total time: 33.49 minutes
total words: 4619
total time: 27.54 minutes
total words: 3278
total time: 11.64 minutes
total words: 1995
total time: 6.36 minutes
total words: 1099
[Hurtubise]: door to my office to do this meeting. But if you guys need me, come on in. Probably. Yeah, you can lock, I mean, we can leave. All right, thanks.
[Tseng]: Hi there, could you give me just like two, three minutes?
[Leming]: Sure, yeah.
[Tseng]: Thanks.
[Leming]: So clearly everybody's here to watch the adventurous process of editing a newsletter. I think that's why we're all here today. Councilor Tseng just let us know when you're ready. Good. Okay. Welcome to a meeting of the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee meeting being held today solely on Zoom. We have, Mr. Clerk, I keep forgetting, for Zoom only meetings, there's a roll call necessary. Zoom only committee meetings.
[Hurtubise]: Yes, a roll call is necessary.
[Leming]: Please call the roll when you're ready.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Present.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Leming]: Unmute. think you might need to make Councilor Lazzaro a co-host. She needs to be made a co-host.
[Hurtubise]: Hang on, I got her now. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli? Councilor Tseng and Chair Leming?
[Leming]: Present. Present, four present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. We have three items on the agenda today. A resolution to discuss a modernization of the Human Rights Commission's enabling ordinance, which we'll do first. It will be followed by a resolution to discuss council listening sessions in which we'll offer updates, reports of some of the recent listening sessions, particularly at the Senior Center, and then we'll work on publishing the newsletter. So we'll start with the Human Rights Commission's enabling ordinance, and I'll hand it off to Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you chair Leming. Um, let me start again by just generally framing what we're trying to do here, give a little bit of context for where we are now. And then I can walk through the draft changes, the new draft that I had circulated to the other members of this committee last week. So essentially, this starts with reappraising where, you know, the type of work we're doing in our city when it comes to social justice, civil rights, human rights. And something that I heard from former committee members of the HRC and sitting commissioners was that was that essentially the original enabling ordinance hamstrung them so that they couldn't meet quorum to meet, they couldn't do a number of things that I think other cities very normally do within their HRC powers that our city hasn't done because we haven't reviewed or revised this ordinance substantively in such a long time. And so I've been working over the last few months, it's getting close to a year, with members of the community who have experience on the HRC, members of the community who have experience in the field of advocating for social justice issues, and also working with members of the current HRC to draft an ordinance that makes our HRC more functional again. The most recent updates is that the HRC hasn't been able to make a quorum for the last few months, so the HRC just hasn't been meeting. Furthermore, Francis Noage, the RDEI director, has resigned as liaison to the HRC as well, and so there's no city staff member who is there to help the HRC get off the ground. And I think that really underscores the need for us to pass an updated HRC ordinance as soon as we can. I've been working with members of the city administration in the last few months as well to hear from them about what changes they'd like to see the ordinance and negotiating with them on that front. and also continuing to work with community members to make sure that the proposed changes are in alignment with what members of the HRC and former members of the HRC would want to make sure that this ordinance gives them the ability to do that. With that being said, I think my goals for this meeting is to get our committee generally behind a document. I'm slated to meet with the mayor soon to discuss this ordinance further. I think my goal, to be transparent, would be to get something out of this committee by next month. And so that's why I'd like to get us on the same page about these edits that we've made over the last few months together first. Before I go into the document itself, are there any comments from councillors?
[Leming]: Seeing none, oh, yep. That's my job too. Sorry, I just. Yeah, are there any comments from councillors? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. I just want to say thank you, Councilor Tseng, for doing this work. It's important that we go over these kinds of issues with our commission so that we make sure that anything that's getting in the way of our commissions being able to gather is remedied when we notice it. So I appreciate it. Thank you.
[Leming]: Any other councillors? I just like to thank Councilor Tseng as well as our wonderful community advocates for working on this. Feel free to go over the edits as you please, Councilor.
[Tseng]: Thank you. A lot of these edits A lot of these edits are somewhat technical, but there are some substantive edits as well. So, as you can see in the establishment and purposes section, these are kind of more technical edits to make sure that we are including, to make sure that we're including parts of the, Like, every sector of the community that we can think of, and to make sure that this language is tighter as well and more inclusive. So that's technical with regards. 1 of the big conversations that members of the city administration community advocates and I have been having is about the size of the. and the previously proposed size. So previously the ordinance language read for the HRC to have 12 to 18 members and a few, Francis brought this up as well as a number of current HRC members bringing up the worry that this might be too big of a size and if we set a lower bound of 12, We might have a period of time where we aren't able to have the HRC meet because we haven't appointed up to 12 people yet. We had, the community advocates and I have had a very long and extensive discussion about it because we want to make sure that there are as many voices as possible on the HRC. The size here is, you know, there's a benefit to having a higher number so we have a diversity of voices, I think. The if we read the purposes and you know the powers and duties of HRC in this ordinance. It's much more expansive than the current current ordinances. And so the idea is having more people would help HRC get more stuff done as well. But then we also have to balance that with with the practical concerns too. It was suggested to me from Francis that we do nine to 12 members. In this draft, I think generally, I think nine to 15 makes sense to retain a lot of the flexibility that we initially wanted. And, you know, if it gets to a point where 15 is unworkable, I think there's flexibility there to keep the slots open, but I think it's worth trying to get more members too. So with that change, we have basically reconfigured the appointment system as well to make it more even. Basically, a third being the mayor, a third being the city council, and then appointing from different community groups. And this is something that was also in the last draft, but to explain this again, since it's been a few months, the idea I think is for, you know, I think the idea is that we would have members of different commissions that aren't the HRC but have interests in the HRC, where the work overlaps also sit on the HRC, to help facilitate cross-commission, cross-department, cross-organizational cooperation as well. I know something that we have been talking about is potentially deleting this because we don't really need it. And I think that's probably a decent recommendation, although we can talk about that later. Another edit that we made to this section is in section B. So essentially, Before the language read, no more than half should be of any one gender or racial identity. We changed it to 60% for functionality, just because it's hard to guarantee half or less. And so this gives us a little bit of wiggle room while still maintaining the spirit and the purpose of the original text. And here, this is an adjustment to respond to the original, like the change in section A. In section E, we have clarified some language here about reimbursements. We had a good conversation about how there are, number one, we should clarify that this is that Sorry, I can't speak. We should clarify that HRC commissioners who are spending their money on top of a stipend or whatever, if they're spending their personal money on getting a project done, they should be The this ordinance should allow them to get compensation for that as well. So I think a concrete example is if someone is buying, you know, posters for a community event to let them know about their rights, right? I know your rights event, then they should be able to be compensated for printing those posters in the first place. And I think that's really standard. custom as well. And we believe that that should extend to volunteers as well, just to make sure that they're being compensated for their time, effort, their money being spent. And I think it's important to put that put this in. I've been talking to some people who are more legally trained than I am. And the idea is if we don't put this language in, then it actually might sound very restrictive. And then the last edit to this section, as it stands right now, is just some clarification on the training that HRC members should receive. There is some surplus language, I believe, especially in addition to later in the ordinance. So that's what that is. We've broken, upon the recommendation, I believe this is of a few people, a few, this is from a few community members, current HRC members, from Francis as well. There's the recommendation that we should clarify a little bit what the officer's roles are. So the original ordinance did put in that there should be a chair, a vice chair, and a clerk. And as we saw during charter review, this is becoming more standard. As we also saw during charter review, our charter review conversations, for us to be able to have that flexibility in terms of how a commission is structured, we need to talk about it a little bit more in ordinance. So I actually grabbed the language for most of this section from the draft charter. So, you know, this is like quite standard vetted language it aligns with like the draft city charter, but then there's some more clarification as well as well as customization for the HRC. I, because it's not very standard to have a treasurer for, well, it's not very, it's not always common for a treasurer to be an officer in a commission. I've put the financial procedure aspects, the finance aspects under a joint responsibility of the officers. I think that's something, if this committee has different views on, we can talk about it. Cool. Another change that was suggested that we make was reducing the minimum number of meetings from 10 meetings to 8 meetings. The intention isn't for us to have fewer meetings, but the intention is to give us more flexibility. Legal wiggle room, essentially. I suspect this will be a big conversation tonight as well. Essentially, the administration has recommended that we adjust the language in section, subsection A here about legal counsel. from if the city has no solicitor, the commission shall be provided adequate funding to retain its own, to the commission should have adequate access to council. Because this is something I think we might be talking about a bit tonight, I just wanted to highlight the two arguments. So the argument for keeping it as it was before, so the original language, is that a lot of the work that the HRC might be doing might not always be in the interests, completely aligned with the interests of the city administration. And so it makes some sense for the HRC to retain its own council in those instances so they can get more honest feedback. and legal advice. The counter to that is a worry from the administration that in general, it's not recommended practice for different parts of the municipal government to be having different legal representation. And there's a worry about the legal consequences of that as well. And it is not exactly, not very standard for that. And then in the last section, the only real edit is to broaden B1 from discuss to review and discuss. This is just to essentially give the HRC the power to look at city policy as it stands, and to engage with city bodies in that sense, to be able to work with them to review human rights problems, and not just talk about it in a vacuum. Um, so with that being said, that's basically all the edits I, um, I've had. Um, I want to open this up, um, and hear feedback from Councilors and from residents.
