tseng]: From Councilor Collins. Yes, one second.
[Scarpelli]: Again, I urge this council to listen to the comments from the Collins Center that delaying this because Councilor Callahan and Councilor Leming haven't been heard, I think they've been heard. I mean, they were here, they were part of the discussion. It's not like they haven't been here, they weren't here. To now move this to another meeting and then to a meeting to vote, let's make a decision, let's move forward so we're not stalling. This has to go to a vote, to the legislation, this has to go to the state. I just think that we keep kicking this can down the road and we're gonna be exactly where we are. So again, I think we entrusted a group of citizens to do the work for this community. And I think that it's been loud and clear what they've shared. And I would be I would disagree with what motions of forward and put forth my motion to move forward with this vote with the ward representation of eight and then the three at large. And let's get this process moving so we can move method forward. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I have Councilor Lazzaro and then President Burson.
[Lazzaro]: I would disagree with the characterization of kicking the can down the road where I would call it giving it due diligence and we're just gonna have to work really hard and we're gonna have to go to a lot of meetings and I think that we will just do it quicker. We'll just have to meet more frequently and we'll get it done. I'm willing to work hard if you're willing to work hard. Thank you.
[Bears]: just to outline the schedule we're scheduled again to meet on February 4th and then February 19th this would have essentially the only difference here would be considering this on February 25th or March 11th at our regular meeting we would need to consider it on the 11th if we tried to schedule a committee of the whole in advance. So it would be a two weeks of additional consideration. And that does assume that we get through everything in the three governance committee meetings and we don't have to move to the governance committee scheduled for March 4th, which would have put us at March 11th anyway, which is ahead of our goal of getting this done by the end of March. I guess just to the call-in center representatives in terms of moving this through legislatively, is there a material difference of us reporting this to the mayor and the mayor submitting this to the council in early March versus late March in terms of the legislature getting this done in time for us to? Yes.
[Contreas]: So it's in April when we'll start the budget.
[Bears]: All right. So we need to try to get this to them in early March then as we originally planned. Great.
[Tseng]: Great. Are there any other comments before we take this vote? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Hurtubise]: President Bears? Yes. Vice President Collins?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro?
[Tseng]: Yes, three in favor, two opposed, motion passes. Do we have any final words or motions? We have a motion adjourned from President Bears. Do we have a second on that? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. As I give the clerk time to type, I want to thank everyone for staying on so late into this meeting. Thank you to the Collins Center for answering so many questions. Thank you to the members of the Charter Study Committee. I know we really grilled you. And especially a deep thank you to Chair McDonald for the hard work, the difficult answers that you gave to us as well. you know, looking forward to the next few meetings on this. I think we can get a lot, a lot done. Thank you. When you're ready to motion to adjourn. Yes. Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Five in favor, non absent meeting is adjourned.
|
total time: 49.16 minutes total words: 6328  |
total time: 46.1 minutes total words: 7153  |
total time: 14.58 minutes total words: 2143  |
total time: 35.07 minutes total words: 5499  |
|
total time: 8.63 minutes total words: 1205  |
total time: 10.09 minutes total words: 1755  |
total time: 4.05 minutes total words: 571  |
total time: 3.76 minutes total words: 514  |
|
total time: 5.78 minutes total words: 768  |
|||