[Leming]: Uh, one, uh, could he, could he go, could you, uh, present your screen again?
[Tseng]: Yeah, actually I can, I can also just keep this up. Um, that might be it.
[Leming]: It didn't say human rights problem issues.
[Tseng]: Like, yeah, I also just noticed that we can, I think it's meant to read that. Okay, gotcha. Thank you. Is there any- And I would actually suggest putting civil rights in there too. Just the view right now, because sometimes human rights and civil rights are slightly different. So I wanna make sure that we're catching as much as possible. Gotcha. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Hey there. So thanks so much for all the work that you've done and all the folks you've talked to and everything that's, you know, I know there's a lot going into this. I had a question as I'm looking over the roles, powers and duties, and please tell me if I'm misreading this, but it does look like The, the four essential roles are all related to Medford specifically and I just know from some of the folks I've talked to that they felt that their hands were tied and they were told they were not allowed to discuss human rights, anywhere outside the city. So I just, I wanted to raise that and see what you think as the person working on this document, if you've had those kinds of discussions, you know, maybe I'm wrong and that's, you know, that's not what this does. So I would just love to get your feedback on that, just Councilor Tang.
[Tseng]: Yeah, I think that's a good point. I mean, I know when we were crafting it, at least it wasn't my intention that we limit it to Medford. Obviously, I think the focus should be Medford. But there have been a number of cases in the last year where the Human Rights Commission wants really, you know, uh, talk about issues happening outside of our city as well. And I think oftentimes the boundaries are really muddy, right? Oftentimes as we've articulated on the council before too, sometimes oftentimes human rights issues actually have effects here in Medford too. So maybe there's something, um, some changes that we can make in this section to broaden it a little bit. I don't think anything in this section necessarily precludes those conversations. Um, but I, um, because of this part, but perhaps there's some places where we can delete the words in Medford.
[Callahan]: I was actually just thinking, instead of deleting the words in Medford, I think it is appropriate that it be about Medford, but I think maybe there could be a, you know, letter E or something that is, you know, sort of, I don't know how to phrase this, but like an outlet for discussion of, human rights issues that affect the people of Medford, even if those issues are not occurring in Medford. Because there are, you know, I mean, look, just thinking about the, you know, the great desire here in Medford for a ceasefire earlier last year, that there were many families here who were directly affected, directly affected by what was happening abroad. So I think at least the ability for them to discuss those things and to be a place where people in Medford can go to raise issues of human rights that are affecting them personally. I don't know how to phrase it, but I think having that as, you know, one thing that they are explicitly allowed to discuss, I think might be a benefit, but I'm open to people's opinions as well.
[Tseng]: Yeah, I think that this is something maybe we can discuss as a committee and also to hear from the public. I do like what you're saying, and I actually quite liked how you put it earlier, providing the forum to discuss those issues and pending conversation, maybe we can draft some language on that.
[Callahan]: Great, thank you. And I did have one other question if I may, and that's about the question of whether the city solicitor is the council or the commission has access to other council. I mean, I'm inclined without hearing more about it, I'm sort of inclined to, say that it probably should be the city solicitor or the council of the city because they are a commission of the city. But I would be interested in understanding a little bit more at least of how that would be paid for. I mean, anyone can go and find another lawyer that they happen to know or get some advice from somebody else, that's fine. But if we're talking about it being like paid legal counsel, I would wanna have some idea of where that funding is coming from.
[Tseng]: I think that's a good, good question. I think the way I was thinking about it, and I'm curious to hear other, you know, voices in this Zoom meeting about this, the way I was thinking about it is that it would function somewhat like when, like when PDS you know, when they're working on something, a development project or something, they sometimes get advice from KP law. So, and I believe that comes out of the legal budget and not the PDS budget. So that's how I was thinking about it, the city providing that. And I actually think the language of this ordinance would provide that reading in my opinion. So because the part about the budget line for the MHRC, is about accomplishing its purposes. So roles, powers, duties. I think that probably, essentially, I think this stuff in this section is what their own budget will handle. And I think this falls outside of it. That's my reading. But we can also maybe get a wording that's a little bit tighter on that. Yeah, I'm curious to hear what people think. I think with regards to the city solicitor part, this first sentence essentially says that when there is a city solicitor, they should serve as the counsel of the commission. The difference obviously is, I guess, in the second part. When the city has no solicitors, the original one is just very directly saying, if the city has no solicitor, they should retain their own legal counsel. And the new version, this was suggested to me by the administration, is just to have adequate access to counsel. So that guarantees that they'll have legal counsel. It doesn't say anything about, um, making that they're, you know, the HRC's own legal counsel.
[Leming]: Okay, so your hand is still raised.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Leming]: Okay. I saw that. Barry's hand was raised to add a comment. So we'll move on to public participation. Barry, you've put your hand up and down once or twice. Do you still want to speak? All right, I've asked you done.
[Barry Ingber]: Yeah, I'll have a comment later, but I just want to answer Councilor Callahan's question about non-Medford issues. Item C does read, the MHRC shall be empowered to advocate for laws, policies, and practices that support human rights and improve social equity in Medford and at the state and federal levels. So it It is in there, whether it's there to the extent that people would like is something else, but just to say it's in there. I apologize.
[Callahan]: Would you mind telling me where that is? I'm looking for it.
[Barry Ingber]: It's the first sentence in C. Thank you. The last sentence in C, right?
[Tseng]: First sentence in C. The first sentence is state and federal.
[Callahan]: Thank you.
[Leming]: All right. Go back to the thing about the legal counsel. So could you expand on Did the mayor, when you talked to her, provide any justification on the usual interpretation of that kind of language? Because I know that when lawyers suggest language, it's often the case that it's been used elsewhere in other contexts. So does this imply that in certain cases, HRC can retain its own legal counsel or what was kind of your or does it does it imply that if there's a city solicitor that's readily available, then they wouldn't be allowed to do that. Can you. Did those conversations offer any additional context around this writing?
[Tseng]: So on this part, the mayor wasn't the one to suggest this part. This came from the DEI department. I mean, I think it's how you read it. And what we talk about in this committee will actually shape how courts will read it. I, the way I would read it is that this language is generally broad. Um, so essentially just saying that they have to have some access to council, but I think the language that is suggested in this new updated version would basically give that authority to the mayor's office to decide, um, where the, whether the council they get is KP law or whether the council they get is someone else. Um, whereas this original language that wasn't there before, the way I read it is the commission should be the one to decide who to, you know, who to serve as council when there's no city solicitor. So it's like an agency thing.
[Leming]: Councilor Cotland?
[Callahan]: Thanks, I just wanted to chime in and thank Faringer. I read that whole part and I believe that you're quite correct that that we're already covered. So Councilor Tseng, no need to add anything. I think that language covers, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Great.
[Leming]: Is there any other members of the public who would like to speak? just if you would feel free to raise your hand on Zoom. Great, we will, David Harris, I'm gonna ask you to unmute.
[David Harris]: Thank you and good evening, everyone. I'm glad to be here. I'm very thankful for the opportunity. My name is David Harris. I live at 151 Sharon Street, West Medford. I was a member of the Human Rights Commission from 1999 to 2015. I chaired it from 2002 to 2015. During that time, I just wanted to share some thoughts about that time and why I enthusiastically support these changes. We had a great deal of difficulty making connections to the community members and actually understanding what our mission was. I remember being, my own recruitment was fairly informal. There was little vetting and the same thing happened for others throughout my tenure. I had a background in civil rights and racial justice, so I didn't really doubt that I belonged there, but it was a fairly informal process, and I think it could be better. And over the course of the time that I was with the commission, the city became increasingly diverse and the need for a kind of viable, active and productive organization increased, but our capacity to do so didn't. So despite that growth, HRC continued to operate in a kind of ad hoc fashion, which didn't really serve the city well. I also remember being part of the MHRC, the Mass Association of Human Rights Commission, whose meetings were held here at City Hall, and Diane McLeod really drove that organization. And I remember being in those meetings and kind of feeling the difference between, you know, Medford's ordinance, the way we operated and what other cities had and did, and feeling a little bit envious and thinking that we needed to actually make some changes to the way we operated. I always wish we could do more. So I basically think that this proposal, this is a clearer, more concise and detailed mandate and authority. It's certainly fitting and due and could serve us well. So, and I also think that as we think about kind of making Medford a more welcoming place, these changes can actually help us meet that goal. The HRC should be a key tool for that. And so I think a clear mandate would be really great, and I enthusiastically support this. I'd be glad to say any more if people have questions. My last thing, I'd like to thank all the other volunteers who worked on this, and I came late. I really do think that we, as a city, owe a debt of gratitude to the folks who put this together and to you, Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Leming]: Thank you. Munir Jermanes is next. I'm going to ask you to unmute.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Thank you. Yeah, my name is Munir Jamanis. I'm going to give just a little background as to how this came about. I was a member of the Human Rights Commission between 2017 and 2022 and served for approximately four years as its chair. In the fall of 2021, The HRC formed a subcommittee to generate a strategic plan for better definition of the role of the HRC, since the existing ordinance was outdated and did not really describe fully the role and responsibilities of the Human Rights Commission. Soon afterwards, the HRC decided to disband this subcommittee and accepted an offer from Safe Medford to establish an ad hoc committee to assess the effectiveness of the HRC. and to provide some recommendations. The committee included three HRC members and they reviewed the role and operations of the HRC and provided a report to the HRC suggesting ways that the commission can become more effective in promoting and defending human rights in Medford. The committee conducted several dozen interviews, current and past HRC stakeholders, looked at the mission, goals, and activities of human rights commissions in nearby cities and towns, and reviewed the ordinance that established the Medford HRC. Then the committee discussed and agreed upon a set of recommendations regarding goals and roles of the HRC and operating guidelines for their implementation. our hopes were to see a newly robust representative and independent HRC. Now, in the course of its work and discussions, the committee concluded that to a significant extent, the HRC has been hampered by its current enabling ordinance, which fails to provide the HRC with the resources and independence that it would need in order to carry out its mandate. The idea was the reform of the HRC would involve a new, carefully written ordinance that clearly outlines the HRC composition, roles, and responsibilities, and would provide the HRC with the independence and resources required to fulfill these responsibilities. Now, subsequently, another smaller group got together and worked with Councilor Ceng and generated this written ordinance, this proposed ordinance, which you are considering. Um, and, uh, we, I, I, I myself, I'm sure as other members of this small group, uh, would urge the city council to fully adopt this ordinance with whatever edits they see needed. Thanks very much.
[Leming]: Thank you. Um, I'm also not sure if I was, I don't think I was asking folks to name an address for the record. Oh, I'm sorry.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Munir Germanus. I live at 3 Summit Road in Medford.
[Leming]: Thank you. And Adam, did you get, did you get it for David?
[Hurtubise]: Yes, chairman. Mr. Harris actually provided his address.
[Leming]: Okay.
[Hurtubise]: And I had Mr. Jim and this is from from his previous testimony and other committees.
[Leming]: Gotcha. Thank you. Uh, very Ingber next can ask you to unmute name and address for the record, please.
[Barry Ingber]: Barry Ingber nine Draper Street. And I was part of the, uh, The group that worked on preparing the report and that wrote the ordinance, the first draft of the ordinance based on that, the conclusions of the report upon which the ordinance is based. We felt that the residents of Medford deserve a vibrant and empowered Human Rights Commission that promotes and protects the human and civil rights of all of Medford's residents. And sadly, this is now more true than ever. To be effective, Medford's HRC requires an ordinance that A, clearly outlines its composition, roles, and responsibilities, and B, ensures the independence, authority, and resources required to fulfill its purpose. So what can and should an effective HRC do? Well, one is community education and engagement. I think that that's been often the focus point of the HRC in Medford when it's been at its best. Two is an advice and oversight role for the city, providing the city and other entities advice on matters of human rights and holding the city accountable for protecting equity and inclusion for everyone. And third is policy advocacy, advocating for laws, policies, and practices that support human rights and improve equity, addressing not only traditional forms of discrimination, but also the cultural and systemic issues that put segments of our community at a disadvantage or at risk. And what does an effective HRC need? Well, four things. One is independence. Independence from city administration, which is not a slight at the city administration or at any city administration. It's just addressing the fact that in order for the HRC to address, in order for it to be able to address human rights issues, it has to be outside the political fray. A second thing it needs is the authority to set the agenda for addressing matters of human and civil rights. A third thing it needs is the resources, including budget, space and staff support. A fourth thing is a membership, a committee membership that is sufficient to do its work, culturally proficient, and reflective of the many communities that make up our city, especially those that are traditionally targets of discriminatory behaviors and or systemic inequities. That is the summary. And so that's what the ordinance was built on. Thank you very much.
[Leming]: you, Barry. Jennifer Yanko. I'm going to ask you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Yanko]: Jennifer Yanko, 16 Monument Street. I wanted to present just a bit of background. Some of this will be repeating what you've heard, but how this group this working group arrived at what you have in front of you now. We began our work towards the end of 2021 by drawing up a list of people who had been involved in Medford's HRC over the years, and that went baiting back to the McGlynn administration. These included former and then current commissioners, every chair of the HRC going back to 1999, and various others who had worked closely with the administration. Drawing on this list, we interviewed more than two dozen individuals, asking them to share with us what they found to be the most challenging obstacles to their work as a human rights commission, and their suggestions for how the HRC could be made stronger and more effective in fulfilling its mission. At the same time, as I believe Munir mentioned, the committee also studied HRCs in other cities and towns across the Commonwealth, looking at their composition, their missions, and their enabling legislation. So we drew on these rich data sources to develop a detailed proposal, which forms the basis of the draft ordinance that you have before you tonight. So what I wanted to convey is that this was not a hasty process, but it was one that involved a great deal of reflection, discussion with a wide range of stakeholders and research. And we feel that this is really of utmost importance right now. We need to raise our voice as a city and as a model for other cities. We need to make our city safer by showing that we believe in and that we're ready to defend the human rights of our residents. We urge you to adopt this. We believe it's of paramount importance at this present moment when, as we can see, human rights are under fire. Thank you.
[Leming]: Thank you. Do we have any other members of the public who would like to speak? Steve Schnapp can ask you to unmute, name and address for the record, please.
[Steve Schnapp]: My name is Steve Schnapp. I live at 36 Hillside Ave in Medford Square. I was a volunteer with the Human Rights Commission for approximately six or seven years, 2017, 2016 to 2022. Just one point about the access to council. We're living at a time when federal policies could have a profound impact on localities like Medford. There have been threats that communities that have welcoming city policies, as Medford, will lose federal funds. It's possible that the city administration, in the face of this kind of challenge and attack, might decide to drop that policy. The Human Rights Commission is one venue that could fight that, but it might need access to legal counsel in doing that. And I would argue that that counsel should be independent from the city's counsel. So thank you. I also wanted to appreciate Councilor Tseng in sticking with this and working so hard to make sure that the Human Rights Commission will become an effective group of folks in the city of Medford. So thank you.
[Leming]: So with the, I mean, I think this is what we, Well, this is what I asked about with that particular language that was written there, is that it doesn't really seem clear to me one way or the other, and that could be the intent whether or not the HRC would have access to independent legal counsel. And it looked like the original language specified that in the case that there wasn't a city solicitor, I think that must have been one draft of it that I saw in the edits, that they would get access to their own legal counsel, though that still doesn't quite account for the case where you have a city solicitor and you might want to have your own even with that person present. So I suppose I'm just wondering if there's any that you would have preferred the one that's currently in there, or do you think it should explicitly say so? David Harris?
[David Harris]: So, you know, I'm not part of the main group here, but I do think that, as I think you or one of your Councilors indicated, you know, anybody can go and secure counsel anytime, you know, can get a legal opinion on their own. I don't think it needs to be written into the ordinance for that to happen. And so I think part of the thinking is there's no reason to belabor it. And I don't know if that's consistent with what other people were thinking, but it's not a special, nobody would need permission to do that. I don't think.
[Barry Ingber]: Barry? Being totally frank, I mean, as we talked about it, I think that we preferred the idea of having independent counsel. And I think that we largely concluded that we weren't going to die on that hill, that it was kind of a losing battle. And I think that what is important is maybe defining the word adequate to make sure that actually it is adequate. And to make sure that there is nothing that prevents the HRC from Um, retaining its own volunteer council, um, if it wants to, because I could imagine it being told that has no right to do that. Um, so. If there's concern with funding council that could be working against the interests of other parts of the city, I think we can understand that. Um, but, uh, it. but resolving that needs to be done in a way that still maintains the independence of the HRC.
[Steve Schnapp]: Steve Schnapp asked you to unmute. Thank you. Yes, I agree both with David and Barry. I just want the language not to preclude the possibility of the HRC seeking some independent counsel. Jennifer.
[Yanko]: I was thinking in along those lines too that the wording which I believe says something to the effect that the city solicitor shall serve as counsel for the HRC and then we can add and this and the HRC may seek independent legal counsel as well or something where it's where the default is the solicitor, but that the commission is not precluded from seeking. Or maybe that's not even necessary, as David has suggested. I mean, you know, there's nothing keeping them from... I'm not sure. Now I'm confused again.
[Leming]: Councilor Tseng, do you, did this come up in your conversations with, on the city side?
[Tseng]: I think there, I think they'd be hesitant to language. At this point, I'm starting to lean into speculation territory, so I don't want to speak for the mayor's office or for the administration. I would guess that they would say that Explicit references to independent legal counsel, I think they would be against. I wonder if there's some wiggle room where we clarify that there's no preclusion. But I think it's an art to do that. So if people have suggested language that kind of goes, you know, You know, there's that needle. I'd be happy to hear your suggestions.
[Leming]: David, Harris asked you to unmute.
[David Harris]: So again, to the Councilors, I can't presume to think I know and understand what your situations are like. But I would say that I do think it's better. Leaving it as it is, it leaves it open. I mean, for the commission, if it felt that it needed to turn outside counsel to go and get it. To bring a topic up at this point seems to me to provide the opportunity to say no and to put something in. So I think to my mind, if they don't bring it up, doesn't need to be brought up because it would put them in a position of conceivably saying no. There's no reason. I don't know what the reason is to put that speculation in the ordinance. Kassar, do you understand the kind of hesitancy there?
[Tseng]: I think that aligns with how I see it. Steve.
[Steve Schnapp]: Yes, thank you. I completely agree. I'm just thinking that I don't want the language to revert to the HOC has to use the city solicitor. That's my concern. But I agree we don't have to be provocative and try and wordsmith some loophole. it's not in the interest, but if it turns out that there's pressure to push that language that constricts the HRC to using the city solicitor, that there'd be some pushback to that.
[Leming]: I mean, I can personally see it flying both ways because on Like you could have one party insisting that that means only the city's legal counsel. You could have another party insisting that it, it would really just depend on what you're reading is, is it, what you're reading of it is at the time. But I also do agree that there's not really a need to belabor the point presently. Jennifer.
[Yanko]: I was just imagining cases where the HRC would legitimately, that is to say, need to consult other counsel. but not a case where the city administration was in question. For example, there may be something, human rights law, that the solicitor or whoever's serving in that position is not really expert in. So it seems that there would be reasonable reasons to consult other legal counsel. But I agree that it doesn't need to be in there, as long as the wording that we have doesn't get construed as must use only the solicitor.
[Leming]: Thank you. And Vanier?
[Munir Jirmanus]: I think, yeah, leaving it as it is, it should be okay. I mean, I can envision a situation where, let's say, suddenly the HRC decides they want to, you know, get a legal opinion from someone else. And they get it. Is the city gonna say that's illegal? No. So I think, I think, I think leaving it as it is should be fine.
[Leming]: Thank you. Are there any other anything, anything else that Councilors would like to say, I'm, I'm just trying to think through this, just to.
[Tseng]: make sure what we're doing aligns with what's been said. I think generally I still think that this is probably the best language because I think it leaves it open enough, but I could see it being construed that the city solicitor shall serve as the council of the commission. Like I think there's a, to use legal terms, there's an ordinary meaning argument that An ordinary person reading the ordinance would likely think that that restricts legal counsel to only the city solicitor and But at the same time, I think you can also make the argument that that wouldn't align with the legislative intent here. And it doesn't align with the record, which we'll see in the committee report when Adam finishes it. So it could really cut both ways, I guess is what I'm saying. Yeah. I mean, I don't think any of this precludes informal legal advice. I think the thing that it would preclude is a formal legal memo that an HRC might use to take legal action, which I don't think, in most cases, the HRC would have a cause of action anyways. So I don't think it'd be relevant, like I don't think it'd be material to the conversation. So I don't think, I think as long as like, we're, as long as people are okay with this potentially being cabined to, you know, informal legal advice, the type that we kind of see very, very often. I think that's at the very minimum with this allows for this current language. But if we want to, you know, if we want to get past that box, then we should think about maybe other proposed language.
[Leming]: I'm going to go to Barry and then yeah.
[Barry Ingber]: So two mutually exclusive ideas. One is to change the word in the first sentence, city solicitor shall to change it to the city solicitor may serve. I don't know if that creates other problems, but that's one possible solution. Another is to just leave out the city solicitor sentence and just say that the HRC shall be provided adequate resources or however that's worded there.
[Leming]: Thank you. So Councilor Tseng did you say that you wanted to get this done. Next month, or what was your what was your plan in terms of wanting to refer it to regular meeting.
[Tseng]: Yeah, my plan is for us to accept a version of this with edits, so I can bring it to the mayor and say that it's the most recent version from this committee. And the mayor has told me that there are some substantive edits that she might want to be looking at. My plan in full transparency is to write down the edits that she wants to make, talk through them. And of course, I'll talk about the legislative intent of this committee as well. So I'll speak from that perspective. And then I'll bring those proposed edits back to this committee. Maybe there might be a compromise text too. So the mayor and I might reach a compromise and we can review that all together as a committee at our next meeting in April. I believe it's April. And hopefully we'll be able to vote something out of committee by that meeting so that we can get on enforcing this pretty quickly. I also wanted to add, I actually think Barry's suggestions are quite good. I think either of those edits, maybe even just striking the city solicitor sentence might work, although I believe we kept the city solicitor language in because Councilor Scarapelli said that he favored that. And so maybe we made the first, the former edit of switching shell to me. But that's also a question for this committee too. There are more Councilors than just me and George. Yeah. So do you want to change the shall to may? I mean, I think either proposal would work. I think actually the latter is a stronger proposal just to strike the first sentence. But, but I think that depends on what this committee wants.
[Leming]: Okay. I'm in favor of striking it, but David Harris.
[David Harris]: I don't want to belabor this and I leave it to you all to deliberate, but the problem with putting the may in is it means that they may not too, right? It means it suggests that the solicitor can say, no, I don't want to, I'm not going to do it. So I, you know, I mean, you know, just striking it might, Anyway, just wanted to consider that.
[Leming]: Okay, yeah. Good point. Any other comments from councillors? Well, I mean, it does sound like there is consensus. on the vast majority of this document, although I do think that there are some potential issues with that sentence. They're definitely not as many as the length of time we've spent discussing it would imply. So we did definitely belabor the point, but I do think that these are relatively minor issues at the end of the day. With that, do we have any motions on the floor?
[Tseng]: I would motion to accept the edits and to keep the paper in committee. But before we take a vote on that, I just wanted to talk about other things.
[Leming]: Okay.
[Tseng]: Yeah, sure. Um, so let me, I guess maybe I should share my screen again. I guess the first thing I do want to get clarification on, but I know we talked about this quite a bit. Um, is there consensus on this committee about, um, what language I should present to the mayor regarding section subsection a here?
[Leming]: Um, I think. Personally, and Anna or Emily, feel free to raise your hand and jump in with your own suggestions. OK, Emily, yeah, you speak first.
[Lazzaro]: I'm sorry. I just don't have a legal opinion about this. I'm listening to what you guys are saying. I just don't have the expertise to weigh in. I just wanted you to know that I feel neutral on this.
[Callahan]: Yeah, I mean, I feel similarly. I suspect that if we do strike that first sentence, then the mayor will have an opinion and, you know, we can like strike it as a suggestion. But if the mayor comes back, I'm not concerned that this will ever be used to say that they cannot. use some other legal opinion. I think the fact that we have discussed it here and that we are saying it is our intention that that second sentence means that they are allowed to seek other counsel, I think is fine. So I'm not, I'm not concerned about it. And I think either way is probably fine. And even if we send it to the mayor with only one sentence, only the second sentence, she may send it back with the first one added. So, which I think would also be fine. Thanks.
[Leming]: I personally, I personally think that presenting this current language is fine, but I would like to. Float some of the suggestions that were presented by by members in this meeting to her to just see what. to see what you think about that. I do under, yep.
[Tseng]: One suggestion just popped up in my head from what Anna said. Perhaps we can say this, the commission shall seek and have adequate access to council.
[Leming]: Well, Anna. Your hands, sorry, it's your hands raised.
[Callahan]: Sorry, no, that was that was not intentional.
[Leming]: Yeah. I feel like that goes into like what they're talking about, what we're talking about before, like potentially like putting in loopholes. I'll just get the mayor to say no. So I would be. I think I think it's it's. It's a good idea and there were suggestions to like more strongly imply it But I would I would just kind of try to float by her like some of the different suggestions. I would personally personally I would be more comfortable With a little bit more clarity here, but I'm also concerned about just the potential for saying no and like more delays and And so on.
[Tseng]: Yeah. Just for the record, my proposal to add the word seek wasn't to create a loophole. I think seek is an active verb. So that's just where I'm coming from is adding another active verb to, to open up that to clarify the, um, the abilities. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I can generally talk to her about it. Yeah. Okay. Cause yeah. Yep. All right. Uh, The other amendment I actually would like to make, I haven't talked to folks about this yet, but I do think putting at minimum here just allows the commission to have a bit more flexibility in terms of, you know, if a major human rights issue has come up in the middle of the year. And, you know, people are demanding action from the city about it. And then maybe let's say the HRC does something, I'd be afraid that if we just kept it at annual reports, that constrains them to like waiting a whole six months to publish a report. So just putting at minimum, I think gives them a bit more flexibility. And that's all.
[Leming]: Oh, Matt, you're up.
[Tseng]: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[Leming]: Could it be phrased a little bit more cleanly, like in the form of reports that are at least annual, like at minimum annual? It's not a big deal. I'm just... Okay. Never mind. That's fine. I'm being pedantic at this point. Okay. Okay. Anyway, is there anything else that you want to go over in this?
[Tseng]: Nope, that's all. There's a motion on the floor, but that's all.
[Leming]: Okay. Do we have a second on the motion? Second by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Callahan]: Would you mind rereading the motion back? Thanks.
[Leming]: It's a motion to accept the edits and receive in place on file.
[Tseng]: To keep in committee. And keep in committee. Not to replace, not to receive in place on file, because that would finish the paper. Well, never mind then. I'm tired. I'm operating on. We had a long meeting yesterday too.
[Leming]: Yeah, this is a much more, this is more pleasant. But yes, I am tired from that. But anyway, yes. So yeah, that's the motion. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Calderon? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro?
[Lazzaro]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng?
[Leming]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Chair Leming?
[Leming]: Yes. Four in the affirmative. None opposed. The motion passes. Thank you all for coming out. We are now going to move on to the senior center listening session reports, which I'm sure that folks would love to hear about. But no, thank you all. Thank you all very much for coming out. And I'm looking forward to pushing this forward at the next meeting. And thank you all so much for your work on this.
[Tseng]: Thank you all for showing up and for speaking and for your hard work on this. I'm feeling good about it. I think we can get somewhere by the next month. Yeah.
[Yanko]: Thank you all.
[Tseng]: Thank you.
[Leming]: Okay, I just included this item on the agenda because there were previous initiatives to, there were previous requests to actually report back a few things that we heard about from some of the listening sessions. We've had two listening sessions at the Senior Center. I've attended both of them. I was accompanied by Councilor Lazzaro the first time, and most recent one by Councilor Callahan. Just for a very brief report, they went, I think, I personally think they went well. There, I mean, of course, there's a little bit of contention, like they're like there often is at these things, but a lot of it was just like residents just voicing concerns, particularly with the roads. I think probably half of what we heard about was potholes in the city and parking. There are general concerns about the pop-up park and the RFPs at the planning department. Concerns that that would remove parking spaces. I think that in both of the listening sessions, we were trying to clarify that the planning office didn't intend to remove any sort of parking, but intended to accept a proposal that would turn it into ground floor parking. then a lot of discussions about the override and discussions about the override and affordability as well. And then another thing that happened was, you know, I think that, you know, a couple of residents were just like kind of being, were kind of like, you know, taking up a lot of the sort of hour that we were there. And so afterwards, and this especially happened the most recent one, a lot of residents approached us individually and just asked Councilor Callaghan and I about sort of their own pet issues that they were concerned about, but they didn't really feel like asking in front of an audience. Like one fellow approached me and he asked if he could roll an auto pay in the city. And Yeah, so so those were that's kind of like my own library report of how that went. I do think it went well. I think it's good to connect with residents that don't normally have computer access quite as consistently and just be there and try to explain how things are working in the city. I did email from the second session I did. I know Councilor Callahan and I, who I see your hand raised, did report back some of the concerns to the relevant departments in the city, just so they're aware of them. So yeah, no, I feel like it was a good initiative. There was like 12 to 15 at each. I think even more at the last one. So yeah, Councilor Callahan, feel free to go.
[Callahan]: Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to give my own little bit of report back on this. I think my take on it was slightly different. I did, you know, the first interaction I had with someone after the official hour was over was someone who said that she felt that the whole tone was very angry and that she, you know, felt uncomfortable. And so, being a person who has done other listening sessions, you know, with other groups. I know we have all done some of them. But my hope is that for the next one that I attend, I will be more facilitating. I will come with, you know, some visuals on topics that can be discussed. I do think that when one or two people dominate the conversation with angry rhetoric, it makes it very difficult for other people to discuss the things that they need. And I felt that the conversation that started the second the hour was over were actually conversations that were not pet projects. These were the real things that people are concerned about. I heard people talk about their need for housing as a senior. The things that I heard over and over and over at the doors that to me are the primary issues that did not get discussed during that hour. It was things like the lack of transportation for elderly people, that there used to be something called Megan Transport, and there used to be other ways that they could get around the city, but those things are not there anymore. So they, you know, were wondering what we can do about that. And then some talked about housing. And, you know, as I mentioned, some of the things that I'm working on, the home sharing, bringing home sharing, matching service to Medford. And I talked about co-housing, and I talked about, you know, other Like the RFP and how the hope is that that will have a lot of smaller units that older people can move into because they talked about wanting to downsize. So these were the conversations that I think are the, the more general ones that many, many seniors want to talk about, and the ones that we ended up talking about for an hour were more the pet projects of like, my street has a pothole in this one place, and I want to know about that pothole, or I want to continue talking about Salem Street, when we already have public forums for talking about the Salem Street zoning. That should be something, it's fine if somebody wants to bring it up and talk about it for three minutes, but that shouldn't dominate the conversation at these listening sessions because it prevents us from hearing from the nine-tenths of people who are in attendance who aren't there for that particular issue. We already have forums for talking about that particular issue. My plan is that I will be facilitating more, And then I did take some of these issues and following up with city staff. I talked to the economic development director and talking about the RFP, talking about parking near the senior center. I'll be following up with the planning department. I followed up with DPW as well with some more general questions about when do they have plans that they post on the website, like the engineering department actually posted last year, two different plans, like a crack ceiling plan and I believe like a pothole filling plan. And just when were we gonna be able to see those? Because people do wanna know when these things are going, like which streets are gonna be done next. And so I was kind of looking for a timeline for that. And just generally following up with city staff on some of the specific questions. that were coming up during that session. So I do think it was a good session, but I think that we can do better in terms of our ability to make sure that residents who are showing up at these feel comfortable, that they don't feel like it's Like they are shut out by a small group that has a particular agenda, but that we are actively asking questions about the things we have an idea that, you know, seniors care about or any listening session that it might be, whether it's like parents or folks at West Medford Community Center, or no matter who it is, we might have some facilitated questions where we are asking people, hey, we'd love to know your opinion about, you know, housing. Like, how is housing going? We want to know your opinion about transportation around the city. We want to know your opinion, you know, about, like, how is this affecting you in your life? So, thank you so much for letting me give a little bit of a longer report back on that. I'm excited that we're doing these. And I think the more of them we do, the better we'll get. And I'm really excited to make them places where residents feel comfortable and welcomed and that they are, their input is, you know, that they can also give input. And we have kind of a step up, step back, understanding that these are for everyone to contribute equally. Thanks. Thank you.
[Leming]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. I think one thing I would want to, I'll be doing the next one of these at the senior center at the end of March. And something I'm looking forward to for the next one is just focusing on when we brought this to the floor at the regular meeting, the reason it kind of came up and why we wanted to make sure it was a priority for our body was least in my mind, that regular city council meetings aren't really a great opportunity for people to bring their issues to the floor. a great time to do it is in these kind of one-on-one sessions where we have more time and space, you can bring whatever is really bothering you that you really need the attention from people in the city to something that is really critical to your experience. And I don't think that this is what you were, what Councilor Callaghan was saying, but I would only say that like, one nice thing about the listening sessions is that somebody can bring up whatever is pertinent to their experience. So if it's something that's different than like, if they're not concerned about housing, but they are concerned about parking, they could talk about parking even if we want to talk about housing. So I guess that's something that I feel like would be a concern. Because when we're in our regular meetings, we're only supposed to be talking about what's on the agenda. And when we're in a listening session, we're there to hear whatever is on their mind. We don't have a really robust constituent services apparatus right now. Sorry, I'm in the planning office and the light keeps turning off on me. And I came to City Hall. I didn't realize it was Zoom only. The point is, I think that we can build a more robust constituent services apparatus by listening to what people are bringing to us, by offering them, if we have a really concrete list of these are the city services we have access to, we can point you in the right direction. If you are in need of something, you're telling us right to our face, we can tell you how to get that, and we can point you in the right direction. That is something that I think is really nice about the listening sessions when people bring those things to the floor. But I think you are right that sometimes it can be very uncomfortable when people bring it to the floor in front of everybody that's around them and they have an axe to grind. That's not always the most effective. But the other thing I will say is that I think the more we do these things, the less it's going to be about stuff that is, you know, something that's something everybody's talking about all the time. If it's only going to be about Salem Street zoning, eventually we're going to have said everything there is to say about Salem Street zoning and we'll have to move on to something else. We're still showing up for these. Our committee is still showing up for the listening sessions. We will still be there. I am looking forward to the session on March 27th. If people want to talk about Salem Street zoning, let's talk about Salem Street zoning. I'll tell you everything I know about it. You can tell me everything you think and feel and know about it, and we'll have another conversation and I'll write down everything you say. You know, that's what the listening session is for. That's not what the regular meeting is for, and that's the difference.
[Leming]: Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you. Yeah, I think there's so many great ideas floating around right now. First, I just want to thank you to Chair Leming and Councilor Callahan for this report. It's really helpful for us to hear about what's being discussed and the issues that people are bringing up and to think about best practices and how we can adjust how we're running these things. It's such a It's a new concept, so we're always working out how we implement it. So that's really helpful. I really like what Councilor Callaghan is thinking with regards to making these conversations, these forums, these spaces to be more inclusive and less intimidating for people who might want to bring something up and doesn't feel like they're able to say it. I'm excited to see where that goes and if we find maybe down the road, it'd be great to work on a list of best practices for facilitating these meetings. I know Councilor Callaghan had a document early on in the year that was really helpful. Maybe if we keep working on something like that and if we have any new observations about how to best run these meetings, collecting those and disseminating them to Councilors would be really, a really good idea. And I think to Councilor Lazzaro's point, if we see, you know, issues come up again and again, collecting the resources beforehand, being ready for those meetings to disseminate that information, that'd be very helpful.
[Leming]: Councilor Calhan.
[Callahan]: Hey, thanks. I am going to yes and. I'm excited about what Councilor Lazzaro was saying. And as often happens with me, I didn't mention that, yes, of course, we also will listen to concerns that people come with. I think maybe we either have the first half or the second half of the listening session dedicated to that. so that there's a specific time that is like, hey, we're going to ask you questions. And then there's a time that's like, hey, you ask us questions. But I think it's rare that elected officials do the part that I'm talking about, where they're actively asking people, hey, I actually want to know how housing is affecting your life. And that's a piece that I think is really important. So I would love to have that piece added to what I think what we have been doing, which is more of an office hours. Office hours is like anybody can show up and they ask you whatever they want. But I think the listening session part which to me is like finding out from like asking targeted questions and hoping that everyone there can talk about their own experience to give you a picture of how our policies are affecting people. That is a part that I would love to add as a yes and thanks.
[Leming]: Thank you. My answer, well, first, I think that I just have different standards at this point in terms of angry crowds. So that's one part of this. But no, I mean, the reason that I liked it was, I mean, you know, I saw the exact same thing that you all saw. There was like one person there who had gone to You know all the Salem Street meetings and was constantly bringing that that the RFPs up. And then there was another fellow who, you know, was, I never met him before but he was talking about like, you know, potholes and stuff like that. The reason that the reason that I liked it so much, that was one, there were people that like I'd never seen before that were asking questions, kind of like figuring other things out, even with, you know, like the one or two more angry audience members to it was in a place which is like the lunches at the senior center where the city Councilors are in a place that, you know, they aren't normally necessarily going to. But like they're very physically like You know, they're, they're like, very physically present, like, people who don't normally know how to seek us out online can just kind of, like, wander in there and kind of see what's going on. And so that that's why I liked it. I think the other listening sessions, I think, were great, but it was, it was an organizational problem, kind of like, trying to. coordinate with community liaisons and gather everybody up for these sort of one time things. And I think like showing up to the senior center provides like a regular thing where people figure out that it's happening. And, you know, you know, I think that there there were some like it was a bit of a you know, the first ones were like, you know, a little bit bumpy, but I thought there were they're overall productive. And I think this is the kind of thing where, you know, you keep going there over time and you develop relationships there and it becomes kind of known that you can go to this, like go there at this time and kind of ask your local city councilor about something so that people know like a place to physically find you. And so that's what I appreciated about it because it's, it's reproducible. I think things calm down as you kind of like develop relationships with people and you kind of transition from like, somebody that somebody heard about the abstract to like a physical presence that there and you can get to know one on one. And that's, that's the component about it that I think that I, that I appreciated so much. That clarifies. So I think it's just, I also think it's good that like, we're kind of alternating and different Councilors can go on different ways. So I won't be able to go to the March one. But I think that I just have a very different approach from the way that Councilor Lazzaro or Callahan will want to do theirs individually. And I look forward to, you know, hearing about how those different approaches are working or like what individuals think of those different approaches. That way we can like kind of compare notes and see what everybody else is sort of independently doing. Cause like, I'm gonna, I'll run mine my own way, but if I hear that Councilor Callahan's is going so much better than mine, I might just start adapting practices from that. So yeah, that's my two cents. I think it's just kind of different views on the same event. But anyway, I don't see anybody in the audience. So to keep things running long, let's go to the newsletter. Let's go to the newsletter. So I did send everybody here a copy of it. I pre formatted everything to save myself the stress of doing of doing that. So I apologize if moment if the edits are not as clear. and a Google Doc as they were before. This is the latest draft that I have. Essentially what I realized, two things. First, on the January, we didn't cover the January 28th regular meeting, the last one, so I included that in here. And there wasn't too much, I think the most substantive things that happened were the McCormick Avenue and the resolution to make The discussion on property tax bills and the red solution to make council meetings more business friendly, which I threw in there. I, yes, I included the I included under general business the outcome of yesterday's charter. the charter draft to a regular meeting, just noting that we voted on a few technical edits as well as a change to the start of charter studies committee's proposed new council composition of eight ward-based and three at-large to four district-based and five at-large Councilors. So just noting the outcome of that meeting. And also what we, just did just discuss an update to the human rights commission ordinance and just kind of threw the sentence in there because we just did that. So offer an update on this present meeting that we're currently in right at this moment.
[Tseng]: So yeah, Councilor Tseng. Thank you. Thank you for working on this. Just starting with the easiest edit under public health and community safety, the discussed, I see you're underlined. I think there should be.
[Leming]: Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep.
[Tseng]: That is latex formatting. I figured. I just figured I'd bring it up in case you didn't see it. Thank you. Um, another smaller technical edit, I think, would be to, um, for the February 25th stuff on, um, yeah, up there, I might, I, I think the thing that most residents would be interested in is probably the bond for repairing lead sewer pipes. So I would probably move that up. And I think it could be helpful to clarify that, to note that these repairs include the helping like private property owners replace lead sewer pipes as well, since that's like a real difference from compared to old city policy. I don't know what the best phrasing for that is, but I do think that's notable enough since, you know, I think, you know, residents should also be aware that we're going to, we're going to be helping them by doing stuff on their properties as well. And I think that notice would be helpful.
[Leming]: Okay, so I'm just coming up with specific wording which I'm doing I'll just I'll just stop sharing and reach and share the actual window that I'm that I'm looking at so you can you can see How the sausage is made Good ol latex Okay, we passed an $8 million bond for the DPW to repair lit sewer pipes. This is to help private property owners what?
[Tseng]: I remember DPW had the formulation for it. Do any of the other Councilors remember how they phrased it?
[Callahan]: I mean, it's coverage both both sides, right? So it covers the city side and then also the resident side of of the pipes that they determine are lead, which is probably far fewer than we think.
[Lazzaro]: And the first part of it was going to be a study to determine which are actually lead because it was going to be less than we don't have to put all of this in the newsletter. I would recommend we don't. But the Let's see. A bond for the DPW to identify and repair lead sewer pipes. I would probably leave it at that. But you're saying you want to tell property owners that there will be funds to help reimburse them. Is it a reimbursement or do they get money up front?
[Tseng]: Neither. Neither, right?
[Callahan]: Yeah, neither. It's the city is going to do all the work.
[Tseng]: Right.
[Callahan]: And the city pays for it.
[Tseng]: You're right. So identify, repair, lead sewer pipes on both residential and city property.
[Lazzaro]: Oh, good. I think that's good.
[Tseng]: So that's the only suggestion I have besides the charter stuff. I wonder if there's a very short way, because I think some of this charter stuff is very in the weedsy without, you know, I think like a general thing about like we talked about the role of equity and like we discussed the role of equity and And policymaking. And that led us to this these conclusions I think that would be helpful somewhere. Because I think absent that it's just kind of numbers swirling around. I know I've been in the weeds about this information, but I'm trying to put myself in the position of someone who hasn't been.
[Leming]: So this is, so I think like this stuff right here, and I apologize for the lack of effectiveness, is, so this is just the stuff under the governance committee section. This just kind of shows like what parts we discussed. I feel like that could just generally be thrown out because it's, I mean, yeah, we discussed like multiple parts of the charter, but this is like kind of more substantively what we actually changed.
[Tseng]: Yeah. I think, I think this part. Oh, one note about this part is we did remove the mayor as chair of the school committee. Um, and I think that's, that's actually probably the biggest edit we made that night. Um, yeah.
[Leming]: Okay. I do feel like like reporting the actual changes that were made.
[Tseng]: Oh yeah, for sure. I just think like sometimes without a framing of them, it can get a little lost. For example, for the top section, the ward based district based stuff. I would suggest saying after a lengthy discussion about equity access and policymaking, we voted to change the charter study committees.
[Lazzaro]: Yeah, baseline say after lengthy discussion, for sure. It feels well, it feels important to mention that that we like, you know, we debated and we discussed, you know, like, we discussed the research we talked about, like, we don't have to put all of this in, but we like it was thoroughly examined. And then we voted.
[Tseng]: Yeah. Write something quickly in the zoom chat.
[Unidentified]: And then just the rest.
[Leming]: Anna's noted that her phone battery is about to die.
[Tseng]: Why don't we let Anna... Anna, do you have any edits you want to make before your phone dies?
[Callahan]: I actually really appreciated that it was formatted properly because it made it look so much more professional. I did read it. I actually thought it was fine. So I'm good on the newsletter. I will happily vote in favor.
[Tseng]: Cool. Um, I don't have any other notes besides we didn't the government governance committee didn't meet for March 4 so I would just cut that part.
[Leming]: But yeah, we didn't meet on. Oh, oh yeah. Wait, hold on, sorry. Yeah, because we just did the Committee of the Whole instead. Oh, yes, right. Wait, this is under general business. On March 4th, we loaded some draft of the, that's not under governance, but this is the other governance stuff here. Yep. Is March 4th mentioned here?
[Lazzaro]: No, he's just saying they didn't meet, so he doesn't have anything to add.
[Tseng]: Yeah, under all of this, there's a, it says, Yeah. Do you see line 227? Oh, right. I gotcha.
[Leming]: Yeah. And there was, I had a placekeeper there and given the lack of sleep, I left it in there. Yeah. No worries.
[Lazzaro]: Okay.
[Leming]: Um, yeah, I, I don't normally edit them beforehand cause it does. format them beforehand because it does take a lot of time. Yeah. And this time I just wanted to get it over with. Is there anything else?
[Tseng]: Yeah. There's, you mentioned the compensation in earlier in the bullet points. I just want to make sure we say something quickly about that. The committee voted to adopt the study committees. recommendation on compensation for elected officials compensation.
[Callahan]: Which might I add was the thing that I proposed. dearly similar to the things I proposed.
[Leming]: Coincidence? You decide.
[Lazzaro]: Everyone was so mad about it though, Anna, when you proposed it.
[Callahan]: They were super mad until someone on the other side proposed it and then they loved it, exactly as I said in that council meeting.
[Lazzaro]: What other side? There are no sides.
[Callahan]: You remember I was like, I was like,
[Tseng]: The other side of the rail.
[Callahan]: Never mind. I said what I said. And now I said it.
[Leming]: I said it. Okay, I'm going to do the charters on the compensation for elected officials, additionally removed recall provisions, etc, etc. And set this we
[Tseng]: Do we need a little bit of context here? Because we did also discuss this for a while.
[Leming]: I just, I feel like I cannot, there was so much context on all of this stuff.
[Lazzaro]: Like, I, maybe you can put something in the introduction about the edits made to the charter and that you recommend if people are interested in hearing the reasoning behind the edits made, that there are full YouTube videos of the- Which are all linked, every single one of them. Yes, that they can click the links to the YouTube videos for the full context. Because there's extensive discussion and everybody's reasoning is laid out.
[Tseng]: This is another- Yeah, I actually didn't realize the YouTube videos were linked, so that'd be really helpful to just say, and I think that would cover everything.
[Leming]: actually what I was thinking was to add a disclaimer in future newsletters because there are like the print versions of this and the text versions of this so maybe like something to say like note on the on the web-based version of this we have the underlined words are links to both to YouTube videos agendas and to like live live recordings online agendas and other relevant items.
[Lazzaro]: Yeah. I don't think that hurts to mention.
[Tseng]: Yeah. That'd be super helpful. Cause I totally did not realize that looking at this.
[Lazzaro]: And we, I think we often have an eye toward our, our most like vulnerable folks that we're talking to, especially like in our listening sessions, maybe, or people who just aren't people who don't have computers. A lot of the folks at the senior center are like, I don't have a computer. I don't have an email. and we'll give out the newsletter, but then, you know, stuff like, it doesn't always occur, but even Councilor Tseng is, I mean, he's very young, and he didn't realize. He's very smart.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I try my best. You wouldn't always know it from a, you know, inbox.
[Leming]: Okay, so this is, this is what that looks, this is what the, note that the underlying words in this newsletter indicate Links to online agendas, live recordings, and other relevant resource. Anna, yeah.
[Callahan]: I move to approve with edits.
[Leming]: Sorry.
[Callahan]: Second.
[Leming]: And adjourn? What? And adjourn.
[Lazzaro]: Yes, and adjourn. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
[Leming]: Just going to do this. Just going to do this. He's not ready. Hold on. Note that underlined words in this newsletter indicate links to meeting agendas, live recordings, and other relevant resources. Document to subscribe to. Not technically. Okay.
[Lazzaro]: Second.
[Leming]: Okay, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan?
[Callahan]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Chair Leming?
[Leming]: Yes. We're in the affirmative and one absent. The newsletter is approved. Send it to the clerk, Steve, immediately and the meeting is adjourned.
|
total time: 33.49 minutes total words: 4619 |
total time: 27.54 minutes total words: 3278 |
total time: 11.64 minutes total words: 1995 |
total time: 6.36 minutes total words: 1099 |